The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, Florida's "lemon law."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took delivery of the motor vehicle at issue on December 31, 1996, at which time she received information on the requirements of Florida's "lemon law." Petitioner began to have trouble with the vehicle almost immediately. She notified the dealer that there was a serious problem, and Palm Kia in Ocala, Florida, performed some repairs. The Ocala dealer's repair shop did not inform her that the problem was a computer failure. Sometime during the next 18 months, there was a second period during which the car was in some repair shop. Petitioner first contacted the Department on January 8, 1999, by telephone. She was informed that the statutory time period for requesting arbitration under Florida's "lemon law" had expired, and the suggestion was made that she try contacting the Better Business Bureau. Petitioner testified that she would have filed a request for arbitration with the Department in January 1999, if the Department had not referred her to the Better Business Bureau. Petitioner signed her first and only written request for arbitration on February 2, 1999. This written request for arbitration by the Board was received by the Department on February 11, 1999. In her written arbitration request, Petitioner indicated that her vehicle had reached 24,000 miles "around the end" of 1997. However, at formal hearing, Petitioner confirmed that on January 19, 1998, the mileage on her vehicle was 32,763. In her written arbitration request, Petitioner did not provide proof that she had provided written notice of the alleged defect to the manufacturer, Kia Motors, within the "lemon law" rights period. Petitioner testified that sometime in the 18-month period specified by Florida's "lemon law" she had telephoned the manufacturer to complain about her car. However, Petitioner also testified that she did not notify the manufacturer by certified letter of the nonconformity until October 1998. Petitioner testified that on December 28, 1998, Gatorland Toyota in Gainesville, Florida, requested that the motor vehicle be towed to them. The motor vehicle had been towed the previous day, Sunday, December 27, 1998, to Billy Shell's Garage because Kia was closed and the motor vehicle could not be locked away. The motor vehicle was not diagnosed by Gatorland Toyota as having a computer problem until the first part of January 1999. Petitioner took possession of her vehicle in January 1999. At that time, she notified the dealer by telephone that the engine light was on. The car has continued to have difficulties.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order upholding the February 25, 1999 denial of Petitioner's request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration under the Florida Lemon Law, concerning his 1994 Ford Explorer, purchased on May 17, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, DOA, was the state agency responsible for the receipt, evaluation and, when appropriate, forwarding of consumer RFAs to the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board conducted by the Attorney General of the State of Florida. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner, Kenneth P. Williamson, purchased a new 1994 Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle from Gator Ford in Tampa, Florida. Almost from the beginning, Petitioner experienced a vibration of the entire vehicle when a speed of more than fifty miles per hour was achieved. After several repair attempts, when the Petitioner had driven the vehicle for 12,000 miles without any relief from the problem, he took it back to Gator Ford for repairs. Gator’s efforts did not detect the cause of the problem or correct it. At some later point in time, when sought, no paper work relating to that service call could be found at Gator Ford. Thereafter, however, Petitioner took the vehicle to Carl Flammer Ford in Tarpon Springs for the same problem. Neither the problem’s cause nor a solution to it could be found. On or about June 23, 1995, the odometer on the vehicle in question indicated it had been driven 24,990 miles. Based on that fact, it is found that as of June 22, 1995, Petitioner had exceeded 24,000 miles of operation in the vehicle. This was recognized by Petitioner in his answer to question 17C on the RFA, when he indicated he had reached 24,000 miles on his vehicle in “5/95 OR 6/95.” On May 30, 1996, when the vehicle had 37,800 miles on it, Petitioner forwarded a motor Vehicle Defect Notification Form to Ford Motor Company advising of the vibration problem. That notice, sent by certified mail, was received by Ford on June 5, 1996. Petitioner claims, and Respondent admits, that his vehicle was out of service at least 21 days due to one or more substantial defects, and that there have been three or more repair attempts made to correct the same defect or condition. Because of these factors, and because Petitioner filed a notice of non-conformity with the manufacturer, albeit late in the proceedings, the DOA considered Petitioner to be entitled to the extension period within which his RFA may be filed. The times in this case pertinent under Florida’s Lemon Law are: Date of purchase of vehicle 5/17/94 Eighteen months from date of purchase 11/16/95 24,000 miles of operation reached 6/22/95 Initial Lemon Law limit reached 6/22/95 Six month extension due to Notice of Non-compliance filed 12/22/95 Six month deadline to file after expiration of 6 month extension 6/22/95 Date RFA filed with DOA 7/24/96 Excessive delay 32 days. On the basis of the above chronology, the DOA concluded that Petitioner’s RFA was not timely, and by letter dated August 23, 1996, rejected it. Petitioner submitted his Petition for Formal Proceedings on September 5, 1996, and it was received by the DOA on September 19, 1996. As of the date of this hearing, the unacceptable condition of the vehicle still exists. Ford Motor Company has contended that the condition is not serious, and when the vehicle had 16,000 miles on it, offered Petitioner $1,000 toward the purchase of a new vehicle. The dealer has now indicated it can do no more to correct the condition in issue. Petitioner claims he was misled