Lemon Law for California

Build Dates : June 01, 2006 - April 30, 2007
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 07V190000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20070523  
Date Received by ODI: 20070502  
Date Added to Databse: 20070502

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 07066

Component: SERVICE BRAKES, AIR:SUPPLY:COMPRESSOR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 1896

Summary:
On certain medium duty conventional and tilt cab trucks equipped with 7.8l diesel engines and air brakes, the air compressor may not build enough air pressure to support the air brake system.

Consequence:
If this condition were to occur while the vehicle was stationary (brakes applied) the air brakes would remain applied and prevent the vehicle from moving. If this condition were to occur while the vehicle was in motion, the dual system air pressure gauges would register the drop in pressure. If the pressure continued to drop, the low air pressure warning buzzer and warning lamp would activate as designed, warning the driver to move the vehicle to a safety location. If the driver ignores these warnings and continues to drive the vehicle, and if there was a continued loss of pressure, the rear spring parking brakes would automatically apply, preventing the truck from being driven.

Remedy:
Dealers will replace the air compressor head. The recall began on may 23, 2007.

Every automobile manufacturer provides a toll-free phone number that consumers can call to seek assistance from the manufacturer’s Customer Assistance Center to resolve their vehicle problems.

Consumers must be aware that these telephone conversations are generally recorded by the manufacturer’s Customer Assistance Center, and may be used by the manufacturer against the consumer in a later legal action brought by the consumer.  Therefore, the consumer should always be courteous and respectful in these telephone conversations, and NEVER resort to insults or profanity!  Since it is required that the manufacturer inform the consumer that their conversation may be recorded (often under the explanation of “for quality control purposes”), the consumer can (and should) inform the Customer Assistance Center representative that he/she intends to also record the conversation.  What is fair for one is fair for both parties.

The consumer should be prepared to accurately memorialize any conversation with the manufacturer’s Customer Assistance Center.  This can be accomplished by the taking of detailed notes, including the date and time of call, the representative’s name and the substance of the conversation, including the consumer’s request and the manufacturer’s response.  As referenced above, the conversation can also be recorded in its entirety so long as the representative is informed of the recording.

Often times in response to the consumer’s request for a vehicle replacement or repurchase (buyback), the manufacturer’s representative will “inform” the consumer that he/she does not qualify for Lemon Law relief.  In some cases, the manufacturer’s representative will “inform” the consumer that he/she must first go through the manufacturer’s arbitration process.  In other cases, the manufacture’s representative may respond to the consumer’s request for a vehicle replacement or repurchase by offering a “goodwill” gesture, such as a service contract.

The consumer must be aware that a manufacturer’s denial of the consumer’s request for a replacement or repurchase, does not mean that the consumer is not entitled to a replacement or repurchase under the Lemon Law.

“Arbitration” is an “alternative dispute resolution process” that many automobile manufacturers make available to purchasers of their vehicles who may want to pursue their Lemon Law rights. A consumer does not have to use the manufacturer’s arbitration process to enforce the Lemon Law. A consumer can choose to use a Lemon Law attorney.

An arbitration hearing is not necessarily a “win” or “lose” outcome for the consumer.  The arbitrator may “award” another repair attempt for the vehicle’s manufacturer as the “reasonable” solution to the problem(s), even though the consumer feels that they have provided the manufacturer or its dealership with more than enough repair attempts.  In addition, if the arbitrator does not feel that the consumer’s problem is “substantial,” the arbitrator may reject the consumer’s claim.  Often times the arbitrator will ask to test drive the consumer’s vehicle in an attempt to duplicate the consumer’s complaint, however, if the problem is of an intermittent nature this can result in a denial of the consumer’s claim. A very common arbitrator’s decision is to order an additional repair attempt, typically infuriating the vehicle owner. The consumer needs to be aware that an arbitrator’s decision or opinion is not a binding determination of the consumer’s Lemon Law rights.

It is important for the consumer to know that a manufacturer’s arbitration process is VOLUNTARY in California. In other words, the consumer does not have to use the manufacturer’s arbitration process to enforce the Lemon Law.  It is also important to be aware that while the arbitrator’s decision is not binding on the consumer, the decision is admissible in any later court proceeding and may be used against the consumer by the automobile manufacturer.

