California's Lemon Regulation helps shield expensive shopper electronics – Herald Scotland

California’s Lemon Law is intended first and foremost to keep new-car buyers from being stuck with a hunk of junk.

But here’s something you may not know: The law is also a powerful weapon for ensuring that your pricey electronic gadgets don’t end up in the dumpster any time they break.

That’s important to keep in mind as an estimated 57 million Americans hit electronics stores this holiday season in search of bright, shiny new TVs, computers, game consoles and other high-end devices.

Under the Lemon Law — a.k.a. the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — manufacturers of most household electronic goods that sell for more than $100 have to provide spare parts for up to seven years, regardless of warranty status.

If they fail to do so, lawyers say, consumers have a strong case for demanding a replacement product.

“Most Lemon Law cases involve vehicles,” acknowledged William McGee, a San Diego attorney. “But Song-Beverly goes much farther. It’s extremely powerful.”

Jeff Cummins, an associate professor of political science at Cal State Fresno, discovered that after he purchased a 50-inch Sony TV for $800 in June. “It had all the bells and whistles,” he told me.

A few weeks ago, disaster.

Cummins’ 5-year-old son was horsing around with friends and a toy ended up hitting the TV. This caused a small crack within the screen and a black bar to appear from top to bottom. Cummins was, to put it mildly, not pleased.

Recognizing that the problem didn’t involve a manufacturer’s defect, he was certain he’d have to pay for a repair. He ed Best Buy, where he’d bought the TV. They told him to take up the matter with Sony.

A Sony service representative steered Cummins to a Northern California TV-repair company called Precision Television, where a technician said he couldn’t fix the set because Sony doesn’t make the necessary parts available.

Cummins called Sony back. This time, he said, a service rep instructed him to Sony’s supplier and confirm that the parts truly were unavailable. Why Sony couldn’t do this itself, neither Cummins nor I can say.

But Cummins chased down the supplier and, indeed, no parts. He called Sony again. A supervisor said the only thing the company could do was offer a 15% discount on a new TV. He said he’d email a coupon.

“I waited a week,” Cummins recalled. “Nothing ever came.”

At this point he remembered something the Precision Television technician had mentioned. The guy said he’d faced this issue in the past and believed the Lemon Law could help.

Cummins checked it out.

of the Lemon Law stipulates that any manufacturer of a TV, stereo, computer or similar electronic device worth at least $100 “shall make available to service and repair facilities … functional parts to effect the repair of a product for at least seven years after the date a product model or type was manufactured.”

It also says spare parts must be available “regardless of whether the seven-year period exceeds the warranty period for the product.”

A spokesman for California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris confirmed to me that “replacement parts for many electronic goods have to be available for up to seven years.”

Cummins called Sony yet again, and this time he was armed for bear. When a service rep indicated that there was nothing to be done, Cummins cited the Song-Beverly Act. Take a good, hard look at Section 1793.03, he said.

The service rep said he’d pass that along to his superiors. The next day, Cummins was informed that he’d be getting a new TV.

There are a number of things here that merit scrutiny. Why did Sony make a customer jump through so many hoops? Why was it the customer’s responsibility to determine the availability of parts? Why did a customer seemingly have to educate the company about its legal responsibility?

A Sony spokesman said he didn’t have enough information to comment on Cummins’ experience.

Norman Taylor, a Glendale attorney, said the Lemon Law offers manufacturers little wiggle room when it comes to repairs.

“The plain meaning of the statute is that they have to provide parts, even though it goes beyond the warranty,” he said. “If they can’t do that, they have to make good some other way.”

To me, the lesson here is that makers of pricey consumer electronics better be flexible if they choose not to have plenty of spare parts on hand. The law isn’t on their side.

And it’s entirely possible that, as Cummins found, you’ll have teach the company about the law. Even some of the attorneys I spoke with were surprised to discover that the Lemon Law addresses replacement parts for out-of-warranty electronics.

