Lemon Law for California

Build Dates : February 01, 2005 - August 31, 2006

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 07V071000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20070322
Date Received by ODI: 20070301
Date Added to Databse: 20070301

Manufacturer’s Involved: BENTLEY MOTORS LTD
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: BENTLEY MOTORS LTD
Manufacturer Campaign Number: RE07/02

Component: WHEELS:LUGS/NUTS/BOLTS
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 222

Summary:

On certain vehicles, the road wheel fixing bolts may be dimensionally incorrect. The potential exists for these bolts to loosen.

Consequence:

This could lead to the road wheel becoming detached from the hub increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:

Dealers will replace all wheel bolts free of charge. The recall began on March 24, 2007.

The Lemon Law is a consumer protection statute, and it is designed to make it possible for average consumers to stand up and protect themselves. The manufacturer pays the legal fees you incur to enforce your rights. The California Legislature realized that giving consumers the right to enforce the warranty would be meaningless without also giving them the ability. The Lemon Law shifts the burden of paying the fees from you the consumer to the manufacturer. It makes it possible for the average person to enforce their warranty rights.

Consumer laws and specifically the Lemon Law are under constant assault in every state capital and in Washington D.C. The Manufacturers, Automobile Dealers and others lobby long and hard to make it easier for them to shirk their responsibilities, walk away from their promises, and sell wrecked, damaged, and substandard vehicles to the public. Write your assembly person or congressional representative. One letter from you does have an impact. To find your State Representative, see the link below.

Build Dates : January 05, 2007 - February 20, 2007

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 08V064000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20080307
Date Received by ODI: 20080207
Date Added to Databse: 20080207

Manufacturer’s Involved: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 70D1/JX

Component: STRUCTURE:BODY:ROOF AND PILLARS
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 720

Summary:

Volkswagen is recalling 720 my 2008 Audi TT coupe vehicles. These vehicles were produced with c-pillar trim cover clips that do not provide adequate retention. In the event of a deployment of the rear pyrotechnic safety belt, the c-pillar trim cover may become detached from the sheet metal due to low retention force of the trim clip.

Consequence:

The detached trim cover could pose a risk of personal injury for vehicle front seat occupants.

Remedy:

Dealers will install an improved clip on the affected vehicles. The recall began on March 7, 2008.

Occasionally, car dealers and manufacturers do feign compliance with the law by

Identifying only some of the many complaints made by the previous owner of the lemon car

Removing the “warning” word  from the top of the disclosure document

Placing the document of disclosure  within a large stack of documents

Spreading the stack out in a way that leaves the signature lines visible while the top half of the document is hidden by the stack itself

Buyers, as a result, often unknowingly sign a form acknowledging that the vehicle is a lemon. In such a case, the signed form should  not have any legal effect on your rights. Are You a Victim?

If you discover that you have purchased a laundered lemon vehicle unknowingly, seek legal counsel immediately for a free case evaluation at www.lemonlawcourt.com. Our firm has effectively represented many clients in laundered lemon car cases and regardless of their law-dodging method, manufacturers and dealers are being held accountable for the part they play in this lemon laundering game.

Build Dates : October 01, 2001 - September 30, 2004

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 04V538000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20041223
Date Received by ODI: 20041109
Date Added to Databse: 20041110

Manufacturer’s Involved: ASTON MARTIN
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: ASTON MARTIN
Manufacturer Campaign Number: SAR 009

Component: VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL:ACCELERATOR PEDAL
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 1558

Summary:

On certain passenger vehicles, the throttle pedal assembly can become displaced from its housing.

Consequence:

A driver could experience loss of throttle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:

Dealers will inspect and replace, if necessary, the throttle pedals. The recall began on December 23, 2004.

General Motors is widely believed to be filing for bankruptcy by June 1. At midweek no could even guess about the bankruptcy and its stock rose significantly, but by the end of the week the company drew another $4 billion from the government and the bankruptcy filing seems all but certain. On the lemon law front, we are now informed that settlement checks will take 4-6 weeks to process (not 1 week as previously done) and that all repurchases are being stopped.

This bankruptcy may be worse for consumers than Chrysler. First, Chrysler is smaller than GM, and so many more people will be affected. Second, Chrysler,  at the outset of its bankruptcy, made a mistake by failing to honor pre-bankruptcy settlements in lemon law and warranty cases. This isn’t deplorable from the bankruptcy perspective- after all all kinds of people are being hurt — but from the PR perspective it creates a problem. How do you expect that car buyers trust your warranty promises if you won’t honor lemon law settlements? But it took them a week to announce that checks will be reissued (which hasn’t yet been done), and so the uncertainty created a problem.

Chrysler tried to seemingly having its purchaser assume existing warranties and, at the same time, staking out a legal position that all existing lemon law and warranty claims would be ‘unsecured’ (read ‘unlucky’) in bankruptcy. Ultimately this inconsistency cost them time and bad press.

Auto Recalls : June 15, 2005 - November 29, 2008

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 09V164000

Date Owner’s Notified: 20090630
Date Received by ODI: 20090519
Date Added to Databse: 20090518

Manufacturer’s Involved: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC
Manufacturer Campaign Number: 40J2/S4

Component: POWER TRAIN:DRIVELINE:DRIVESHAFT
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 25594

Summary:

Volkswagen is recalling 25,594 my 2006-2009 Jetta 5th generation equipped with 2.01 engine. The fastening screw contact surfaces on the driveshaft cover plate may not have been manufactured to factory specifications. Some screws may not have been torqued properly during assembly and could loosen over time, causing a knocking sound when the vehicle is in motion. The driveshaft screws could loosen to the point where the driveshaft detaches from the gearbox.

Consequence:

If the vehicle is moving when this happens, the detached driveshaft could cause damage the gearbox housing. A damage gearbox housing could leak gearbox oil onto the street and create a risk of a vehicle crash for both the driver and other motorists.

Remedy:

Dealers will inspect the driveshaft screws and replace the screws free of charge. The recall is expected to begin on or before June 19, 2009.

The general remedy is a replacement of purchase price, less a use offset, or a replacement vehicle. Out-of-pocket expenses that are connected with the defective product or vehicle can  also be reimbursed. In some instances, the judge or jury can award a civil penalty of up to two times plaintiff’s damages. Also, the prevailing plaintiff has the attorney’s fees paid by the losing party.

Some common examples of “lemon law” situations?

Some common examples would include ABS brake failures, faulty brakes,  transmission failures and “hard-shift” or “no-shift” situations, engine dying complaints, major electrical difficulties with the vehicle, on-board computer malfunctions, repeated no-start situations, and others. Any defect which distinclty impairs value  use, or safety of the vehicle can be the subject of a lemon law lawsuit.

The correct standard is defined when the consumer has given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle within the warranty period. We have seen few cases succeed with two repair attempts unless it’s a very serious defect which threatens the safety of the occupants of the car. “Within the warranty period” means exactly what it says: if your car has a drive train warranty for 70,000 miles and the drive train is defective, then you have 70,000 miles to have the manufacturer make the necessary repairs effectively. If they don’t fix the drive train, and if you have given the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts, then you have a lemon law claim.

If the manufacturer also cannot fix the problem within the warranty period, and you notify the manufacturer or its dealership representative in writing within 60 days after the last failure to repair the problem, then the warranty does not expire as to that defect. If the consumer notified the manufacturer of its failure to repair the vehicle within 60 days after the last unsuccessful repair attempt, then the warranty does not expire as to that drive train defect.

There is something called the “lemon law presumption”, and this is the only part of the lemon law where there is a requirement of 4 repair attempts within the first 18,000 miles. This is a legal presumption that is affecting a lemon law lawsuit burden of proof. The plaintiff, normally, bears the burden of proving that he or she has given the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts to fix the vehicle. If, however, the consumer proves that he or she brought the vehicle in for repairs for the same defect four times within the first 18,000 miles, or if he or she proves that the vehicle was out of service 30 or more days within the first 18,000 miles, then the law shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer to prove that it was not given a reasonable opportunity to fix the vehicle.

The consumer gets the presumption benefit in case he or she has two or more repair attempts for a serious safety issue within the first 18 months or 18,000 miles.

Plenty of lemon law cases, as a practical matter, go forward without the lemon law presumption. The only requirement upon the consumer is that he or she give the manufacturer a reasonable number of repair attempts within the warranty period. If this is done, and the vehicle still is not repaired, the consumer has a lemon law case.

Build Dates : January 01, 2006 - May 04, 2009

NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number : 09V223000

Date Owner’s Notified:
Date Received by ODI: 20090615
Date Added to Databse: 20090615

Manufacturer’s Involved: TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Manufacturer’s Responsible for the Recall: TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION
Manufacturer Campaign Number:

Component: EQUIPMENT:OTHER:LABELS
Potential Number Of Units Affected : 27080

Summary:

Toyota is recalling 27,080 model year 2009 and 2010 passenger cars built from June 2, 2008 to May 4, 2009. These vehicles were not equipped with load carrying capacity modification labels which fails to conform with the requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 110, “tire selection and rims.”

Consequence:

Incorrect load carrying capacity modification labels could result in the vehicle being overloaded, increasing the risk of a crash.

Remedy:

Toyota will notify owners and provide them with a new, accurate label to be installed over the inaccurate label free of charge. The safety recall is expected to begin on or about August 31, 2009.