Lemon Law for California

Build Dates : April 01, 2005 - July 31, 2005  
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 06V020000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20060323  
Date Received by ODI: 20060125  
Date Added to Databse: 20060125

Manufacturer’s Involved: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 05111

Component: FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 17462

Summary:
Certain vehicles equipped with V6 engines may have a condition where fuel is no longer supplied to the engine. This condition occurs without the illumination of the fuel level low indicator light or the warning chime.

Consequence:
If the engine stops running, the operator will not be able to restart the vehicle which could increase the risk of a crash.

Remedy:
Dealers will reprogram the Electronic Control Module (ECM) with new software free of charge. Owners were notified in december 2005 and asked to maintain at least 1/4 of a tank fuel level to avoid this condition until the parts are available. The parts are now available, owner renotification began on march 23, 2006. 

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 vehicle  replacement or repurchase, does not mean that the consumer is not entitled to a replacement or repurchase under the Lemon Law.

We invite you to call our office so that a qualified California Lemon Law case evaluation can be performed to see what potential entitlement under California’s Lemon Law you may be entitled to.

 __________________________________________________ 

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

Under our California Lemon Law, the manufacturer is allowed a “reasonable” number of “repair attempts” to correct the substantial non-conformity to warranty that the offending vehicle has suffered from.

So, what is a “repair attempt”, and what does it mean to a potential “lemon law” claim?

Under our California Lemon Law, a repair attempt is when the consumer gives the authorized car dealership a description of the complaint/symptom that is written on the Repair Order and gives the dealership an opportunity to effect repairs.

The consumer is not expected to be an auto mechanic. The consumer’s complaint/symptom should, however, contain information on the “system” which may be the source of the problem. Here is a good example: your car does not seem to shift properly and “surges” when accelerating. How would you describe this to be written on the Repair Order? “customer states that vehicle will not shift correctly”. That’s complaint # 1. Complaint # 2 (listed as a separate line item) would be: “customer states that engine surges” while driving”. You have now created two distinctly different complaints and have incorporated the likely culprit components, namely transmission and engine systems.

What happens if the Repair Invoice comes back noting “could not duplicate”, “no problem found”, or “operating as to mfg’s design intent”? Does this mean that it is not counted as a valid “repair attempt”? Answer – NO. It is a valid “repair attempt” under our California Lemon Law as you have given the dealer both description and opportunity to repair. Whether or not the dealer is capable or incapable of effecting diagnosis or repair is of no concern to the consumer in California. The consumer, however, must get a copy of the completed “Repair Invoice” upon returning to the dealership to pick up their vehicle.
 __________________________________________________ 

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