Often times in the course of the arbitration process, the automobile manufacturer may make an offer to the consumer to “resolve” his/her Lemon Law claim. However, such an offer by the manufacturer may not follow the requirements of the Lemon Law and may provide the consumer with substantially less than the Lemon Law would otherwise provide the consumer.

Build Dates : April 01, 2006 - June 30, 2006
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V254000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20060731  
Date Received by ODI: 20060713  
Date Added to Databse: 20060713

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 06054

Component: PARKING BRAKE:CONVENTIONAL:AIR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 1184

Summary:
Certain medium duty trucks equipped SR-7 bendix brake valves, the check valve inside the valve cavity may not properly set, causing internal air leakage. If the check valve does not properly seat, the resulting leakage can cause a delay in the application of the spring brakes to park the vehicle after operator pulls the dash valve button.

Consequence:
The delayed parking brake application can occur without warning, leading to unintended vehicle rollaway increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:
Dealers will inspect the valves and replace it free of charge. The recall began on july 31, 2006.

As long as a secondhand car is sold with a written and specific warranty, it qualifies under the California Lemon Law. The car should not have been purchased for commercial purposes. As with all other applications for vehicles, the California Used Car Lemon Law only covers a secondhand car that was purchased for personal, family or household use.

Care should be taken to have the defects and inherent problems of the car established by a certified mechanic at the time of purchase. If the vehicle was bought without a warranty that covers these defects, the buyer will have a very difficult time making a case under the California Used Car Lemon Law. Unscrupulous sellers will not shy away from trying to sell a buyer a ‘lemon’ previously returned for these very defects.

California Used Car Lemon Law also applies to leased vehicles, as long as they have been leased under warranty. With all vehicles, such a warranty is not invalid once 18,000 miles of road use or 18 months since purchase have expired, if the warranty specifies a higher mileage or period.

As long as the first repair attempt took place within the specified warranty period, a leased or purchased vehicle can qualify under the California Used Car Lemon Law even after that period.

Basically, one can get a refund or complete, satisfactory repair for a secondhand purchased or leased vehicle as easily as one can for a brand-new car, as long as the used car was purchased for private, non-commercial use. Secondhand cars are not the only vehicles covered by the California Used Car Lemon Law. It applies equally to recreational vehicles (RVs), motor homes of all kinds, motorcycles, boats and other vehicles.

Signs and banners publicize certified pre-owned (CPO) vehicles at big and small dealerships throughout California. What is a CPO vehicle? At its most basic, a CPO vehicle is one that has been inspected carefully by an authorized dealership and given an extended factory warranty. Most of the major manufacturers “ such as Toyota, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, etc. “ have certified pre-owned (CPO) programs. The CPO programs can be a good deal for consumers looking to avoid the heavy depreciation that hits new cars when they are driven off the lot for the first time.

Sounds great, right? A lot of times, it is; it’s a great deal from which all parties walk away happy. Sometimes, however, the deal goes sour. Fortunately, the California Lemon Law covers vehicles that prove to be certified lemons.

A common misconception is that the lemon law only covers new vehicles and only if the defect appears in the first year or two. California lemon law is broader than that, however. The formal name of California lemon law, The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, hints at the key to its application. Specifically, if a vehicle is sold with a warranty, then it is covered by the lemon law, regardless of whether the vehicle was purchased new or used. The scope of the warranty may dictate how much help the lemon law will be to the consumer, but it will still be of some help. California lemon law states that “If the manufacturer or its representative in this state is unable to service or repair a … motor vehicle . . . to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new motor vehicle . . . or promptly make restitution to the buyer. . . However, the buyer shall be free to elect restitution in lieu of replacement.” (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1793.2(d)(2).)

Build Dates : May 01, 2006 - April 30, 2007
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 07V190000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20070523  
Date Received by ODI: 20070502  
Date Added to Databse: 20070502

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 07066

Component: SERVICE BRAKES, AIR:SUPPLY:COMPRESSOR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 1896

Summary:
On certain medium duty conventional and tilt cab trucks equipped with 7.8l diesel engines and air brakes, the air compressor may not build enough air pressure to support the air brake system.

