The ordinary maximum stated in the current Code.
MMIOSAPUBLIC OVERSIGHT FILE
MIOSA PUBLIC RECORD · GOVERNANCE FILE 001
Who appoints the motor-industry Ombud—and for how long?
MIOSA helps resolve motor-industry disputes. Its governing Code says the Ombud is chosen internally for five years, with one further five-year appointment. The public record leaves a basic question unanswered: how do those rules reconcile with the same Ombud being publicly documented in office since at least 2007?
Earliest official MIOSA page located naming Johan van Vreden as Ombudsman.
Listed by MIOSA in its current public material.
FixSA did not locate the appointment and renewal records in the public material reviewed.
THE APPOINTMENT MECHANISM
How the Code says the Ombud must be chosen.
The Minister prescribes the industry Code. The public does not elect the Ombud, and neither Parliament nor the Minister personally appoints the office-holder. MIOSA's Board makes the choice.
Read the operative 2014 Code- 01CODE TEXT
Invite applications
The Board must invite applications from the general public.
- 02CODE TEXT
Check independence
Candidates are measured against qualification, experience and conflict criteria.
- 03CODE TEXT
Board election
A new Ombud is elected by a simple majority after a diligent recruitment process.
- 04CODE TEXT
Initial term
The appointment runs for a fixed five-year period.
- 05CODE TEXT
One renewal
The Code allows a single further five-year appointment.
- 06ACCOUNTABILITY EXPECTATION
Show the trail
Appointment dates, resolutions and recruitment records should make compliance testable.
FINDING
01
01
FIXSA ANALYSIS
A ten-year rule, a nineteen-year public trail—and missing appointment records.
The documents establish two facts: the Code's ordinary maximum is ten years, and the same person is identified as Ombudsman in public MIOSA material at dates spanning 2007 to 2026.
They do not establish uninterrupted service under one appointment, whether fresh elections occurred, or how the Code's transitional clause was applied. The missing chronology—not assumption—is the central record FixSA is seeking.
MIOSA's own archive identifies Johan van Vreden as Ombudsman.
Open archive pageMIOSA's current leadership material identifies him as Ombudsman and director.
Open leadership pageOPEN LEGAL AND FACTUAL QUESTION
Clause 25 complicates the calculation.
The 2014 Code created a separate five-year transitional continuation for the incumbent Ombud and three directors. It does not say whether that period counted toward the ordinary five-year term plus one renewal.
The public record reviewed by FixSA does not explain how MIOSA applied the transition to an incumbent who was already publicly described as Ombudsman before the Code took effect.
THE DOCUMENTED TRAIL
What the public record can—and cannot—show.
This is a timeline of documents, not proof of uninterrupted tenure.
- MIOSA PUBLICATION
Company registration
Its current material records non-profit company number 2001/004871/08.
Original source - MIOSA ARCHIVE
Earliest role evidence located
A MIOSA archive page identifies Johan van Vreden as Ombudsman.
Original source - GOVERNMENT RECORD
Code gazetted
Government prescribes the Automotive Industry Code under section 82 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Original source - MIOSA PUBLICATION
Ombudsman named again
A MIOSA newsletter again identifies Van Vreden as Ombudsman.
Original source - CODE TEXT
Transitional period
Clause 25 provides a separate five-year continuation for the incumbent and three directors.
Original source - DRAFT · NOT OPERATIVE
Replacement proposed
Government publishes a proposed revised Code for comment. FixSA found no final notice replacing the 2014 Code.
Original source - MIOSA PUBLICATION
Current listing
MIOSA’s current public material still identifies Van Vreden as Ombudsman and director.
Original source
CURRENT PUBLIC LISTING
Who MIOSA publicly lists.
Roles below reproduce MIOSA's current public material. The public pages and reports reviewed do not state the present term start, expiry or reappointment date for the Ombud or individual directors.
View MIOSA's listing01Dr M PhosaChairperson
02J H L van VredenOmbudsman / director
03Adv R NetsiandaDirector
04Adv S TleaneDirector
05Adv N LolwaneDirector
06Leanne LubbeOperational CEO / director
07Ellen EngelbrechtCFO / director
OPERATING RECORD · 2025/26
More complaints, more closures—and a response record worth examining.
These figures are MIOSA's own annual-report disclosures. They describe activity and claimed outcomes; FixSA has not independently audited the underlying case files.
Open the 2025/26 annual report+10.75% year on year
+11.15% year on year
sent to industry participants
reported as received
reported by MIOSA
with 986 summonses issued
MIOSA reports engine faults at 22%, financial disputes at 18% and advisory matters at 15%. Gauteng accounted for 56.58% of complaints.
The report records 8,935 referrals to industry participants and 7,213 responses. Public reporting does not provide a case-level ledger showing which suppliers did not respond, when matters remained pending or what happened next.
FINANCIAL SCALE · 2025/26
Industry-funded, with R100 million in reported assets.
The signed statements allow the public to see MIOSA's institutional scale and disclosed senior-management costs.
