Lemon Law for California

What is considered a reasonable number of repair attempts will depend on the circumstances including the seriousness of the defect. For example, one or two repair attempts may be considered reasonable for serious safety defects such as brake failure, depending on the exact situation.
A special provision, often called the “Lemon Law,” helps determine what is a reasonable number of repair attempts for problems that substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the vehicle.
The “Lemon Law” presumption is a guide, not an absolute rule. A judge or arbitrator can assume that the manufacturer has had a reasonable number of chances to repair the vehicle if all of the conditions are met. The manufacturer, however, has the right to try to prove that it should have the chance to attempt additional repairs, and the consumer has the right to show that fewer repair attempts are reasonable under the circumstances.
Be sure to check your warranty and owner’s manual for instructions. You may be required to directly notify the manufacturer of the problem(s). It is a good idea to send your written notice to the manufacturer at the address shown in the warranty or owner’s manual by certified mail, return receipt requested so that you have proof that your letter was received. Keep a copy of all correspondence.
If the manufacturer maintains a state-certified arbitration program, the consumer must submit the warranty dispute to the arbitration program before the consumer can take advantage of the presumption in court. Arbitration is an alternative to court proceedings. The consumer may assert the presumption during arbitration. Information about any arbitration should be described in the warranty or owner’s manual.

Consumers who bring substantial documentation and evidence to the arbitration hearing tend to do better than those with little evidence to support their claims. The types of documentation that can help include:
• brochures and ads about the vehicle (an arbitration panel is likely to make the manufacturer live up to its claims)
• vehicle service records showing how often you took the car into the shop, and
• any other documents showing your attempts to get the dealer to repair your car, including old calendars and phone records.
It is important to take the arbitration seriously and be as prepared as possible. Although usually you can appeal a bad arbitration decision in court, the decision can greatly influence your case. For example, the manufacturer may be able to use the arbitration decision as evidence against you.
This whole process can take a long time. Most lemon laws allow you to keep using your car while pursuing a claim. But be careful: Never use your car if doing so poses a safety risk. Even if you can drive your car safely, some courts may view your case less favorably if they know that you were able to keep driving your car.

“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.

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 ]

“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.

If you are considering, or have already applied for arbitration, you should consider calling our offices prior to any arbitration hearing taking place. In addition, if you have already completed the arbitration process and would like to know if you received or have been awarded your full Lemon Law entitlement, you should consider calling our office for a arbitration award review. 
 __________________________________________________ 

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

Most manufacturers have established guidelines for assisting with defective vehicle problems. Most, but not all states, require that anyone with a lemon law complaint must first submit to arbitration before filing a lawsuit in court. Arbitration consists of stating your case before an impartial panel of people who will listen to both sides of the case and determine an outcome based on the merits of the information provided. While arbitration panels are supposed to be impartial, they tend to lean in favor of the manufacturer.

 __________________________________________________ 

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