Consequence: 
If this condition were to occur while the vehicle was stationary (brakes applied) the air brakes would remain applied and prevent the vehicle from moving. If this condition were to occur while the vehicle was in motion, the dual system air pressure gauges would register the drop in pressure. If the pressure continued to drop, the low air pressure warning buzzer and warning lamp would activate as designed, warning the driver to move the vehicle to a safety location. If the driver ignores these warnings and continues to drive the vehicle, and if there was a continued loss of pressure, the rear spring parking brakes would automatically apply, preventing the truck from being driven.

Remedy:
Ddealers will replace the air compressor head. The recall began on may 23, 2007.

• Often times, your new car isn’t suspected of being a Lemon until it is too late (out of warranty, over the mileage limit, etc). If you keep a record of every repair visit, starting with the first one, you will protect your rights under Consumer Laws. 

• Document everything! This includes notes, who you talk to, what is said, dates and times. Put your complaints in writing and keep a copy for yourself. Be sure to obtain a copy of any Warranty Repair Orders. Demand a copy if necessary and if the dealer will not give you one, be sure to document the fact. When you pick up your car, obtain an Invoice. The dealer may claim that you are not entitled to an Invoice because there were no charges (you were not invoiced for any repairs). It is up to you to prove repair attempts! The final Invoice shows what was or was not repaired.

• Make absolutely sure the dealer records your complaint on the Repair Order exactly as you describe it. You must make sure to describe the defect exactly the same on each repair visit or you may forfeit your rights under the “reasonable attempts to repair for the same defect” clause.

• Be sure that the date, time in, and odometer reading are recorded as well as the date and time you picked up the car. In most States you are covered by the Lemon Law if the vehicle has been in the repair shop for an accumulative number of days during the coverage period.

• If your car fails in the middle of the desert or in the middle lane of rush hour freeway traffic, record the date and time, the amount of time you had to wait for assistance, whether or not you had to rent a car, and your general overall feelings. The emotional trauma dealing with a defective vehicle has a lot of bearing on your case should you need to go to arbitration or court.

 __________________________________________________ 

[ To Learn more our services and areas of practice, please visit our website at www.LemonLawIntel.com ]

When you purchased or leased your new vehicle, it came with a warranty book or other printed pamphlet on what steps to take in resolving complaints you have with your vehicle. These “steps” are designed to “assist” the consumer in resolving their complaints.

Consumers should be aware, however, that these “steps” are often what the automobile manufacturer suggests, and not a full representation nor description of what consumer rights protection the California Lemon Law provides. These warranty books will also mislead the consumer with wording like “within 18 months or 18,000 miles”, suggesting a “lemon law” claim must be filed within this time frame.

NONSENSE. You have the entire warranty period (usually 3 years/36,000 miles or 4 years/50,000 miles) in which to institute a “lemon law” claim. Or “inform” that Arbitration is “the next step in the lemon law process” (it is not, California has no requirement for arbitration to pursue a lemon law claim). In certain situations a valid lemon law claim can be filed after the warranty has expired if the vehicle is still suffering from the same non-conformity.

Sometimes the “instructions” on “your responsibilities” were printed in these books before potential amendments to California’s Lemon Law were enacted.  Keep in mind that these warranty books are written by the automobile manufacturer to best serve the manufacturer.  They are not without important content, but a consumer should get a “balanced” view of their individual procedural requirements from a legal standpoint from an expert Lemon Law attorney.

 __________________________________________________ 

[ To Learn more our services and areas of practice, please visit our website at www.LemonLawIntel.com ]

Build Dates : April 01, 2006 - May 30, 2006
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V254000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20060731
Date Received by ODI: 20060713
Date Added to Databse: 20060713

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 06054

Component: PARKING BRAKE:CONVENTIONAL:AIR
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 1184

Summary:
Certain medium duty trucks equipped SR-7 bendix brake valves, the check valve inside the valve cavity may not properly set, causing internal air leakage. If the check valve does not properly seat, the resulting leakage can cause a delay in the application of the spring brakes to park the vehicle after operator pulls the dash valve button.

Consequence:
The delayed parking brake application can occur without warning, leading to unintended vehicle rollaway increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:
Dealers will inspect the valves and replace it free of charge. The recall began on july 31, 2006.