Right to Repair gave workshops an opportunity. It did not remove their responsibility.

South African independent workshops have greater access to in-warranty work, technical information and consumer choice. But access alone does not make a workshop ready. The real test is whether it can identify, repair and document the vehicle correctly.

South Africa’s automotive aftermarket changed when the Competition Commission’s Guidelines for Competition in the South African Automotive Aftermarket took effect in July 2021.

The guidelines were intended to increase consumer choice, improve competition and create better opportunities for independent service providers.

They recognised an important reality:

An independent workshop cannot compete effectively if it cannot access the technical information and training required to repair modern vehicles.

The current guidelines state that access to technical information is a prerequisite for effective competition. They require manufacturers to make relevant maintenance and repair information available to independent service providers on reasonable terms, including information stored electronically or in the cloud.

That is a significant opportunity.

It is not a shortcut.

Right to Repair does not mean “repair without information”

Some workshop owners interpret Right to Repair mainly as permission.

The customer is allowed to choose an independent workshop, so the workshop is allowed to complete the service.

That is only the beginning.

The workshop must still know:

• the exact vehicle and derivative;
• the correct service schedule;
• approved oils and fluids;
• required parts specifications;
• tightening procedures;
• electronic reset requirements;
• safety precautions;
• campaign or recall considerations;
• diagnostic procedures; and
• what must be recorded to protect the customer’s vehicle history.

Right to Repair improves access to the market.

It does not lower the technical standard required to complete the job.

In fact, it places greater responsibility on independent workshops to demonstrate that the work was performed correctly.

The modern service is not only oil and filters

On an older vehicle, an experienced technician could often complete a basic service using familiar knowledge and a paper catalogue.

Modern vehicles may require much more specific information.

Two engines with the same capacity can use different:

• oil specifications;
• filter designs;
• spark plugs;
• belt intervals;
• coolant types;
• battery procedures;
• electronic service resets; and
• transmission fluids.

The wrong item may physically fit and still be technically incorrect.

As vehicles become more connected and software-dependent, access to coding, programming, security-related functions and cloud-based procedures also becomes increasingly important. The Competition Commission’s guidelines recognise that technical information may include software and security-related access, subject to appropriate terms and safeguards.

A workshop cannot manage that complexity through memory alone.

Information must reach the person doing the work

Paying for technical information does not help if only the owner knows the login details.

A common failure looks like this:

The service advisor creates the estimate using a generic service kit. The technician receives a printed job card with no engine code or oil specification. The technical-data subscription is available on the office computer, but the technician is already working in the bay.

Rather than stop and ask, the technician uses the oil and parts placed next to the vehicle.

The workshop technically had access to the information.

The process failed to deliver it where it was needed.

Useful technical information should appear inside the job workflow.

The technician should be able to see the relevant specification, procedure or warning without beginning a separate search from scratch.

Proof matters after the vehicle has left

A correctly completed service may be questioned months later.

A warning light appears. An engine component fails. The vehicle is presented to a dealer or another repairer. Someone suggests that the independent workshop used the wrong oil, skipped an item or fitted a non-compliant part.

At that point, the workshop needs more than confidence in its technician.

It needs evidence.

A proper record should show:

• the vehicle and VIN;
• mileage and date;
• customer instructions;
• items inspected;
• work performed;
• parts fitted;
• oil and fluid specifications;
• technician responsible;
• service reset or coding completed;
• additional work recommended;
• customer authorisations or refusals; and
• the final invoice.

RMI accreditation requirements similarly expect structured job cards and invoices containing customer information, work details, separately priced parts and labour, VAT, terms and customer authorisation.

A complete record does not guarantee that a dispute will never happen.

It gives the workshop something reliable to present when it does.

Additional work remains a risk point

A customer books a vehicle for a service.

During the inspection, the workshop finds worn brakes, a leaking water pump and damaged suspension components.

Right to Repair does not give the workshop permission to continue with everything it considers necessary.

The customer must still be informed and additional work must be authorised.

RMI guidance states that workshops should contact customers when additional repairs become necessary, record the discussion and obtain authorisation with proper internal verification.

A phone call may be sufficient in some circumstances, but the workshop should still record:

• who spoke to the customer;
• when the discussion took place;
• what was explained;
• which prices were provided;
• what was authorised;
• what was declined; and
• whether the completion time changed.