by Ford Motor Company into waiting until the time limit for filing the Lemon Law RFA had expired. He did not know of the time constraints under the Lemon Law and believed Ford would correct the problem. He also claims that notwithstanding his signature appears on all the pertinent documents herein, his wife took care of all the paperwork. Ms. Williamson believes that the RFA was sent in on or around the time it was dated - June 5, 1996, but she cannot be sure. She is also not sure if it was sent by certified mail, but she has no receipt to demonstrate it was. She contends the RFA could not have been held by her as long as would be required for it to not be delivered until July 24, 1996, and suggests the DOA’s date stamp might be in error. The likelihood of that is remote. Petitioner and his wife admit to having been given a Lemon Law pamphlet when they bought the vehicle but also admit they did not study it timely to determine the criteria for filing a RFA. They want an opportunity to exercise their rights under the Lemon Law through arbitration and though they are not prepared to give this up because they cannot afford to replace the vehicle, they are very uncomfortable regarding its safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s Request for Arbitration as untimely. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida this 14th day of January, 1997. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth P. Williamson 3732 Meridian Pace Land O’Lakes, Florida 34536 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new, 1994 Mercedes Benz SL600, bearing vehicle identification number WDBFA76EORF093081. The selling dealer was Regency Autohaus, Inc. in Naples, Florida, which is where delivery to Petitioner took place. Petitioner experienced numerous mechanical problems with the vehicle starting shortly after taking delivery. Problems during the first year of ownership included air conditioning that would not work and a transmission problem that would not permit use of gears other than third. On February 22, 1995, Petitioner sent to Mercedes Benz a Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. Petitioner continued to experience problems with the car and, on May 9, 1996, sent Mercedes Benz a second Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. Despite repeated attempts by Mercedes Benz to repair largely recurring problems with the car, Petitioner was unable to obtain satisfactory repairs. Twice, the Mercedes Benz dealer in Louisville, Kentucky, where Petitioner lives part of the year, towed the car to the shop to repair a failure of the car to start. Keeping the car 11 days the first time and six days the second time, the Louisville dealer could not determine the source of the problem. Later, in September 1996, the Louisville dealer kept the car for 13 days trying to fix several problems. At this time, the car had 23,692 miles on it. The issue in this case is whether Petitioner made a timely demand for arbitration under the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. The Motor Vehicle Defect Notifications that Petitioner sent to Mercedes Benz are not demands for arbitration. The forms state that, under the Florida Lemon Law, the purchaser is “requesting that [the manufacturer] make a final attempt to correct the continuing substantial defect(s) or condition(s).” In the spring of 1996, Petitioner spoke with several representatives of Mercedes Benz and Respondent about arbitration and procedures under the Florida Lemon Law. By letter to a national Mercedes Benz representative dated April 24, 1996, Petitioner complained about the car and the discourteous treatment he had received from another Mercedes Benz employee. The letter explains why Petitioner does “not want to keep this vehicle” and warns that, if Petitioner did not hear from someone at Mercedes Benz within five days, he would “have no alternative but take further action.” By letter dated May 9, 1996, Petitioner sent the Office of the Attorney General a letter with a copy of the second Motor Vehicle Defect Notification. The letter notes that the car was in the shop for repairs for more than 15 days prior to the expiration of 18 months and thus appears to be covered by the Florida Lemon Law. The letter concludes: “I have requested that the purchase price be refunded or that the vehicle be repaired.” By letter dated May 23, 1996, Petitioner informed a Mercedes Benz representative in St. Petersburg, Florida, that Petitioner had researched his rights under the Florida Lemon Law. Petitioner stated that Mercedes Benz had to replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price. Petitioner added, “If your company fails to do this, then the only alternative would be to arbitrate the matter . . ..” The letter concludes: “It would seem to me that your company should be willing to go ahead and do this rather than go through the arbitration and be ordered to do something that you could voluntarily do. Please advise your thoughts on the matter.” On July 5, 1996, Petitioner filed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. Immediately above Petitioner’s signature, which is dated June 28, 1996, the form warns that persons making false statements with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty are guilty of misdemeanor violations of cited Florida Statutes. The form adds: I hereby request arbitration of my case with the Florida New Motor Vehicle Board. I certify that all statements made in connection with this request are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that this document and its attachments are public records. The letters of April 29 and May 9 and 23 are not demands for arbitration. They are demands for the remedies that are available under the Florida Lemon Law, but they are not demands for arbitration. Nowhere in these three letters does Petitioner, who is an attorney, make a definitive demand of Mercedes Benz or Respondent for arbitration. The letters mention Mercedes Benz’s liability under the Florida Lemon Law and the remedies available under the law. The letters implicitly warn of arbitration, but continue to reflect Petitioner’s strategy during this period to try to work out this matter without the necessity of legal proceedings. Mercedes Benz does not maintain a certified procedure for the resolution of disputes of the type involved in this case.