Cummins’ advice to others: Don’t give up, even if a company appears to be deliberately throwing obstacles in your path.

“What I learned is that it takes a lot to get something like this done,” he said.

The replacement TV arrived Wednesday. It was broken. There’s a purple line running vertically across the screen.

As of Thursday, Cummins said he was dealing with multiple Sony service reps to get it replaced.

‘ columns runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter . Send your tips or feedback to .

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: Staff Writer

DTI applies Consumer Act, not Lemon Law, in Montero safety probe – Manila Bulletin

The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is applying the Consumer Act, instead of the Lemon Law, in the investigation of the alleged safety issue of Mitsubishi Montero because the Consumer Act authorizes the agency to initiate a product recall on a safety issue.

DTI Undersecretary Victorio Mario Dimagiba, who is scheduled to hold a hearing today where at least seven experts are expected to attend on consumer complaints filed against Mitsubishi Montero for sudden unintended acceleration (SUA), said that Article 10 of the Consumer Act is more applicable in the Montero case than the Lemon Law.DTI logoDTI logo

Article 10 of the law is a provision against injurious, dangerous and unsafe products. It states “Whenever the departments find, by their own initiative or by petition of a consumer, that a consumer product is found to be injurious, unsafe or dangerous, it shall, after due notice and hearing, make the appropriate order for its recall, prohibition or seizure from public sale or distribution: Provided, That, in the sound discretion of the department it may declare a consumer product to be imminently injurious, unsafe or dangerous, and order is immediate recall, ban or seizure from public sale or distribution, in which case, the seller, distributor, manufacturer or producer thereof shall be afforded a hearing within forty-eight (48) hours from such order.

The ban on the sale and distribution of a consumer product adjudged injurious, unsafe or dangerous, or imminently injurious, unsafe or dangerous under the preceding paragraph shall stay in force until such time that its safety can be assured or measures to ensure its safety have been established.”

“The Consumer Act authorizes DTI to initiate recall, there is no such power in the Lemon Law. And we don’t need five SUAs to happen.” he stressed. The Lemon law requires four attempts to repair the defective car before the manufacturer is required to replace the unit. The Consumer Act is more of a preventive mechanism to stop similar incident in the future.

Dimagiba hopes to get good technical knowledge and recommendation from the invited experts on the matter in today’s hearing.

Dimagiba stressed that a hearing is required before DTI can initiate a recall even as he denied reports the agency has already ordered a recall.

DTI data showed a total of 10 consumer complaints filed with the DTI, with 9 of them relating to SUA issue. Except for the two complaints filed this year, all the previous complaints were either dismissed or settled.

Of the ten complaints, 4 were dismissed but complainants decided to file their cases before the court, two were dismissed for insufficient evidence, one was dismissed with comprise agreement by both parties, and 2 complaints are still pending for decision.

One complaint in 2009 was resolved via refund, but this was not an SUA issue, but on the unusual knocking sound in the engine.

Dimagiba explained that settlement of a case by the manufacturer/dealer and consumer is one thing. The big issue, he said, is safety and that is what DTI will investigate.

Drawing similarity to a defective medicine, Dimagiba said, “a defective medicine must be recalled even if you have only one accident of loss of life.”

“The challenge is Mitsubishi is handling the complaint on a case basis. We do not agree with that on the safety issue,” he said.

What DTI would like to establish is the transparency of the entire process.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

2 Investigates: Customers say they were tricked into buying lemon cars – WSB Atlanta

COWETA COUNTY, Ga. —

Channel 2 Action News has learned state regulators are investigating a local car dealer and the resale of several vehicles once branded as lemons.
 
Buyers told Channel 2 consumer investigator Jim Strickland that they had no idea their used car purchased from Southtowne Motors was a former lemon.   
 
“I have spoken personally to 36 consumers who bought lemon cars from this dealer who didn’t know it was a lemon,” said Carrollton consumer attorney Michael Flinn.
 
