Karen Bass re Hyundai
to Sale of Property
Los Angeles Rent Control
LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts
the Law Firm
shoot to kill
the car owner
What if you go to a Hyundai dealer.
You are told that even if you buy the car, a dealer will refuse you warranty inspection and service.
You are told that this is corporate policy no matter what the federal warranty law says, and that if you try to get service, Hyundai corporate has instructed the dealer to call out the police to threaten you and if necessary SHOOT TO KILL if you try to get your vehicle inspected.
This is told to you by no less than six Hyundai Motor America officials.
Knowing this, would you buy a Hyundai?
Hyundai Accent 2013 Consumer Report Update Part 1 of 7
Hyundai Accent 2013 Consumer Report Update Part 7 of 7
Hyundai Motor America and Race
Hyundai and Kia Overstated Gas Mileage
2013 Accent SE Hyundai Consumer Report
"Gestapo Hitleristic Brutality"
[Excerpt from a letter to Hyundai CEO John Krafcik and also received by the Better Business Bureau Autoline December 25 2012.]
Hyundai's Lorraine Bonneau
1. I have read the Dec 17 - 20 2012 response from Lorraine Bonneau who alleges to be from Hyundai Consumer Affairs.
2. I disagree with the Bonneau assertions as they are without merit.
3. Bonneau claims I would not be entitled to equitable relief requested; this is incorrect. Page 5 of the dispute BBB dispute resolution handbook states, "legal and equitable factors the arbitrator will take into account" and "the arbitrator will take into account all legal and equitable factors...." which includes the FTC, the California Health and Safety Code, the California Code of Regulations (sic) and "any other equitable considerations appropriate in the circumstances". Since the handbook clearly mentions equitable relief, I am certainly within my rights to ask for it. The handbook does not state with any specificity that the relief I have requested would be prohibited. Therefore Bonneau should be disregarded on this issue.
"equitable considerations appropriate in the circumstances"
4. Bonneau claims that my Complaint is making allegations that fall out side the program's parameters. Bonneau gives no proof of what those parameters might be. Again I quote from page 5 of the BBB handbook, "legal and equitable factors the arbitrator will take into account" and "the arbitrator will take into account all legal and equitable factors...." which includes the FTC, the California Health and Safety Code, the California Code of Regulations (sic) and "any other equitable considerations appropriate in the circumstances". Therefore Bonneau should be disregarded on this issue.
5. Bonneau states, "the customer's claim has been resolved by a small claims action court action (the customer was awarded a monetary award, the matter was dismissed with prejudice, and no injunctive relief was granted)."
Let's examine this for a second. The BBB handbook says, "If you and the manufacturer representative agree to a settlement, please inform ...as soon as possible." So the arbitrator could proceed with the arbitrator if a settlement had NOT been reached. As I have filed this Complaint, obviously there has been no settlement with the manufacturer. Bonneau should be disregarded on this issue. The arbitrator is free to proceed.
For the sake of argument, however, let's examine the time frame of the court action. As regards Hyundai Motor America, the court action ended November 19 when HMA was dismissed from the Complaint. So any actions of mine against HMA that could not be presented to the court jurisdiction, or have arisen after November 19, are ripe for the BBB arbitrator. Equitable relief, failure to inspect the car, poor gas mileage, engine performance, are all CURRENT problems with the vehicle and fall under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. As the Complaint to BBB states, "No inspection of the vehicle has occurred to date."
"there has been no settlement with the manufacturer"
HMA omits that it along with the dealer was charged with "failure to provide warranty service and constitutional public accommodation" "did not honor rights" "no anti-discrmination policy". It is relevant to know that the court in large measure agreed with these claims and found the dealer liable. However I have not yet actually received the judgment monies from the dealer. The court dismissed the claim with prejudice against the service manager and HMA. While no check has been tendered by the dealer, HMA has since tendered a check presumably because they feel liable. But those monies have not been received by me either. No settlement has occurred.
After November 19, and as of the December 11 BBB Complaint, the warranty problems with my vehicle remain ripe for the arbitrator and are not under the jurisdiction of any court regarding HMA.
To recall in short, on August 18 to today I was denied warranty service at HMA authorized dealer, LA Hyundai at LAX, 970 Manchester Avenue, Inglewood California. The police were called and ordered myself and my 2013 Hyundai Accent off the lot, in violation of my rights under the California Unruh Act. The car was never inspected.
On August 18 HMA employee Don Qumby said that he had read my file and that "you are a problem."
Before I could leave the lot, the police called over service manager Francis Melodia who told me if I-I- ever came back to the lot the police would be called again.