Without that record, a technically correct repair can become a commercial dispute.

Access may still cost money

The guidelines do not necessarily require every piece of technical information, training or software access to be free.

They refer to reasonable terms and conditions, including usage rules, confidentiality and fees.

This creates a practical challenge for smaller workshops.

Technical-data subscriptions, diagnostic equipment, training and software access all cost money. A workshop cannot subscribe to every possible manufacturer platform for the occasional vehicle that may enter once a year.

The answer is not to guess.

It is to manage access according to actual demand.

Review the workshop’s vehicle mix.

Which manufacturers and models make up most of the work?

Which specialist systems are appearing more often?

Where can a general technical-data provider cover routine needs, and where is manufacturer-specific access required?

Which jobs should be referred until the correct information, training or equipment is available?

A workshop does not need to perform every repair.

It needs to know which repairs it can perform properly.

The customer also needs a clear record

Right to Repair is partly about consumer choice.

That choice becomes stronger when the customer receives proper documentation.

The invoice should not say only:

“Major service — R4,500.”

It should show enough information for the customer and future repairers to understand what was done.

Where relevant, that may include:

• oil brand, grade and specification;
• filters and part numbers;
• spark plugs;
• brake-fluid replacement;
• coolant specification;
• service-schedule items;
• inspection findings; and
• repairs declined by the customer.

Clear records help preserve continuity when the customer uses more than one workshop.

They also demonstrate that the independent workshop did not simply perform a generic service.

Technical access creates a training obligation

Information and competence are not the same thing.

A procedure may explain how to isolate a high-voltage system. That does not mean an untrained person should perform the work.

A diagnostic platform may provide coding access. That does not mean every user understands the consequences of selecting the wrong function.

The RMI has repeatedly emphasised training as vehicle technology changes, including high-voltage safety, advanced diagnostics, software integration and battery management.

Workshop owners should therefore manage not only which information is available, but who is permitted to use it.

A useful system should record:

• technician qualifications;
• completed courses;
• training expiry dates;
• specialist skills;
• job permissions; and
• procedures requiring supervisor approval.

The system should not assign a specialised task solely because someone has an empty space in their schedule.

What to check this week

Select one in-warranty vehicle recently serviced by the workshop.

Open the completed job and ask:

Can you identify the exact vehicle?

Is the VIN recorded? Is the engine and derivative confirmed, or does the job only show a make and model?

Can you prove the service specification?

Can you show where the oil, fluids, filters and scheduled items came from?

Can you prove what was fitted?

Are the product descriptions and part numbers recorded, or does the invoice use generic wording?

Can you prove what the customer authorised?

Is the original request available? Are additional repairs and declined items recorded?

Can you prove who completed and checked the work?

Is the technician linked to the job? Was quality control completed? Were electronic resets or service records updated?

Can another person understand the job?

Could a different advisor open the record six months later and confidently explain what happened without asking the original technician?

That final question reveals whether the information belongs to the workshop or only to the employee who remembers it.

How Flow5 fits into the opportunity

Flow5 is designed to keep the customer, vehicle, job card, estimate, technical information, parts, communication and invoice connected.

Once a vehicle is selected, the platform can continue using that vehicle context for:

• service schedules;
• technical data;
• parts catalogues;
• oil and fluid specifications;
• checklists;
• diagnostic support;
• AI-assisted technical enquiries; and
• repair history.

Customer authorisation remains linked to the estimate. Parts remain linked to the job for which they were purchased. Technician actions, quality checks and customer communication remain part of the same transaction.

The purpose is not merely to store more information.

It is to put the correct information in front of the correct person at the correct stage of the job.

Where this ends up

Right to Repair gives independent workshops an opportunity to compete for work that may previously have remained inside authorised networks.

The workshops that benefit most will not be those that simply advertise that they can service in-warranty vehicles.

They will be those that can prove:

• the vehicle was identified correctly;
• the right technical information was used;
• the correct products were fitted;
• trained people performed the work;
• customer authorisation was obtained; and
• a complete record remains available afterwards.

Access opens the door.

Process, training and documentation determine whether the workshop deserves to remain in the room.