Much to do about Consumer Rights Protection in Jamaica: An open letter to the Consumer Affairs Commission of Jamaica

Dear Consumer Affairs Commission of Jamaica,

I write as a deeply concerned Jamaican consumer to express my sheer dissatisfaction with the lackadaisical approach of the Consumer Affairs Commission of Jamaica (CAC) when handling consumer disputes involving powerful car dealerships like ATL Automotive/Autobahn Limited (“ATL Automotive”). Late last year, the Supreme Court of Jamaica delivered an important ruling against ATL Automotive in Jason Samuels v ATL Automotive Limited [2024] JMSC Civ 79 (“the Jason Samuels case”). This decision was brought to public attention by Jamaica’s leading newspaper, The Jamaica Gleaner on September 19, 2024. In the Jason Samuels case, Wint-Blair J found, among other things, that a 2014 Volkswagen Jetta that ATL Automotive had sold to Mr. Samuels as brand new was not of merchantable quality. It set an important precedent and provided clarification as to the meaning of “merchantable quality” in the context of vehicle sales. At paragraph 154 of the judgment, the learned judge explained that “[a] new car any vehicle which is not safe to drive cannot be described as of merchantable quality”. Despite ATL Automotive’s appeal of the decision, the Jason Samuels case sets an important and useful precedent.

Quite bizarrely, however, there has been very little public discourse on the case despite its implications for consumer rights protection in Jamaica. My letter to the editor, which was published in the Jamaica Gleaner, is actually the only public comment, albeit perfunctory, on the Jason Samuels case. Even more bizarrely, the tax-payer funded CAC, which was established to “inform, educate and empower consumers to protect themselves in the marketplace”, has said nothing about the Jason Samuels decision, leaving consumers unaware of its implications for the protection of consumer rights in Jamaica. Notwithstanding that the CAC had actually dismissed Mr. Samuels’ case finding no breach of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), it should have nevertheless explained the implications of the Supreme Court ruling for the benefit of Jamaican consumers.

On December 30, I published an open letter (titled “Much to do about consumer rights protection in Jamaica: An open letter to Adam Stewart”) addressed to ATL Automotive’s Chairman Adam Stewart. In that letter, I expressed, in the strongest strong terms, my sheer disgust with the manner in which ATL Automotive’s has been handling our ongoing dispute. As you are well aware, that dispute arose after a BMW MINI Countryman, which was represented as being brand new by former MINI sales agent Tamika St. John, began to manifest serious issues, including shifting itself from drive into neutral without being prompted, less than 6 weeks after I collected it last year. These problems persist so that I feel selling it to another unsuspecting consumer particularly in the absence of full disclosure would be unconscionable. Shortly after my open letter to Adam Stewart was published, an ATL representative did FINALLY reach out to me by email on December 30, 2024. This was after 2 months of ATL Automotive ignoring my emails regarding my presentation of independent findings concerning merchantability of the Countryman. However, when I asked, via email, pointed questions about the way forward, ATL Automotive once again resorted to prevaricating and pussyfooting until Monday, January 27, 2025. My ultimate desire is for ATL Automotive to buy-back this problematic Countryman at a reasonable price following a proper valuation, conduct a comprehensive, open-minded assessment and repair of the Countryman, and use it as a loaner vehicle—since they seem to be short on loaner vehicles quite often—rather than just pass it off to another unsuspecting consumer.

To date, the CAC has refused to even issue a case number or assign a case officer to my complaint filed last year even though Director of Field Operations, Cheryl-Martin-Tracey assured me during one of our telephone conversations in July 2024 that this would have been done shortly. However, since that time there has been no transparency from her whatsoever. Moreover, the email that I sent to Mrs. Martin Tracey on December 24, 2024 expressing my disappointment with the CAC’s intervention in the matter has not even been acknowledged, further highlighting the lack of transparency and accountability within the tax-payer funded CAC. Based on my experiences with the CAC, I have concluded that it is playing in the faces of Jamaican consumers. While I was told by someone at the CAC that I could add the CAC as an interested party should I decide to pursue litigation as an option for settling this dispute with ATL Automotive, I question why the CAC, as a taxpayer-funded entity, does not take a more proactive role in supporting public interest litigation to advance consumer rights in Jamaica. Local jurisprudence in this area is underdeveloped, particularly insofar as the operation of the CPA is concerned. There are also very few reported cases testing the meaning and scope of its provisions in the context of the rights it confers upon Jamaican consumers as well as when or in what specific circumstances they may apply, among other things.

In closing, I am urging the tax-payer funded CAC to take more seriously its duty to Jamaican consumers. With its broad mandate to empower Jamaican consumers, the CAC should be boldly courageous, impartial, transparent and proactive in handling consumer disputes regardless of which powerful corporation is involved. It is easy for the CAC to advocate in less controversial situations involving actors with significantly less financial, economic and political sway than ATL Automotive, but the real test of its commitment and objectivity in discharging its mandate lies in its willingness to challenge the most powerful players in the marketplace.

Regards,

Amanda Janell DeAmor Quest