As of this date I have made numerous requests for the police report in this matter to ascertain what the authorized dealer told the police, and its affect on the warranty agreement, but the report has not been forwarded to me and such request is pending. On October 26 2012 Frances Melodia, Donald Qumby, and Jeffrey Phillips said that my car had never been on the lot [this is untrue] and that the warranty does not start until a warranty part is replaced [this is also untrue]. All three indicated they did not now how I could demand warranty service; this is another untrue statement, and a pending problem.
I need to know at which authorized Hyundai dealership by name address and phone that my United States Constitutional Rights will not be violated, and my vehicle warranty rights will be honored, without police Gestapo Hitleristic brutality thru a local police agency, which the dealership supports.
All rights and remedies are reserved and this letter is not intended in any way as a waiver of any and all rights under law, in lieu of the fact that I currently cannot take this vehicle to any authorized dealership in that I may be subject to an unlawful arrest due to certain dealership computer code additions to my warranty record, libeling, labeling, and designating me as a troublemaker based on my race, African American.
[redacted- from African American car owner]
[Bold Caps subheadings do not appear in the original documents.]
[Editor Note: I would not use the Better Business Bureau Autoline because they are paid for by certain auto manufacturers so they are biased in that regard. Like a shell game. The problem is that the federal law requires that you first seek help from the BBB before fling suit in court. So do your legal research.]
"NHTSA needs to order safety
and customer service training
of all Hyundai dealers"
Posted on safercar.gov
Site of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Hyundai Accent 2010 4 Door
The Vibration Remains
"August 2011 purchased 2010 Hyundai Accent auto. 4 door sedan. VIN [redacted] As previously reported to the NHTSA, in March 2012 a Better Business Bureau arbitrator ruled that the car had suffered manufacturer defect transmission mounts. The dealer did replace the two mounts which substantially reduced a front end and passenger compartment vibration and shaking. Some vibration remained; I took the car back to the dealer.
At two dealers I was told by about six Hyundai employees that the remaining vibration was "normal". But I went for another inspection, the mechanic noted the vibration and said it was normal. But thirty minutes later, the service dealer wrote vibration "cannot be duplicated".
Witnesses to the vibration
So the arbitrator and Hyundai corporate consultant Jim Worell in writing witnessed the constant vibration and made such ruling AFTER Hyundai dealer said "could not be duplicated."
October 2012 Hyundai's Donald Quimby, Frances Melodia, and Jeffrey Philips said vibration had been fixed; this was not true. The defective mounts need to be the subject of recall for the safety of other Hyundai owners.
THE 2013 ACCENT. Purchased August 2012. The owner manual says check for vibration in the steering wheel; and have loose bolts checked at 15,000 miles. By online appointment I asked the dealer: "engine idle is erratic, not smooth, please adjust; with air conditioning running, car idling in park, vibration felt thru steering wheel, please adjust; when put in gear, engine moves, please adjust motor mounts." LA Hyundai at LAX cancelled the appointment and with corporate Jeffrey Phillips refused to inspect the vehicle August 15 in person on. See site http://youtu.be/ZAKLZ5_rRWI .
Hyundai says free inspection of safety components; I was denied all warranty inspection including mechanical inspection. NHTSA needs to order safety and customer service training of all Hyundai dealers."
Hyundai Accent 2013 5 Door
Play in Motor Mounts
[Emphasis Headings Added.]
Liable and Guilty
FOR MEDIA RELEASE
Judge John L. Mason ruled Nov 19 that L.A. Hyundai at LAX engaged in "concerted failure to provide warranty service and constitutional public accommodation; no anti-discrimination policy" and dealer "did not honor rights" of car owner. Hyundai refused to fix a constant vibration in a 2010 Accent and denied warranty inspection August 18, 2012 for a 2013 Accent.
Hyundai never fixed the vibration.
The plaintiff was awarded $724.00. Los Angeles Superior Court Inglewood Small Claims case 12S01314.
An Inglewood California Hyundai dealer has been found liable for damages by a Los Angeles court.
On November 19 2012 Small Claims Court Judge John L. Mason ruled that L.A. Hyundai at LAX had engaged in a "concerted failure to provide warranty service and constitutional public accommodation; no anti-discrimination policy" and LA Hyundai at LAX "did not honor rights" of plaintiff and car owner. The plaintiff was denied warranty inspection on August 18, 2012. Case number 12S01314.
While the court did not hold service manager Frances Melodia and Hyundai Motor America liable, L.A. Hyundai at LAX is an auto dealer whose actions are authorized by Hyundai Motor America.
