I understand that since you were in management, you probably don't see how small errors in judgement (typically by techs or service writers) create the slow motion train wreck that way too many people experience. In fact, that is entirely consistent with the majority of managers. I'm not declaring the system broken, I'm declaring it barely functional. Very few people return to the dealership once their warranty expires, and almost everyone dreads a trip to the dealer, warranty or not.
Logically, I know that I shouldn't be surprised that after as many posts of mine (I know you have read), you would imply I don't have any service experience. But, since that kind of thing is also entirely consistent with auto managers, ill just accept that for you, figuring these kinds of things out, is like solving a rubiks cube in a dark room.
I will keep in mind that you are sitting on some risk capital though ...

 

Here is the problem with your analysis that you do not account for. More than 90% of the service events produce a completely satisfied customer response. More than 50% of the Corvette customers continue to have their cars serviced at a Chevrolet dealership after the warranty expires. Far from a "barely functional" situation. Once you find a little more life experience "Grasshopper" even you too could become enlightened.

 

There are so many problems with your statement I don't even know where to start. I suppose I should start at the beginning. Who does the polling for customer satisfaction ? The dealership ? lol. The manufacturer ? Or an unrelated third party without any conflict of interest with the results ...

 

Sorry for your misfortune. Understanding all the rigamarole when stuff happens, as a minimum, IMO, the dealership should offer you a loaner for the time your car is down.

It's not like you bought a $12K "LS Spark Hatchback".

 

 

If you are going to restructure the entire service industry in your own plan, you should probably know the simple stuff. Look it up.

 

I read what you reference. Every state has a similar law regulating the activities of dealers, manufacturers, etc within their state. Every new car dealer would be a license holder in some state. There is no mention of exclusivity of Texas dealers and the OP was the purchaser and person causing title to be issued in Texas.

I am not sure we have yet discovered the absolute answer. All Lemon Law cases in all states that have such a statute are in fact against the manufacturer...not the dealer. GM is obviously licensed to do business in Texas, we have a car registered in Texas, and we have a resident of Texas owning the car. Still a great question.

 

I do know the simple stuff, I just wanted you to say it, you were wise not to.

 

I found the following stipulation to be very interesting.

"The 30 days described by Subsection (a)(3) do not include any period during which the manufacturer or distributor lends the owner a comparable motor vehicle while the owner's vehicle is being repaired by a franchised dealer".

Maybe that's why I had heard Tx lemon law was so difficult to utilize.

 

 

And that is why I posted the info above about the Mississippi owner who bought from our vendor dealer, Kerbeck,* and had to pursue his lemon law course of action IN NEW JERSEY. And Dave at Kerbeck was quite helpful to him, as were other dealers who serviced the car to provide info to GM to fill out the history trail of the car.

* Post 29

 

Now that appears to be pretty definitive. Thanks for the work. You would need to be out of your mind to go out of state if you knew this ahead of time. Can you imagine trying to hire a lawyer and go through the process living thousand of mile away from the jurisdiction?

 

Since you know, why don’t you tell us the name of the firm?

 

mary.barra@gm.com

My advise, find a consultant. I am in the middle of a negotiation and probable litigation with the insurer.

Our 2105 was wrecked, long story short, it took 135 days to repair. After we got it back, I hired a consultant to produce a diminished value report. It is unbelievable what your (our) rights are and how little we all know about them.

We were sent a check by the insured for 4050.00 for "loss of use." My consultant instructed me to keep the check, don't cash or deposit. He is going to ask for 150.00 daily. He produced data showing it isn't possible to rent a Vette for any less than that. There are no limits to loss of use (in Arizona).

His diminished value report is essentially 30 percent of the retail value of the vehicle.

Point being, don't allow a large corporation bully you into submission.

I provided you Mary Barra's email. I went down that rabbit hole, I was given an "Executive file" or whatever they call it. They were really no help. They did offer up a months payment. I told them we paid cash. I was told, if I offer proof that I bought the car and still own it, they would still make the "value of one payment" in a check. I told them to keep it if thats all they are willing to do for a loyal customer who has been without their car for 135 days. I was then offered 1000.00 certificate for "accessories."

My response was "since I'm not planning on being a Corvette owner any more, keep that as well"

Sour Grapes? Probably...135 days, think about that one.

I cannot imaging NOT using a consultant now. 400.00 FLAT FEE.

To add; He reviewed the repair bill in detail. He discovered that the GM dealer used an aftermarket radiator and a/c condenser. He visually inspected to verify this. They are replacing them both with GM original parts. CONSULTANT!!!

They also did not perform a 4 wheel alignment...CONSULTANT!!!

 

Mostly because I asked you to do it, and partially because I've lost interest in this discussion with you.
Apparently, you believe that when someone like the OP is getting hosed by the system, the proper response is lemon law. I believe he shouldn't be getting hosed by the system. Big difference.

 

Not necessarily good advice. The car was purchased in NJ and is governed by the NJ lemon laws Other than getting a lawyer. Trying to negotiate with a professional at GM against you as not is a losing situation. Some people say once you get a lawyer you have lost. That is simply not true

 

 

I'm pretty sure you would be under the NJ lemon law since that is where it was purchased and you would have to use a lawyer that handles NJ (I know a good one if you need it). If they buy back the car, you would have to return it to the selling dealer.

 

it's covered under NJ lemon law.

 

Agree, and that's likely a blessing. The NJ lemon law is more than likely a lot more generous than Texas.