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board under Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of January, 1997. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Bertram Post Office Box 25 Jamestown, Kentucky 42629-0025 Attorney Rhonda Long Bass Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board pursuant to Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On October 12, 1994, Petitioner signed a "Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board" (hereinafter referred to as the application). This application was received by Respondent on October 14, 1994. Petitioner's application represented the following: He took delivery of the subject automobile on October 6, 1992. The automobile mileage at the time of delivery was 14 miles. The approximate date he put 24,000 miles on the automobile was August 25, 1993. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Petitioner at the formal hearing. The notice of hearing accurately set forth the date, time, and location of the formal hearing. This notice was duly mailed to the address that the Petitioner had provided and contained the following warning: "Failure to appear at this hearing shall be grounds for entry of an order of dismissal or recommended order of dismissal, as appropriate."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's "Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board" be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Koda, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Mr. Carlos M. R. Romeo 9977 Westview Drive #114 Coral Springs, Florida 33076 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner's request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board should be denied as untimely.
Findings Of Fact The Department's Division of Consumer Services is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate requests for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (Board), submitted by purchasers of new motor vehicles in this state. If a request qualifies for arbitration and is timely filed, the matter is referred to the Florida Attorney General for further processing and action. On September 10, 1993, Petitioner took delivery of a new Ford Escort automobile from Ken Marks Ford in Clearwater, Florida. The mileage reflected on the odometer at the time of delivery was 26 miles. Petitioner claims that at the time he took delivery of the vehicle, he was not furnished with a copy of the Attorney General's brochure entitled Preserving Your Rights Under the Florida Lemon Law, nor was he given any other information, either in person or in writing, from the dealer or from anyone else, regarding the operation of the Lemon Law program. However, at hearing he indicated that he had a copy of the pamphlet as early as October 13, 1995, when he signed the Defect Notification form which is included within the pamphlet. The pamphlet clearly outlines the benefits, requirements and time limits pertinent to the program. From the very beginning of his ownership, Petitioner experienced difficulty with the vehicle. His first problem, requiring the replacement of the right head lamp assembly, took place on September 13, 1993, only three days after delivery and continued until December, 1995. He experienced problems with several systems at least three times each. These included squealing brakes, the right seat belt, the alarm light, the tachometer, the gas pedal and the idle. By the time he took the vehicle in for the third time for the most recent problem, the odometer registered 30,710 miles. He claims to have notified the manufacturer in writing of this problem on October 18, 1995. Mr. Maxwell accumulated 24,000 miles on his vehicle on or before January 4, 1995. It was on that date, when he brought the vehicle to the dealer for the third time for the squeaking brakes, the alarm light and the seat belt problems, that the odometer showed 24,035 miles. Even though the initial Lemon law period expired at 24,000 miles, Petitioner was potentially eligible for a six month extension of the original rights period because several complaints registered with the dealer during the initial period remained uncorrected at that time. The six months extension expired on or before July 4, 1995. Under the Florida Lemon Law, consumers are entitled to file for relief under the statute for a period of up to six months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period. In this case, because of the six month extension, the filing deadline of six months expired no later than January 4, 1996. In October 1995, Petitioner contacted Ford's Customer Assistance Center and requested information regarding correction of his problems. In response he received a customer satisfaction questionnaire but no assistance with his difficulties. Thereafter, he contacted the Department to request the form for filing the Request for Arbitration on November 11, 1995. Subsequent to the receipt of the Request for Arbitration from the Division, Mr. Maxwell engaged in several telephone negotiations with representatives of Ford Motor Company and received oral settlement offers from the company, including either a replacement automobile or a total refund. When Mr. Maxwell elected to receive a refund, he was told that the Ford representative would get back to him but no one from either Ford Motor Company or Ken Marks Ford ever did. Petitioner believes he was misled by both so that he would thereafter become ineligible for participation in the arbitration program. Ford Motor Company has no state- certified settlement procedure. Petitioner's Request for Arbitration reflects January 6, 1996 as the date of execution. It was received in the Division of Consumer Services on January 10, 1996. It was subsequently reviewed and rejected as untimely by the Division on January 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Request for Arbitration as untimely. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of June, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Maxwell 775 Lantana Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 34630 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