Each buyer signed the Georgia Lemon Law Notice form, acknowledging they were fully aware the car once had a defect and that the car maker took it back.   
 
The customers say they got duped at the document table.
 
“The documents were all in a stack, and we just went one-by-one and started signing,” said Corvette buyer Avanti Helton.
 
“There’s no doubt you signed it, but you had no clue you did?” Strickland asked Buick buyer Phil Kaufman.  
 
“No. No clue at all,” he said.
 
Flinn says there’s a practice called a five-finger-fold, in which a customers’ sees only the signature line and never gets to read the full closing document.
 
“This is your bill of sale. Sign here. This is your as is statement. Sign here,” said Flinn during a demonstration. “It makes me mad.”  
 
The dealer is angered by Flinn’s accusations.
 
“He is, by making these cases, calling us liars, cheats and thieves.  We’re none of those things,” said Southtowne owner Hal Philipson.
 
Philipson showed Strickland the multiple forms buyers sign that deal with the car’s former lemon status. He contends there would be no way to slip all of them passed a customer.
 
“We are 100 percent sure that we disclose everything we need to these customers,” Strickland said.
 
Since the deals in question, the store has started using big lemon yellow stickers, proclaiming a car a buy-back, as another layer of transparency.   
 
A 2014 Corvette, branded for a faulty dashboard light, will sell for $20,000 below the usual price, said Philipson.
 
“It’s not a lemon,” he proclaimed.
 
Philipson says he’s sold between 500 and 1,000 former lemons over 10 years.  
Many of the cars come from California or Florida, states where even minor problems can get the car branded.
 
Flinn has already sued Southtowne three times.  A Coweta County judge has ruled for the dealership twice, and a third suit is still pending.  
 
Avanti Helton is involved in the latest case.  The Corvette he bought for more than $40,000 appraised at Carmax for $19,000.
 
“They just took $20,000 from me,” said Helton.
 
Philipson vows to buy back any of his former lemons at what he calls a fair market price.  
 
“We love these cars. We think they’re a great value. We think they fill a terrific niche, and we’d love to have ’em back,” said Philipson.
 
State regulators could not release to Strickland every document requested for this story, acknowledging some of them relate to an ongoing investigation of the dealership.
 
“The state says they’re investigating. What do you say about that?” Strickland asked Philipson. 
 
“They’re doing what they’re supposed to do, investigating.  And we know that we’ve done everything right, and they won’t find any fault,” he said.

The Office of Consumer Protection will not comment on its investigation. Flinn plans to appeal the two cases he has already lost. 
 
Flinn advises car buyers, who are not inclined to read each document in its entirety, to at least read the top of every document.
 
The Georgia lemon law form states what the documents represents in bold letters at the top.

There is no question what the customer is buying if this form is part of the deal.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Action Line: When the car turns into a lemon – Fresno Bee

A reader: Last July, I bought a new car. Whenever I drive through the mountains, I have problems with the acceleration. I can press the pedal to the floor and cannot pick up speed. I took it back to the dealer four times, and they say nothing is wrong with the car. Any suggestions?

Action Line: Speak to the dealer and ask for the general manager and explain your dilemma. If that doesn’t do you any good, you can always contact the manufacturer directly. The best contact information can usually be found on the manufacturer’s website. If you still don’t receive satisfaction, contact the BBB and file a complaint online at bbb.org and click on File A Complaint.

You should also check to see if your vehicle falls under the California or federal Lemon Law rules.

According to the California attorney general, “the ‘Lemon Law’ applies to these problems if they arise during the first 18 months after the consumer received delivery of the vehicle or within the first 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first. During the first 18 months or 18,000 miles, the ‘Lemon Law’ presumes that a manufacturer has had a reasonable number of attempts to repair the vehicle if either (1) the same problem results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and the problem has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the problem as provided in the warranty or owner’s manual or (2) the same problem has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the problem as provided in the warranty or owner’s manual or (3) the vehicle is out of service because of the repair of any number of problems by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 days since delivery of the vehicle.”