At the October 26, 2012 court hearing, of which there was no transcript, the plaintiff said that Hyundai Motor America's Jeffrey Phillips incorrectly said he the owner had not brought his car onto the lot [video and pictures show the car on the lot August 18], Don Quimby said warranty service was not denied [but video shows Quimby telling the owner the car would not be inspected], and service manager Melodia said the owner should take the car to the servicing dealer, which contradicts the warranty which says car owners can go to any authorized dealer.
Still pending is the damage claim against the Inglewood Police department.
Quimby, at the October 26 hearing, according to the plaintiff, said that he had received an irate phone call from the car owner after his online appointment was denied. Quimby said the voicemail was laced with expletives that "children should not hear". Quimby did not explain why he would want a child to listen to a voicemail intended for an adult.
[These days the kids seem to know how to curse worse than adults.]
Quimby also complained that the plaintiff had put the Hyundai problem onto youtube videos.
[And so have hundreds of other car owners!]
Copies of the original small claims complaint are available. The plaintiff was awarded $724.00 in damages.
Government Told of Discrimination
by Hyundai Motor America and Police
[See article above]
Yahoo Auto told of
[See article below]
press on link above
order you arrested
if you complain
2013 Hyundai Accent SE 5 Door
"Bought Aug 2011 used 2010 Accent automatic with only 40,000 miles . After I complained of vehicle vibration [a known problem to Hyundai] dealer and manufacturer replaced two transmission mounts as defective but refused to fix remaining erratic idle and passenger area vibration at idle and would not replace upper engine mount.
Non-Hyundai mechanics said the vibration caused by defective upper engine mount. The Better Business Bureau and Hyundai consultant verified the vibration was still there but Hyundai still refused to fix it. Even though they refused to fix MY vehicle still under warranty, I believed a newspaper article that said Hyundai engineers had worked hard on other models to fix the vibration and other suspension problems so I traded the 2010 dog in August 2012 for 2013 Accent SE 5-door, perhaps thinking lightning cannot strike twice in the same spot.
Only have car now about 1000 miles and 2 months and seems to be too much play in motor mounts, vibration in steering wheel with compressor on, erratic idle, rough ride and bouncy floating suspension, and other small items, but vibration in passenger area 90% gone.
Fuel economy not as advertised. But when I took car in person for inspection after contacting most conveniently located dealer [not selling dealer] and manufacturer , three employees including owner and service manager would not inspect the car , we got into a shouting match, and they called police to remove me and car from the lot. See youtube site legaladvocate71 for videos and site attorney-ethics-elderly-abuse.com.
Police arrived and ordered me off the lot. Still have not gotten inspection. The car is likeable but Hyundai does not back their cars and will lie, retaliate, and threaten you with arrest if you seek service. This is a horrible auto buying experience. This does not include what happened at the selling dealer.
Without availability of warranty service, the car is worthless now and forever in all areas."
[as seen on Yahoo Auto Nov 1 2012]
Also see pages this site "What's New" and "Public Accommodation"]
Better Business Auto Line of Virginia
From: [from car owner emai l-name redacted]
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU AUTO LINE
BBB Auto Line
Council of Better Business Bureaus
4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22201-1838
Arbitration Certification Program
Department of Consumer Affairs
State of California
1625 North Market Blvd
Sacramento CA 95834
The arbitrator Debra B. Gervais last decision talks about the small claims complaint. The arbitrator appears to make specific reference to the Complaint but unfairly does not mention how the arbitrator received a copy of the Complaint when I did not give it to the arbitrator. At the time the BBB complaint was filed, as indicated, the court complaint against the manufacturer had concluded. However since that time the Complaint was stayed by a Motion for Reconsideration only as regards the amount of damages against the dealer and the name of the dealer. There is no court proceeding to resolve any other issues involving auto repairs. Only as regards the 2010 Accent, the manufacturer was dismissed with prejudice. So the arbitrator is incorrect in saying that the case had concluded regarding the 2013 Accent.
The arbitrator mentions res judicata but again the arbitrator is incorrect. First there are exceptions to res judicata. Second, the arbitrator has no proof that the court considered the complaint regarding the 2013 Accent because she has no proof of what the judgment, was. In fact, such judgment only addressed the 2010 Accent, not the 2013. Last, res judiciata does not apply to claims that were not brought or could not be brought before the court. The BBB complaint contains claims that occurred after the small claims court date of October 26, and are pending complaints about the vehicle, therefore res judicicata does not apply to those claims.