Open signed financial statementsMIOSA reports employment costs of R36,618,924—about 67% of its R54,703,091 revenue. Its short-term key-management benefits total R7,780,211: J.H.L. van Vreden received R3,560,672; L.G. Lubbe R2,207,080; and E.M. Engelbrecht R2,012,459. Chair M.N. Phosa is disclosed separately at R120,000.
These are audited disclosures. The documents do not answer what remuneration policy, benchmarks, committee process or annual Board approval supported the amounts. The auditor's unqualified opinion addresses the financial statements; it is not a forensic finding.
CONSUMER WARNING · TWO DIFFERENT CLOCKS
MIOSA warns: opening a complaint does not stop the three-year legal clock.
MIOSA's current guidance distinguishes its complaint-handling timetable from legal prescription. A consumer should not assume that waiting for the ombud protects a claim indefinitely.
Read MIOSA's consumer guidance- 01Complete documents
MIOSA says its 30-day determination period starts only after it has all information needed to decide the complaint.
- 02Supplier response
The industry participant is given 10 days to answer the allegations.
- 03Non-participation
MIOSA says it makes three efforts to obtain participation and informs the complainant if the supplier still fails to engage.
VERIFICATION STATUS · 26 AUGUST 2026
What the reviewed public record does not establish.
FixSA found no publicly indexed court, tribunal, regulator or law-enforcement finding establishing nepotism, bribery, corruption, qualification fraud or “no-work” employment at MIOSA. That does not prove that no internal or unreported issue exists. It means those claims are not verified public findings.
ACCOUNTABILITY MAP
Who can scrutinise MIOSA?
Its corporate form is private, but its accredited consumer-protection role sits inside a public legal framework.
The Minister
Prescribes, amends or withdraws an industry Code under the Consumer Protection Act.
The MIOSA Board
Appoints the Ombud under the Code and governs the non-profit company.
The NCC
Monitors the Code and may require information or review its effectiveness.
Courts and the Tribunal
Determine disputes within their respective jurisdictions and can test legal limits.
The public
May request records through PAIA. For a private body, the requester generally must show the record is needed to exercise or protect a right.
RECORDS SOUGHT · QUESTIONS STILL OPEN
Records that would answer the open questions.
FixSA will update this file when primary documents answer any of these questions or provide the listed governance records.
- 01
On what dates was each Ombud appointment or reappointment made?
- 02
Where are the corresponding Board resolutions and voting records?
- 03
Was each vacancy publicly advertised, or what other diligent recruitment process was used?
- 04
How many eligible candidates were considered in each process?
- 05
How did the Board apply clause 25 to the incumbent?
- 06
Were any directors recused from an appointment vote?
- 07
What independent conflict-of-interest checks were completed?
- 08
Has the National Consumer Commission reviewed compliance with the appointment provisions?
- 09
Will MIOSA correct the broken clause references in the operative Code?
- 10
Will MIOSA publish its current MOI, appointment policy and complete appointment chronology?
- 11
Board-approved annual budgets showing staff and director remuneration.
- 12
The remuneration policy, benchmarks and relevant committee minutes.
- 13
Annual conflict-of-interest declarations by directors and senior staff.
- 14
The gifts and hospitality register.
- 15
The procurement policy, vendor register and related-party declarations.
- 16
External-auditor management letters.
- 17
NCC monitoring assessments made under section 82(7) of the Consumer Protection Act.
- 18
Final forensic, disciplinary or governance reports, with private information redacted.
THE COURT AND TRIBUNAL RECORD
Two judgments materially sharpen the public record.
The decisions define limits on MIOSA's funding method and record judicial criticism of one complaint-jurisdiction decision.
MIOSA's own eight funding categories were unlawful to enforce.
In SAAMA v MIOSA, the High Court upheld the legal basis for industry funding under the Automotive Industry Code. But it held that MIOSA's eight self-created categories were not sanctioned by Schedule 5. MIOSA may claim contributions only under Schedule 5's formula and criteria. The judgment made no corruption or personal-misconduct finding.
Read the judgmentThe SCA called MIOSA's reliance on one jurisdiction clause “very disturbing”.
In Motus v Wentzel, MIOSA declined a consumer referral under clause 17.2.6. The SCA said no legal action existed when the referral was made and that MIOSA had incorrectly rejected jurisdiction. MIOSA was not a party to the appeal and no order was made against it.
Read the judgmentMore public decisions involving MIOSA
2019 · Supreme Court of AppealMotor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa v Silver Park Motors CCOpen record ↗2021 · Supreme Court of AppealMotus Corporation v WentzelOpen record ↗2021 · National Consumer TribunalSlepica matterOpen record ↗2021 · High CourtBarnadoOpen record ↗2024 · High CourtSAAMA v MIOSAOpen record ↗2025 · High CourtLambonsOpen record ↗
SOURCE LIBRARY
Read the record yourself.
FixSA links to the canonical publisher and preserves dated local copies of the primary documents relied on for substantive findings wherever lawful retrieval is available.