For more information on Lemon Laws, you can also check out Autopedia at fblinks.com/lemon

If the vehicle falls under the Lemon Law rules, you might be eligible for a BBB program called AutoLine. AutoLine is a great program (did I mention it’s free?) where you sit down with a representative of the manufacturer and present your case to a trained arbitrator. The arbitrator’s decision is binding on both parties so, if the decision is in your favor, the manufacturer has to honor whatever resolution the arbitrator decides is best. Again, this service is free and you can’t argue with that. To contact Autoline call 800-955-5100.

Make sure you keep accurate records and receipts, so you can present a clear story to everyone you contact.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Nation-wide 'lemon law' edges closer – The New Daily

A vocal advocate, who wrecked his faulty car to raise awareness, says buyers deserve better.

A campaign to better protect car buyers from dodgy new vehicles has gained powerful allies, with its most vocal advocate confident that new legal safeguards will eventuate.

On Wednesday morning, the Queensland parliament will begin public hearings into the need for a nation-wide ‘lemon law‘, which could trigger collaboration between attorneys-general in other states.

Consumer advocate Ashton Wood, a victim of a faulty Jeep Cherokee who fought to bring the issue to national attention, will address the inquiry from 10am (AEDT).

‘Hundreds’ unhappy with Jeep, Fiat cars
We’re about to be swamped by Chinese vehicles
VW announce voluntary recall

A ‘lemon law’ is long overdue because Australia has become a “dumping ground for poor quality vehicles because manufacturers think they can get away with it”, Mr Wood told The New Daily before his speech.

“We’ve got sh**loads of cases, so they can no longer deny there’s a problem.”

ashton wood

Qld Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath meets with consumer advocates Ashton Wood, Stewart Lette and Connie Cicchini. Photo: Ashton Wood

Last year, Mr Wood destroyed his Jeep with crowbars, arrows, angle grinders and a 35-tonne excavator to raise awareness.

He compelled the national consumer watchdog, the ACCC, to act against Fiat Chrysler by arranging dozens of other disgruntled buyers to flood the watchdog’s website with complaints.

As a result, the watchdog gave Fiat Chrysler until 11 November to contact affected customers and offer redress. The company is yet to do so, according to Mr Wood, who claims to be in regular contact with many of those affected.

In his speech to the Queensland parliament, the advocate will refer to the recent Volkswagen scandal as further evidence of the need for laws to specifically target dodgy new vehicles.

“I destroyed my Jeep in frustration after three years of ‘lemon’ vehicle ownership, where the manufacturer and dealer wiped their hands of all responsibility and outright refused to replace my faulty vehicle or refund my money,” he will tell the state parliament.

“I discovered that our national consumer law and our local laws and jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed.”

ashton wood jeep

Mr Wood wants the states and territories to band together to better protect buyers. Photo: Ashton Wood

Mr Wood hoped that Qld Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath would band together with attorneys-general in other states to legislate a ‘lemon law’ scheme similar to that which has existed in the US for decades.

“I have been contacted by husbands, wives, mums, dads and even grandparents whose lives have been affected by ‘lemon’ vehicles and who never would have purchased their vehicle had they known about safety, reliability and build quality issues they were about to experience,” he will say.

“With local manufacturing going offshore in the next few years, we need a law that will hold the importer and dealer responsible for the safety and reliability of vehicles to be used on our roads.

“What we need is a law that supports the consumer, and doesn’t leave us out in the cold where the only warmth is by the fire we light under our lemon vehicles.”

A nation-wide ‘lemon law’ would require collaboration, as Australia’s consumer protection scheme is legislated both by the federal parliament and each of the states and territories.

The inquiry will hear from other consumer advocates, legal experts, the RACQ and representatives of the automotive industry.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Exclusive: nation-wide 'lemon law' edges closer – The New Daily

A vocal advocate, who wrecked his faulty car to raise awareness, says buyers deserve better.

