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.