After his second (2) unsuccessful repair attempt, the owner of a defective 2014 Chevrolet Traverse contacted our law offices for advice and to retain our firm. He told us his vehicle had several manufacturing non-comformities affecting the engine and safety systems. The engine would periodically lose power; the check engine, traction control and airbag warning lights would remain on; and the passenger front safety belt anchor and restraint system were defective.

We analyzed our client’s potential lemon law case by reviewing the repair orders and lease contract, and determined that he had a valid claim to have the vehicle bought back. Shortly after filing our demand, GM agreed to repurchase the 2014 Chevrolet Traverse, pay off the balance of the lease and reimburse our client for his down payment and monthly payments. GM also paid our client’s attorney’s fees. The only cost was a usage fee as allowed under the California Lemon Law.

Our client could not have been happier to get rid of the dangerous vehicle and be reimbursed for the monies he had paid.

Two months after purchasing a 2014 Ford Escape in January 2015, the owner was returning to her Ford dealership for the first repair opportunity. She subsequently provided Ford three (3) more chances to repair her Escape, which kept her vehicle out of service more than 71days.

The vehicle had several manufacturing non-conformities that caused loss of power and stalling under normal operating conditions. The engines long block assembly had been repaired several times, the Power Control Module (PCM) had been replaced and the check engine light was always on. The vehicle would also frequently go into “Limp Home Mode” and not exceed 40 mph.

After trying unsuccessfully to have these defects repaired until June 11, 2015 , the owner of the Escape contacted the Law Offices of Delsack & Assoc., P.C. for help. Within a short time our firm was able to negotiate a repurchase of the defective vehicle. Our client was reimbursed for her down payment, monthly payments, and registration; less only the mileage deduction allowed under California ‘s lemon law. Ford additionally paid her purchase balance in full and all attorney’s fees. Our client was delighted with the outcome.

The owner of a 2014 Chevrolet Corvette, purchased in November 2013, returned to her GM dealership in April 2016 when she first started having trouble with her car. She subsequently provided her dealer six (6) more repair opportunities before she called us for help.

When she contacted the Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C., she told us her vehicle was experiencing a phenomenon called “Tire Hop”, a problem caused by imperfect steering geometry and sticky tires. She told us it caused a chattering noise from the rear of the car and the tires would slip when turning at low speed and tight steering angles. In addition, the drivers window, radio, cooling system, and fueling system were defective and the instrument panel would black out under normal operating conditions.

After trying unsuccessfully to have these defects repaired until December 10, 2015, our client retained us to represent her in her demand for repurchase of the vehicle under the California lemon laws. Within a short time our firm was able to negotiate a repurchase of the defective vehicle. GM also paid off her lien holder and paid for her attorney’s fees. Our client was delighted with the outcome and happy to be rid of her dangerous car.

Don’t let problems affect the safety of your vehicle. If you have had three (3) or more repair attempts for the same or similar substantial problem, two (2) repair attempts for a safety related problem, or your vehicle has been out of service in the hands of an authorized dealer for more than 30 days during the first 18 months or 18,000 miles, it could be a lemon.

The owner of a leased 2014 Cadillac CTS gave his GM dealer more than twelve (12) repair opportunities before he decided to call the Law Offices Of Delsack & Associates, P.C. for advice. He told us the engine, transmission and suspension were defective and there had been numerous repairs on the rear differential and axle. The CTS had also been recalled for a defective fuel flow control module, a problem common to many GM models.

Within a few short weeks of retaining our services, we were able to negotiate a repurchase of the defective vehicle and recover his down payment, monthly payments, and registration; less the mileage deduction fee allowed under the California Lemon Law. GM also paid the lease balance in full and our attorney’s fees. Needless to say our client was thrilled to be rid of his defective 2014 Cadillac CTS and get his money back. Continue reading

Ford is issuing a safety compliance recall for approximately 32,000 2016-2017 Ford Edge, 2016-2017 Lincoln MKX and 2017 Lincoln Continental vehicles to replace Takata driver frontal airbag modules. According to the recall report, the affected vehicles have airbags that may not completely fill or the airbag cushion could detach during deployment. This problem is not related to Takata’s recall for airbags that can experience propellant degradation resulting in a potential rupture, but the results can be just as dangerous.

Owners will be asked to return to their dealer to have the driver frontal air bag module replaced. Because parts are not currently available safety recall will be sent out in March 2017 and a second notice will be sent when parts are available. For more information about the problem owners are asked to contact Ford customer service at 1-866-436-7332. Ford’s number for this recall is 17C02 and the NHTSA campaign number is 17V-123.

The owners of certain Ford Fiesta and Focus cars have been receiving notices regarding an extended warranty coverage on their Dual Power Shift (DPS6) transmissions. The extension gives owners a 10 year or 150,000 mile warranty on the vehicles transmission control module (TCM). This customer satisfaction program (14M02) affects certain 2011-2015 Fiesta and 2012-2015 Focus vehicles, although owners of 2016 models have received notices as well

The Problem: There is no denying that Fords DPS6 transmissions has problems. Intermittent loss of engagement while driving, lack of power and a no-start condition are common complaints, but the problems are amplified by driver expectations. Ford calls their DPS6 an automatic, when in reality, it is a manual transmission that shifts automatically. Owner expecting it to behave in the same manner as a regular automatic transmission have resulted in an even larger number of consumer complaints. Continue reading

The Law Offices Of Delsack & Associates, P.C. were contacted by the owner of a 2013 Jeep Wrangler 4DR who was experiencing repeated problems with her vehicle.  She told us she had her Wrangler in for repairs on seven (7) different occasions for a defective axle; suspension and drive shaft; recall for transmission oil cooler tube; and loud clicking and clunking sounds.

After reviewing the repair orders and purchase contract, we determined that the 2013 Jeep Wrangler was a lemon and the owner qualified for protection under the California Lemon Law.  A short period after filing our demand to repurchase the defective vehicle, Fiat Chrysler agreed to a buyback.  They paid the balance of the purchase and reimbursed our client for the down payment and monthly payments, less the mileage fee allowed under the California Lemon Law.  FCA also paid all attorney’s fees. Continue reading

The Center for Auto Safety along with five other consumer and safety groups have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over its recent decision to permit dealerships to advertise a vehicle as Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) despite having open recalls. The FTC reached an agreement last year with General Motors and two other dealerships, allowing them to advertise automobiles as “certified pre-owned” even though they might have an issue related to a safety recall that still needs to be fixed. The agency did require the companies to disclose any uncompleted safety recalls to the buyer.

The groups suing the FTC say that dealerships could previously sell vehicles with dangerous, unaddressed safety recalls, but allowing them to designate them as CPO will permit unscrupulous auto dealers to engage in false and deceptive advertising about the safety of the vehicles they are selling.