A campaign to better protect car buyers from dodgy new vehicles has gained powerful allies, with its most vocal advocate confident that new legal safeguards will eventuate.

On Wednesday morning, the Queensland parliament will begin public hearings into the need for a nation-wide ‘lemon law‘, which could trigger collaboration between attorneys-general in other states.

Consumer advocate Ashton Wood, a victim of a faulty Jeep Cherokee who fought to bring the issue to national attention, will address the inquiry from 10am (AEDT).

‘Hundreds’ unhappy with Jeep, Fiat cars
We’re about to be swamped by Chinese vehicles
VW announce voluntary recall

A ‘lemon law’ is long overdue because Australia has become a “dumping ground for poor quality vehicles because manufacturers think they can get away with it”, Mr Wood told The New Daily before his speech.

“We’ve got sh**loads of cases, so they can no longer deny there’s a problem.”

ashton wood

Mr Wood, in blue, has banded with other disgruntled customers. Photo: Ashton Wood

Last year, Mr Wood destroyed his Jeep with crowbars, arrows, angle grinders and a 35-tonne excavator to raise awareness.

He compelled the national consumer watchdog, the ACCC, to act against Fiat Chrysler by arranging dozens of other disgruntled buyers to flood the watchdog’s website with complaints.

As a result, the watchdog gave Fiat Chrysler until 11 November to contact affected customers and offer redress. The company is yet to do so, according to Mr Wood, who claims to be in regular contact with many of those affected.

In his speech to the Queensland parliament, the advocate will refer to the recent Volkswagen scandal as further evidence of the need for laws to specifically target dodgy new vehicles.

“I destroyed my Jeep in frustration after three years of ‘lemon’ vehicle ownership, where the manufacturer and dealer wiped their hands of all responsibility and outright refused to replace my faulty vehicle or refund my money,” he will tell the state parliament.

“I discovered that our national consumer law and our local laws and jurisdictions are fundamentally flawed.”

ashton wood jeep

Mr Wood wants the states and territories to band together to better protect buyers. Photo: Ashton Wood

Mr Wood hoped that Qld Attorney-General Yvette D’Ath would band together with attorneys-general in other states to legislate a ‘lemon law’ scheme similar to that which has existed in the US for decades.

“I have been contacted by husbands, wives, mums, dads and even grandparents whose lives have been affected by ‘lemon’ vehicles and who never would have purchased their vehicle had they known about safety, reliability and build quality issues they were about to experience,” he will say.

“With local manufacturing going offshore in the next few years, we need a law that will hold the importer and dealer responsible for the safety and reliability of vehicles to be used on our roads.

“What we need is a law that supports the consumer, and doesn’t leave us out in the cold where the only warmth is by the fire we light under our lemon vehicles.”

A nation-wide ‘lemon law’ would require collaboration, as Australia’s consumer protection scheme is legislated both by the federal parliament and each of the states and territories.

The inquiry will hear from other consumer advocates, legal experts, the RACQ and representatives of the automotive industry.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Used car Lemon Law doesn't cover everything – ABC15 Arizona

We get a lot of questions about buying used cars and having problems later.

Tessa from Gilbert spent more than $7000 for her car.

But then she had $3800 in repairs a few days later.

She writes: ” i asked about the 15 days 500 miles on the bottom of the contract and he stated if the car was completely broke down then it may be covered but this was not the case.” 

And it does cover you the earlier of 15 days or 500 miles from when you bought the vehicle.

But it only covers breakdown of a major component.

The question is was it a major component?

You can get answers to questions like these in person, Thursday, October 8th from 6 to 8:30 pm at the Tempe Marketplace.

We’ll not only have car experts, but also attorneys and experts in many other consumer areas.

And you can talk with them one-on-one for free.