“For res judicata to apply to any particular issue, the same material facts must be involved; i.e., the prior claim represented the same material facts pertinent to the particular issue. The term “same material facts” means, in effect, that no “new and material” evidence has been submitted since the last adjudication on the prior claim. If the claimant submits new and material evidence in connection with the current claim the facts are not the same and res judicata would not apply.” http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/hallex/I-02/I-2-4-40.html
That something on the vehicle still needs inspection, and that I seek warranty inspection, no court has made any decision that in any way negates my federal rights under the warranty and under 16 C.F.R 703.
The court has been asked to reconsider the amount of damages only, therefore the case is only still open to that extent. Since the small claims court did not address the 2013 Accent, the arbitrator is incorrect to say that the matter is res judictata, and res judicata does not apply to any new evidence not brought before the court. Complaints about the vehicle still pending were not brought before the court. There was no transcript of the court proceeding nor is there any mention of the 2013 Accent in the Judge ruling. Res Judicata does not apply. The Judge did not resolve the issues of the 2013 Accent.
That the court concluded that my warranty rights had been denied is a matter of history and just for purposes of history of the manufacturer. I think the court in not further addressing the enforcement of the warranty left the door open for the BBB and others to address the warranty as it is being denied today.
It is unfortunate that the BBB arbitrator refuses to respect the ruling of the court that the dealer, and manufacturer as party, did not honor my federal warranty rights, the same rights the BBB is mandated to enforce. Since the court ruled that there was a failure to provide warranty service and public accommodation, I ask that the BBB respect the court decision and proceed with this case without delay. The BBB needs to follow what the court said.
Page 8 of the BBB auto line pamphlet clearly states disputes that will not be arbitrated include claims involving a vehicle “that is the subject of a lawsuit brought against the manufacturer or its authorized dealer”. It is outside the arbitrator’s jurisdiction for her to argue that the word “is” does not mean present tense as in “current”. The BBB handbook also states page 8, “claims that have been previously resolved by settlement or arbitration unless there have been substantive changes (such as a further repair attempt) after the resolution or a repair decision that has not remedied the problem”. The 2010 Accent is not at issue, except as an indication of the history of the manufacturer, because the court granted $724.00 addressing the damages of the 2010 Accent only. As regards the 2013 Accent, there has been further repair attempts after October 26 and the decision of the Court did not remedy the problems of the 2013 Accent.. Therefore, under BBB rules, the 2013 Accent problems are still ripe for the BBB process; the arbitrator has failed to follow BBB auto line procedures.
The arbitrator claims that equitable relief cannot be considered as well as revocation of licenses. I disagree. The arbitrator cannot seem to read the BBB dispute resolution booklet correctly. The Booklet states under jurisdiction “A. Disputes that may be arbitrated. Disputes must arise under a participating manufacturers new vehicle warranty and under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Certain disputes that do not fall within the jurisdiction of these rules may still be eligible…”. No where does it preclude equitable relief as the arbitrator states nor does it preclude revocation of licenses. Page 5: “The arbitrator will (emphasis added) take into account all legal and equitable factors….”. By excluding the request for equitable relief and license revocation as an equitable factor, the arbitrator failed to follow BBB auto line arbitration rules.
The arbitrator in being incorrect as a matter of fact and law, acted outside of her jurisdiction. The arbitrator needs to be fired for not following the provision of the Song Beverly Consumer Act and the federal 16 C.F.R. 703.
[above from Hyundai owner- name redacted]
Editor Note: Another part of the Jan 16 complaint asked for a ten million dollars equitable award against each car maker that funds the Better Business Bureau Auto Line.
The BBB Autoline has refused to order Hyundai Motor America to inspect its own vehicles. The Hyundai owner manual says that if you have a vibration in your steering wheel bring it in to have a mechanic check it but on Aug 15 a Hyundai dealer refused to inspect a vehicle that the owner claimed had a vibration in the steering wheel. Hyundai cars have suffered from defective motor mounts, non functioning air bags, exploding sunroofs, defective brakes, overstated mileage claims, etc.
Welcome to Hyundai Motor America;
won't you please join us for tea and discrimination?
Racial Retaliation by Hyundai Motor America"
see the video
| Public Accommodation |
| Auto Complaints | Hyundai Corporate |
| Inside Hyundai-Kia Fuel Class Action | LA Court Corruption |
| Return Home | Rep Karen Bass re Hyundai | Opposition to Sale of Property | What's New | Corrupt Los Angeles Rent Control | City LA Civil Rights Lawsuit re Hi Point Apts | Racism in America | Inside the Law Firm | California EDD Corruption |