IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER TRIBUNAL HELD IN CENTURION
 
Case number: NCT/252121/2022/75(1)(b) 

In the matter between: 	

D HENDRICKS 	APPLICANT

And 	 

LUNAR PRO CC 	RESPONDENT
 
Coram: 	Dr MC Peenze - 	Presiding Tribunal Member 
Mr S Hockey 	 - 	Tribunal Member 
Dr A Potwana 	 - 	Tribunal Member 

Date of Hearing - 	1 August 2023 
Date of Judgment - 	7 August 2023

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

PARTIES 

1.	The applicant in this matter is David Hendricks, an adult male. The applicant is a consumer, as defined in section 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the CPA). At the hearing, the applicant represented himself. 
 
2.	The respondent is Lunar Pro CC, a close corporation. The respondent is a supplier, as defined in section 1 of the CPA. During the hearing, a member of the respondent, Zane Vermaak, represented the respondent. 
 
TERMINOLOGY 

3. 	A reference to a section in this judgment refers to a section of the CPA. A reference to a rule in this ruling refers to the Rules of the National Consumer Tribunal (the rules). 
 
APPLICATION TYPE 

4.	This is an application in terms of section 75(1)(b). In this application, the applicant, with leave granted by the Tribunal, seeks redress against the respondent. 
 
5.	The applicant alleges a breach of the CPA because the respondent allegedly failed to install a solar system as quoted. After problems arose, the respondent allegedly failed to repair the solar system. 
 
BACKGROUND 

6.	The application arises out of a complaint initiated by the applicant. The applicant averred that on 11 August 2021, he approached the respondent for a quotation on a solar system (hereinafter referred to as the "system"). The respondent's owner, Zane Vermaak (Vermaak), provided him with a quotation on the same day. The quotation was in the name of Jan Coetzee (Coetzee). Vermaak assured him he would receive the exact products listed in the quotation. On 13 September 2021, the applicant paid a deposit of R40,000.00 into the bank account indicated in the quotation. After making the payment, Vermaak informed him that the major components mentioned in the quotation were unavailable, but he could replace them with similar, if not better, components. A day or two later, the installation team installed the solar panels at the applicant's premises and connected the system to his main distribution box. On 17 September 2021, the applicant paid the outstanding balance of R38,518.85, and an invoice was issued. However, the components listed on the invoice were not the components installed at the applicant's premises. The applicant submitted that he experienced challenges as the system did not perform according to his expectations. He knew the system would not take him off the grid but would decrease his electricity bill. Instead, his electricity bill increased. 

7.	On 17 November 2021, the applicant emailed the respondent and expressed dissatisfaction. He sent another email requesting the respondent to replace the inverter and the battery within seven days, failing which he would escalate the matter to the appropriate authorities. He eventually filed a complaint with the National Consumer Commission (Commission). On 2 November 2022, the Commission issued a notice of non-referral. 

8.	The respondent filed an answering affidavit. The deponent is Vermaak. The essence of Vermaak's submissions is that the applicant agreed to the change of components. The respondent installed solar panels with more wattage than originally quoted at no extra charge. He averred that the battery only lasts for a short time because the applicant uses all his battery power to maximum capacity to save on his electricity bill. The respondent informed the applicant that he needed to expand his system with panels and another battery and provided him with a quote. The applicant has yet to contact the respondent again. 

9.	There is congruence between the applicant's submission that he expected the system to reduce his electricity bill and the respondent's submission that the applicant's battery is drained. However, the applicant's claim that power is not generated from the solar panels but from Eskom indicates that the system might be defective. 

10.	During the hearing, the respondent indicated a willingness to repair the system. Consequently, the panel ordered a settlement conference per rule 22. The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to enter discussions towards a settlement. The parties reached a settlement agreement, which was reduced to writing and provided to the tribunal panel. 
 
THE SETTLEMENT 

11.	The parties requested the settlement agreement to be confirmed as a consent order. 

12.	Per rule 20 (2), the Tribunal may confirm a resolution or agreement as a consent order. Upon the receipt of an application for a consent order, the Tribunal may make its ruling on the application based on the documents filed alone, without hearing any evidence. 

13.	The Tribunal considered the parties’ application to confirm the consent order. 

14.	In summary, the settlement agreement records the terms and conditions of their settlement as follows: 

14.1.	The respondent will collect the inverter from the applicant's address and deliver it to Solar Europe (Pty) Ltd for repairs on the inverter at no cost to the applicant, so long as the warranty applies. The respondent agrees to collect the inverter no later than 8 July 2023, and the applicant agrees to accommodate any request for collection so long as the request is within business hours. 
14.2.	Should the warranty apply, parties the respondent will re-install the repaired inverter at no cost 
to the applicant. The respondent will provide an estimate of the time required to repair and reinstall the inverter within ten days. 
14.3.	The respondent will provide the applicant with training on the system. 
14.4.	The respondent will issue a Certificate of Compliance (COC) according to 2021 Solar Regulations that applied at the time of the 2021 installation. 
14.5.	Should there be any additional costs concerning the provision of the COC, such costs will be negotiated amongst the parties. 
14.6.	The respondent will send a warranties schedule to the applicant. 
14.7.	Should there be any issues concerning the re-installation within three months from the date of the re-installation, the respondent will not charge the applicant a callout fee. 
 
15.	After the hearing recommenced, the Tribunal requested clarity in terms of rule 20(2)(b) on the date the parties agreed the respondent would collect the converter. The parties acknowledged that the signed agreement incorrectly refers to “8 July 2023” as the date on which the respondent agrees to collect the inverter. A date in July would precede the date of the hearing. Consequently, the parties indicated that the reference to July was an obvious mistake and that the intention was to refer to August. With the consent of the parties, the date was changed to 8 August 2023. 
 
16.	The applicant and the respondent agree that the settlement agreement, with the change outlined in paragraph 15, may be confirmed as a consent order in terms of section 138(1)(b) of the National Credit Act, 2005 (the NCA). 
 
ANALYSIS 
 
17.	Section 138(1)(b) and rule 20(2) must be read with section 150 of the NCA, which empowers the Tribunal to make an appropriate order in relation to prohibited or required conduct, and in subsection (d) includes confirming a “consent agreement” as an order of the Tribunal. 

18.	The Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement agreement correctly records the terms and conditions of the settlement; and that the parties have agreed that the settlement may be confirmed as a consent order in terms of section 138(1)(b). 
 
CONCLUSION 

19. 	Consequently, the Tribunal is persuaded to confirm the settlement agreement as a consent order. 

ORDER 

20.	Accordingly, the Tribunal makes the following order: 

20.1	The settlement agreement that the applicant and the respondent concluded on 1 August 2023 and revised in terms of paragraph 15 of this judgment; which is annexed to this consent order as “Annexure A to D Hendricks v Lunar Pro CC NCT/252121.2022.75(1)(b)”, is confirmed and made an order of the National Consumer Tribunal in terms of section 138(1)(b) of the National Credit Act, 2005 and rule 20(2) of the Rules of the National Consumer Tribunal ; and 
 
20.2	There is no cost order. 

Dr MC Peenze 
Presiding Tribunal Member 
 
Tribunal Members Mr S Hockey and Dr A Potwana concur.