Even if the BMW comes back to the dealership regularly for repair services, it can accumulate a significant service history. The number of repair visits however, does not necessarily indicate the situation of the vehicle. Each of two vehicles may have more than one repair appointment, and with vastly different issues, diagnoses and repair results. That’s why it’s important to look at specifics of each repair to learn more about whether a recurring warranty issue is present.
A California BMW Lemon Law Attorney may investigate much more than just the number of visits, and closely review what was reported by the owner, what was diagnosed by the dealership, the attempts at repairs, and what occurred after they had completed the repairs. Complaints may occur at certain times, the length of the repairs, recurring complaints and manufacturer documentation can all be context. This more holistic view can help to identify if the repair record is indicative of an ongoing issue or if it’s a series of unrelated repair events.
Comparing What the Owner Reported With What the Dealership Found
A description of the problem with a vehicle provided by the customer may be crucial to the repair record. A service record can be the owner’s opening complaint, the notes that the technician makes and the service that was actually completed. When a problem with a vehicle occurs periodically, a comparison can be crucial. The driver can describe an abnormal behavior, loss of power or a warning message, a vibration or anything else that an abnormal BMW does under specific circumstances, and the dealership may not be able to find the same behavior in a limited test ride.
The ‘unable to duplicate’ notation does not preclude that the problem did not occur. Rather, an attorney can review the complaint to see if it resurfaced later, whether the owner gave any other information, and if any diagnostic work was conducted in the future that found an associated problem. Emails, text messages, appointment notes, photos, videos and dealership employee communications can also provide context.
Attorneys may compare these three stages:
Owner’s complaint → Dealership’s diagnosis → Result after repair
The aim is to identify if the documentation behaviourally describes the vehicle’s behaviour consistently over time.
Looking at What Happened After Each Repair
The dealership may have done something, but that doesn’t automatically mean that is a successful repair. The performance of the vehicle afterwards may also be very important.
A lawyer can review the time after each repair and inquire if the BMW operated differently after the repair?
These are some of the questions that are relevant:
- Did the same warning light re-appeared?
- Has the initial symptom gone away?
- For how many days prior to the occurrence was the vehicle in use?
- Has the occurrence of the problem increased?
- Did any other part have to be replaced at the following appointment?
- Was the dealership able to discover another cause for the symptom?
- Did the owner say the issue didn’t go away?
A repair that temporarily resolves a symptom could have a different factual history as compared to a repair that permanently resolves the symptom.
This series can assist lawyers in determining if the vehicle got better, worse or was kept the same following each try.
The timeline may therefore look something like:
Complaint → Diagnosis → Repair → Vehicle returned to owner → Symptom returns → Additional diagnosis → Further repair
Reviewing Time Out of Service and the Broader Ownership Impact
The number of repairs doesn’t necessarily indicate the severity of the defect. A vehicle can be in the dealership for a long period of time with one repair, and then be there again for a couple of short visits with another repair.
The Lemon Law in California contains particular provisions regarding automobiles that are taken out of use for repairs; the requirements that apply to the vehicle and claim, however, will be based on the circumstances of the vehicle and claim. Therefore, attorneys can look at downtime as well as what the defect is, warranty coverage, and history of repairs, and not just the number of repair visits.
The wider ownership effect could be seen in towing records, rental car costs, the inability to get to and from dealerships, or in communications about frequent dealership visits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is it important that the same complaint is on several repair orders?
If the same problem is reported more than once, then it may be helpful in proving that an issue persisted even after it was tried to be resolved. Attorneys can compare each complaint to the diagnosis and repair used to see if any of the visits are linked to the diagnosis and repair.
If the dealership claims it can’t duplicate the BMW issue, what should you do?
If a problem can’t be reproduced, it doesn’t necessarily stop the investigation. Other documentation, later repair visits and description of the time of occurrence of the symptom may give further information.
Should BMW owners continue to have dealership communications?
Yes. Other documents such as emails, messages, appointment confirmations, repair orders, invoices and other correspondence can help to build up a picture of the issues reported and when they occurred.
Conclusion
It is not always possible to interpret the BMW repair history from the number of visits to the dealership. The key may be in how the complaints relate to the diagnoses, the repairs made, and the symptoms that persisted and whether the vehicle was fixed when it was finally brought home.The important data may be what the complaints were, the diagnoses that were given, the attempted repairs, whether the symptoms persisted, and whether the vehicle was fixed when it finally arrived home.
Other context information can be gained from time out of service and manufacturer communications. The Barry Law Firm will examine the entire history of repairs instead of just one repair invoice or one numerical parameter, so they can determine the circumstances of a potentially defective BMW and the documents available to support a lemon law California case.
