Getting ‘Lemon’ Aid Can Leave Some Buyers Bitter

California has one of the toughest auto “lemon” laws in the country, according to many consumer advocates. But if our mail is any indication, some motorists continue to have trouble persuading auto makers and dealers to replace or buy back defective vehicles that appear to qualify under terms of the law.

Consider the case of Tamikaco Brightwell and her 2000 Chevrolet Impala. She was one of nearly a dozen readers who wrote after our column of Aug. 1 (“ ‘Lemon’ Law Court Ruling Sweet News for Motorists”) to describe their efforts to get the law to work for them.

Brightwell, 38, of East Rancho Dominguez, said her car had been stalling unexpectedly since mid-July, nearly causing at least three accidents.

“I was afraid to drive the car. I didn’t feel comfortable taking my children in it,” said Brightwell, whose youngsters are 3, 9 and 13.

She said she took the vehicle to her dealership, S&J; Chevrolet in Cerritos, three times to attempt to have the problem diagnosed, only to be told that the mechanics could not replicate the problem so they couldn’t solve it.

“One time they told me it was fixed. I took the car home and the next day it died out on the freeway. . . . I was a nervous wreck driving that car.”

Under California’s lemon law, auto makers have two attempts to repair life-threatening defects in a vehicle. After a second unsuccessful repair attempt, the car or truck in question must officially be branded a lemon, obligating the manufacturer to replace it or refund the owner’s money. (Auto makers have four attempts to fix non-life-threatening defects.)

Generally, drivers have 18 months or 18,000 miles to make a lemon-law claim. But an owner of a defective vehicle also can bring a claim at any time for a qualifying problem that arises within the vehicle’s warranty period, said San Diego attorney Mike Lindsey, who specializes in lemon-law cases.

Brightwell figured that her Impala qualified: The car was still under warranty, she said; she bought it in 1999 and it had about 33,000 miles on the odometer when the stalling began.

She asked the dealership and General Motors Corp. to replace the vehicle after those early attempts to fix it were unsuccessful, telephoning and writing repeatedly, she said. Despite her efforts, she said, GM ignored her pleas.

“I got no answers from the manufacturer. . . . I think they just wanted to slip it under the rug,” she said.

*

The fourth and last time Brightwell took the Impala in for stalling was Aug. 6. When she got the car back, she said, the dealership assured her it had been fixed.

But because of her previous experiences, Brightwell still feared that the car would stall again so she stopped driving it to work. She said she only felt comfortable driving it a few blocks to catch the train to downtown Los Angeles, where she works as a receptionist at a law firm. Meanwhile, she said, GM continued to ignore her requests.

That changed on Aug. 23, the day after I called the dealership and GM for information on Brightwell’s request for recourse under the lemon law.

A GM representative notified Brightwell that the company would negotiate a buyback and put her in a new vehicle.

Brightwell said a GM regional manager apologized to her for not having reacted faster to her request for a resolution. And company spokesman Jay Cooney confirmed that the manufacturer was working to resolve Brightwell’s case.

Cooney said that although claims such as hers are “viable,” other consumers try to use the lemon law just to get another vehicle. Determining whether a car is defective can be difficult if mechanics can’t duplicate the problem, he said.

Brightwell said she’ll be relieved when she is finally rid of her car. What continues to annoy her is how difficult it was to get the manufacturer’s attention.

As of Tuesday, Brightwell said, she was again driving the Impala while waiting to hear from GM on final terms of the buyback. The car stalled twice when she drove her children to school and went to work, she said.

“It’s very frustrating because when I went in there to purchase the car, they were more than happy to take my down payment and they were more than happy to put me in a new car,” she said. “But when I come to them because of a problem, they act like I’m lying.”

*

“People get frustrated contacting the manufacturer and hoping they will . . . do the right thing under the law,” said Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, a Sacramento-based advocacy group.

Although California has one of the strictest auto lemon laws in the country, Shahan said, her group has received many complaints from drivers who say they continue to be stonewalled by auto makers.

Shahan urges drivers to notify the auto maker as soon as they believe their vehicles have defects that may fall under the lemon law. She suggests sending a letter by certified mail to the address listed in the vehicle owner’s manual, as well as copies to the California Department of Consumer Affairs, the state attorney general’s office and the driver’s state legislator.

The next step is to apply for arbitration if the auto maker offers that process. If that fails, Shahan said, the driver may need to hire an attorney who has experience in lemon-law cases.

*

Jeanne Wright cannot answer mail personally but responds in this column to automotive questions of general interest. Write to Your Wheels, Business Section, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. E-mail: jeanrite@aol.com.