" Lemon " Laws !

Thousands of Australians have been chuckling at a video clip going viral on Facebook and other social media urging people to " not buy a Jeep  ".   It seems that the owner of a 2013 Grand Cherokee Jeep had the misfortune to get what is termed in the trade - a " Lemon " !  The vehicle was constantly breaking down and even catching fire and was constantly in the dealer's workshop for lengthy warranty repairs.    This catchy little video was cleverly produced by an amateur who even put his complaint to music - and no doubt it had influence on those considering making a vehicle purchase.

The makers of the Jeep brand - Fiat Chrysler - has since made an offer to buy back this offending vehicle for $61,000 and the complaining owners has rejected the offer, because it is conditional on the video clip being withdrawn and a cessation of " disparaging the brand " !   What this owner wants is laws similar to those that apply in other countries to clearly set out the protection available to buyers when a motor vehicle fails to deliver reasonable reliability.

This seems to be a gray area.  There is no doubt how they apply when the merchandise is electrical goods or all manner of other consumer items, but when it comes to motor vehicles the steps for redress are vague.  Another owner of a Fiat 500 complains that her car has spent five and half months under repair and has had two replacement gear boxes fitted, plus other parts - and she is still awaiting adjudication on her claim.   The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ( ACCC ) agrees that adjudication is two years in arrears.

Somehow, the fact that motor cars are a big ticket item seems to be hindering a reasonable solution.  After home purchase, buying a new car is often the second biggest outlay the average person makes in a lifetime, and yet if a customer experiences a faulty toaster the famous " Three R's " comes into play.   Return it to the point of purchase and make the choice.  Refund - Repair - or Replacement. Strangely,  this problem solving mechanism does not seem to apply to motor vehicles.

The motor vehicle industry is a powerful political lobby and the vast dealer network across the country has influence.  Fortunately, the chances of getting a " lemon " are remote because cars move down a precision assembly line with strict tolerances, but it is a fact of life that from time to time the factory spits out a car which is nothing but a Pandora's box of trouble.   In many cases, getting a permanent fix seems beyond the capacity of the dealer network - and the unfortunate owner is deprived of it's use for an inordinate period of time.

Solving this problem simply requires applying a simple formula to the warranty period. Should the vehicle require repair presentation above a determined number of times and be out of service for a determined number of days, the owners would be entitled to hand the vehicle back with the option of deciding on either refund or replacement.   Those numbers should be mandated by the ACCC and apply to all makes of motor vehicles.

That is not even particularly onerous on the car manufacturer.  The handed back vehicle constitutes a monetary loss that can be partly recovered when it is repaired and resold as a second hand vehicle, and it is reasonable that the manufacturer pick up that tab because the product did not meet manufacturing standards.   That is the very purpose of the warranty and it is of little value if the faults remain uncorrected - and the owner is deprived of the use for which he or she made the initial purchase.

This Jeep owner is continuing the campaign for consumer laws with actual teeth, even though this tempting offer would reduce personal hardship and let him get on with his life.  It seems that the car industry will fight better consumer laws, but these are long overdue.  The car industry has had a form of protection it certainly does not deserve !