Our client bought a 2014 Tesla Model S and was thrilled.

Their first visit for servicing was on December 7, 2017. There was a 12 volt alert present. The headlights were aimed too high and would not adjust. The windshield washer jets were misaligned. The firmware was not installing. The A/C was not working. The vehicle would not charge with the customer’s cable. The vehicle was pulling slightly to the right. Car uses more energy on short drives than the range estimates.

The next visit was on December 11th as the floor mats were folding over.

The Tesla was brought in again on March 8, 2018 because the universal mobile connector would not light up and the vehicle would not charge. Key FOB is not recognized when inside the vehicle. The charge port door will not open with touchscreen or charge cable. The exterior door handle is poorly aligned.

April 10th the vehicle was back for servicing because there was no sound coming from the speakers. There was a problem with the windows not rolling up all the way.

It was back for service on April 24th because the charge port was not functioning.

September 6th it was back for servicing due to the fact that the charge port door would not stay closed and the light does not illuminate when charging. Per bulletin need to replace the bolts in steering rack housing. There was a humming sound coming from the front of the vehicle.

The next visit was on September 17th because the humming sound was still coming from the front of the vehicle. When the parking sensor was pushed in there was a problem. The alert was on for car needs service and the steering assist was reduced. The charge port door magnet was detached from the charge port.

The last visit was on December 10th as the vehicle was towed in for “power reduced” alert.

At this point our client was frustrated and contacted our firm to see what the attorney thought about his Tesla being a lemon.

We filed a demand letter with Tesla that they repurchase his defective vehicle under the California Lemon Law. They agreed to repurchase the vehicle, pay off the balance, reimburse him for any down payment and payments made, pay off the balance less a mileage fee allowed under the California Lemon Law.

Our client was very happy with the buyback of his vehicle. If you think you might be driving a lemon please contact The Law Office of Barry L. Edzant at 888-395-3666 for a free consultation.

The owner of a 2013 Ford Fiesta contacted the Law Offices Of Delsack & Associates P.C. after repeated complaints and three (3) repair attempts at her Ford dealer. She told us she suspected her transmission was defective as it would slip, shudder and hesitate while driving and she questioned whether her vehicle was eligible for a buyback under the California Lemon Law. After analyzing her case by reviewing the repair orders and purchase contract, we determined that she had a valid claim to have the vehicle repurchased.

A short time after filing our demand, Ford agreed to buy back the 2013 Fiesta. They paid our clients purchase balance, reimburse her down payment and monthly payments, and paid her attorney’s fees. Ford was allowed to deduct a usage fee as allowed under the California Lemon Law.

Our client was thrilled to get rid of her dangerous vehicle and be reimbursed for the monies she had paid.

Shortly after purchasing a 2014 Fiat 500L in June 2014, the owner was returning to her dealership with car problems. She subsequently provided FCA eight (8) more repair opportunities that kept her vehicle out of service for over 90 days. When she contacted the Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C. she told us her vehicle had numerous problems which included:

  • The transmission, electrical and ignition system were defective;
  • Both the body control module and power train control module had been replaced;
  • The check engine light always remained on;
  • There was a burning smell from the engine;
  • The vehicle had been recalled for a drivers side knee airbags that may not deploy properly; and
  • The vehicle had been recalled for a transmission that was slow to shift or wouldn’t shift at all.

After trying unsuccessfully to have these defects repaired until March 28, 2016 , our client retained us to represent her in her demand for a buyback. 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. FCA additionally paid her purchase balance in full and her attorney’s fees. The manufacturer was allowed to deduct a usage fee as allowed under the California Lemon Law, but the amount was minimal. Our client was thrilled with the outcome and happy to be rid of her defective Fiat 500L.

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 Law Offices of Delsack & Associates recently helped the owner of a 2015 Jeep Wrangler obtain a buyback from Fiat Chrysler, after she started experiencing problems affecting the engine and cooling system. The vehicle had two (2) unsuccessful repair attempts and was out of service for over 30 days when she decided to contact us for advice. She told us she repeatedly complained to the dealership about the problems, but the Wrangler was still not repaired. Continue reading

As an owner of a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, you may have experienced repeated problems with your vehicle. The 2014 model year currently has nine recalls issued against it, and with over 650 complaints, the manufacturer continues to investigate problems.

One of the most recent and well known safety issues affecting the Grand Cherokee is security vulnerabilities that allow an unauthorized third party to access the vehicle control systems. Although Fiat Chrysler say that the defect is not a safety problem, they continue to conduct a remedial campaign in the interest of protecting its customers. Continue reading

The owner of a 2013 Land Rover RR Sport, leased in September 2012, was returning to his dealership for repairs less than a month after purchasing his vehicle. After nine (9) unsuccessful repair attempts he contacted the Law Offices of Delsack & Associates, P.C. for advice and to represent him in his demand to have Land Rover repurchase the vehicle. Continue reading

If you are the owner of a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, you are probably aware of the repeated problems experienced by many drivers. With over four hundred complaints and eight recalls, this model year Grand Cherokee has gained a reputation as a lemon vehicle. Airbag, electrical, electronic stability control (ECS), vehicle speed control, and brake problems have been blamed for unsafe driving conditions and accidents on several occasions. Continue reading