Sign up for our monthly scam newsletter. Just put your email in the box on the Let Joe Know homepage.

Need my help? Call the Assistance League of Phoenix volunteers at 1-855-323-1515. You can also send me an email, or a video email where you attach a video explaining the problem.
And you can reach me on twitter or “like” the Let Joe Know Facebook page and tell me about it there.

AND WE NEED YOUR HELP!  If you want to be a volunteer and help other consumers, let me know

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Column: My Shining Moment With the Vermont Lemon Law – Valley News

I’m not sure I should tell this story because nobody will ever want to do business with me again. But I am so proud of Vermont for making it happen that I think it is worth being blacklisted just to get the word out.

I am the only guy I know who used the Vermont Lemon Law and won a brand new car. I may be the only guy I know who used the Vermont Lemon Law, period.

First, let me say that my local dealership, which I will not name, supported me every step of the way. The international manufacturer of the car tried to walk away from the problem.

I had spent a lifetime buying second-hand cars which never cost more than $500 apiece (at one time I owned three $500 junkers and simply left one at my backyard mechanic’s house in South Royalton all the time, and rotated them as each one broke down.) In 2003 at age 58, I was finally able to afford the payments on a new car and I bought a small foreign sports car.

After 800 miles, I noticed in my driver’s side mirror that the rear fender had three index-finger sized ripples in it, almost like a barbecue grill. When I investigated I discovered that although you could see them as ripples, they didn’t actually feel like ripples. It wasn’t exactly an optical illusion, the ripples seemed to be under the clear coat and paint, but not enough to detect by rubbing your hand across the fender.

I wrote the overseas manufacturer a letter mentioning that I was writing after driving the car 825 miles, saying I was very disappointed since this was the first new car I had ever been able to afford, also mentioning that I had purchased the extra bumper-to-bumper 100,000-mile warranty.

They ignored my letter. But — and this is key — I kept a Xerox copy and I also sent the letter certified mail and kept that receipt.

Fast-forward one and a half years to 2004 and 20,000 miles. I’m looking in the same mirror at the same driver’s side rear fender and there are now nine finger-sized ripples, not three. I asked the dealership to notify the manufacturer. The manufacturer said sorry, but there was nothing it could do. That got my goat. It just wasn’t right, so I notified the dealership I would use the Lemon Law and the dealership quietly agreed I was right to do so.

To the Lemon Law court I went.

Vermont didn’t make it easy. I needed certified copies of my sales slip, my warranty, the checks for my first and most recent payments and the bank withdrawal records for those amounts and any correspondence with the manufacturer.

Then Vermont officials said the Lemon Law applies only to mechanical defects; they could not take the case.

But, I protested, your Lemon Law says it applies to “anything that materially affects the (resale) value of the car.” And these ripples mean I can’t resell the car for its true value. Vermont agreed with me, and accepted my case.

Like all courts, this one notified me of the time and place of my hearing, in Montpelier, which turned out to be the coldest day in February 2005 at 9 in the morning. It also reminded me that it was the complainant’s responsibility to make sure the defect could be observed by the judges in person at the time of the hearing.

That meant that I would have to have the car washed the night before and hope that the snowy roads wouldn’t dirty it up again since there would be no time to rewash it at 9 a.m. Luckily, it was so cold that the snow on the roads was not slushy and the car arrived in beautiful, washed condition, ripples showing like an athlete’s six-pack.

The court was convened, and I was sworn in. My dealer’s representative was there with a tie on and the manufacturer’s representative wore a long black overcoat, a black suit and tie and shiny black leather shoes.

In other words, he looked like a city slicker. By contrast, and by design on my part, I wore Timberland boots, a lumberjack checked shirt — and a black necktie to show my respect.

The judges all were knowledgeable car people. One crusty old Vermonter who seemed to be a mechanic himself asked the city-slicker rep, “Do you have any idea how the ripples got on the complainant’s car?” The rep replied, “ Maybe the complainant leaned on the car.”

The crusty judge interrupted and suddenly addressed me in his gravelly voice, “Did you get a driver’s manual with that car?”

“Yes, sir,” I said, a bit intimidated. “Did it say anything about not leaning on the car in that manual?” “No, sir,” I said.

The city-slicker wilted. I secretly felt relieved and momentarily victorious.

The judges adjourned outside in the frigid cold to look at my car. All of them agreed that the nine-pack of ripples could clearly be seen. The gruff judge announced, “You will receive our judgment in the mail two months from now on the 15th of the month” and walked away. The hearing was over and I had no idea how it went, except for that sweet moment of vindication.

I drove back to White River Junction and waited, not feeling so confident any more.

Exactly two months later on the 15th of the month, an official letter arrived in the mailbox. It said the judges “rule in favor of the complainant.” Since the manufacturer did not answer the certified letter sent after only 825 miles had been driven on the car, the judgment was backed up to that odometer reading and I was awarded “either the full purchase price or a new car of equal value.”

I took the new car.

I have told this story only to a few people in the last 10 years, and it’s time to get that story out — of how proud I am that Vermont stood up for the little guy.

If I could write my own obituary, I would want the headline to read: “Won a new car with the Vermont Lemon Law in 2005.”

I’m counting on another Vermont law to make me proud: Death with Dignity. Maddeningly to this writer, I won’t have the last word on my experience with that.

Paul Keane lives in Hartford.

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by:

Lemberg Lemon Index Names 2014 Model Year Vehicles Most Likely to Have Defects – Midland Daily News

The Lemberg Lemon Index (LLI) was released today, identifying the six vehicles most likely to be model 2014 lemons.


Stamford, CT (PRWEB) September 16, 2015

The Lemberg Lemon Index (LLI) was released today, identifying the six vehicles most likely to be model 2014 lemons. The Lemberg Lemon Index can be found here: http://www.lemonjustice.com/i/lemberg-lemon-index-2014/

According to Sergei Lemberg, lemon law attorney and principal of Lemberg Law, the LLI is based on information extracted from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) database.

“The database includes consumer complaints, defect investigations, manufacturer technical service bulletins, and recall campaigns,” Lemberg said. “We cross-referenced the number of vehicles sold and the NHTSA data to develop an index to determine which makes and models of vehicles are most likely to be lemons.”

Lemberg noted that the LLI methodology first involved determining the ratio of NHTSA complaints to the number of units sold.

“We considered the 2014 passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs that were among the 280 top-selling vehicles in the U.S., and that sold more than 10,000 units,” he said.

Next, vehicles were scored according to the number of Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs) issued for each model.

“TSBs issued by the manufacturer can serve to alert dealerships to defects, meaning that cars can be repaired prior to the consumer lodging a complaint,” Lemberg said. Because TSBs are unrelated to the number of units sold and because the NHTSA underrepresents the number of consumer complaints, the Lemberg Lemon Index weights TSBs more heavily than consumer complaints.

“To determine overall which 2014 vehicles were most likely to be lemons, we compared the consumer complaint index, the TSB index, and the LLI index,” said Lemberg. “There are six models that appear on all three lists, and are thus most likely to be lemons.”

Lemberg noted that, given the sheer number of components of modern vehicles, defects are bound to happen.

“Buying a car is the second biggest expenditure most people will make, after buying a house,” he said. “The government has a duty to alert consumers to defects, and car manufacturers must be held accountable when defects aren’t repaired.”

About Lemberg Law

The attorneys at Lemberg Law represent consumers in lemon law, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, among others. Sergei Lemberg can brief you about state lemon laws and remedies available to consumers who have defective vehicles.

For more information, contact:

Sergei Lemberg, Esq.

Lemberg Law

http://www.LemonJustice.com

For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/sergei_lemberg/lemon_law/prweb12963022.htm

This article was not written by Michigan Lemon Law.
View Original Article
Written by: