Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On or about October 1, 1994, Petitioner purchased from Triangle Auto Center Inc., d/b/a Toyota of Hollywood (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer"), a Broward County, Florida automobile dealer, a used 1994 Chevrolet Cavalier, which had been driven 7,726 miles. Petitioner had been told by the Dealer, before the purchase, that the vehicle had been used by its previous owner "to drive documents to the airport." At the time Petitioner purchased the vehicle, it was still under factory warranty. Thereafter, various problems developed with the vehicle, the worst and most persistent of which involved the vehicle's tires and brakes. These problems have yet to be completely remedied. Petitioner reported the problems she was experiencing with her vehicle to the Dealer. The Dealer told Petitioner that it was unable to help her. At the Dealer's suggestion, Petitioner telephoned and wrote letters of complaint to the manufacturer of the vehicle. The manufacturer advised Petitioner to file a complaint/arbitration request with the Better Business Bureau's Auto Line program (hereinafter referred to as the "BBB program"), an arbitration program in which the manufacturer participates. Petitioner followed the advice she was given and filed a complaint/arbitration request with the BBB program. On September 29, 1995, the BBB program sent Petitioner a letter notifying her that the arbitrator who had heard her case had determined that she was not entitled to any relief from the manufacturer. The letter further advised Petitioner of the following: The enclosed decision is not binding on the consumer. The consumer may reject this decision and, if eligible, may pursue arbitration with the Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board administered by the Office of the Attorney General. To obtain information about eligibility for the state run program, the consumer should contact the Division of Consumer Services' Lemon Law hotline at 1-800-321-5366. Please be advised that Section 681.109(4), F.S., provides that the consumer must file the request for arbitration within 6 months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period, or within 30 days after the final action of a certified dispute-settlement procedure, whichever occurs later. Petitioner rejected the arbitrator's decision. On October 23, 1995, Petitioner filed with the Department a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. By letter dated November 9, 1995, the Department advised Petitioner that "a determination ha[d] been made in accordance with Section 681.109 Florida Statutes to reject [her request because her] vehicle was not purchased new in Florida."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for arbitration. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of April, 1996. STUART M. LERNER, 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 3rd day of April, 1996.
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 for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner’s request for arbitration under Florida’s Lemon Law was timely submitted.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (DOA), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the administration of the Florida New Car Lemon Law. This law provides for compulsory arbitration in those cases where the vehicle qualifies under the terms of the statute. Petitioner, Greco Carreras, purchased a new, 1994 Ford Ranger truck on June 8, 1994 from Ernie Hare Ford in Tampa, Florida. Thereafter, it was necessary for him to take the vehicle in for service, due to transmission and clutch problems. These visits were: March 1, 1995 Howard Smith Ford, OK 20,591 mi. Aug. 15, 1995 Ernie Hare Ford, Tpa., FL 31,935 mi. Jan. 23, 1996 “ “ “ “ “ 37,071 mi. Apr. 1, 1996 “ “ “ “ “ 41,450 mi. May. 20, 1996 “ “ “ “ “ 45,964 mi. Oct. 8, 1996 “ “ “ “ “ 52,521 mi. Petitioner had put 24,000 miles on his vehicle, by his own admission, sometime in May 1995. In any case, from the above dates and mileage points, it is clear that the 24,000 mile point was reached before August 15, 1995 when he had 31,935 miles on it at the time he first brought the vehicle in to the Florida dealer who sold it to him for service. On or about December 9, 1996, Petitioner executed and forward to the DOA a Request for Arbitration by the Florida Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. This request for was received in the Department on December 12, 1996. Under the provisions of Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes, the “Lemon Law rights period” is defined as: the period ending 18 months after the date of the original delivery of a motor vehicle to a consumer or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever occurs first. Consumers are required to request arbitration within 6 months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period, or within 30 days after the final action of a certified procedure, whichever occurs later. Ford Motor Company has no certified procedure in Florida. Therefore, the deadline for filing is six months after the expiration of the rights period. That would have been January 14, 1996 (18 months after Petitioner took delivery of the vehicle) or in May, 1995 (when he reached 24,000 miles on the vehicle, whichever came earlier. In this case, giving Petitioner the benefit of the doubt, his initial rights period was determined to have ended on or before August 15, 1995, when he put 24,000 miles on his car as evidenced by the repair receipt from Ernie Hare Ford reflecting 31,935 miles on the vehicle when it was brought in for service. The initial Lemon Law rights period may be extended for an additional six months if items of nonconformity which are reported to the dealer within the original period, remain uncorrected at the end thereof. The Department assumed that Petitioner qualified for this extension. This extended the time to February 15, 1996. Consumers have up to six additional months after the expiration of the Lemon Law rights period, as extended, to file for relief under the statute. In this case, Petitioner had until August 15, 1996 to file his request for arbitration. The copy of Petitioner’s request which was received into evidence reflects that he signed it on December 9, 1996, and it was received in the Department on December 12, 1996. This is more than three and a half and almost four months beyond the filing deadline in this case, and constitutes the Department’s basis for denial of Petitioner’s request for arbitration. Petitioner claimed at hearing that the reason he filed his request for arbitration was because the vehicle he purchased was a lemon. Though he purchased it new, it has been in the shop for repair of the same problem more than three times. Notwithstanding the wording of Florida’s Lemon Law in the pamphlet he was given at the time he purchased the car, Petitioner has some problem with the wording used and the way the 18 month/24,000 mile criteria are applied. Because of the fact that he had almost 24,000 miles on the vehicle the first time he brought it in for repair on March 1, 1995, less than nine months after he took delivery of it, he feels use of the 18 month criteria would have given him greater opportunity to find out what he needed to do. No doubt, he contends, had he filed for arbitration right after the third visit for the same problem, in January 1996, he would have been timely. However, he was being generous to the dealer in allowing them to try to fix the problem, an unfortunate mistake on his part. Petitioner also claims he was advised by an unidentified representative of the Department with whom he spoke by telephone after the September 1996 repair, (sometime in early December 1996) that he was still within the time constraints of the statute. At that time, he claims, he advised the individual with whom he spoke of the repair history of the vehicle and how many miles the vehicle had been driven. He was, apparently, wrongly advised.
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 under the Florida Lemon Law as untimely filed. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Greco Carreras 10420 North 22nd Street Tampa, Florida 33612 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 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 Whether Petitioner's arbitration request was timely filed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner purchased his vehicle, a 1991 Ford F-350 Supercab XLT Lariat from Bartow Ford in Bartow, Florida on September 4, 1990. At the time of purchase, the odometer read less than 100 miles. Petitioner applied for arbitration on April 8, 1994. At the time of Petitioner's arbitration request, the vehicle had been driven approximately eighty-three thousand (83,000) miles. Petitioner's problems with his vehicle center around the automatic transmission. Respondent's vehicle reached twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles on or about December 15, 1991. On April 18, 1994, Respondent notified Petitioner that his arbitration request was untimely filed and was being denied. The Motor Vehicle Sales Warranty Enforcement Act a/k/a the "Lemon Law", which is set forth in Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, is administered jointly by the Respondent and the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board, Department of Legal Affairs. Respondent is responsible for initially reviewing an application to determine whether or not it is facially appropriate and to make a determination as to whether the applicant is, or is not, "potentially entitled to relief". Based on Respondent's determination that Petitioner's request was untimely filed, the request was denied on April 18, 1994. Petitioner's vehicle initially developed a transmission problem within six thousand seven hundred and seven (6,707) miles. The first service repair came on or about January 15, 1991. Petitioner returned the vehicle with the same problem on or about August 14, 1991 at which time the vehicle odometer read twenty-two thousand one hundred six (22,106) miles. Petitioner took the vehicle for repairs on three subsequent occasions and on each occasion the manufacturer rebuilt or replaced the transmission. Petitioner continues to have problems with his transmission and the manufacturer repairs the vehicle whenever it is brought in for service under the waranty. James D. Morrison, Respondent's supervisor for its "Lemon Law" section, reviewed Petitioner's file and acted on Petitioner's arbitration request. As noted, the request was filed on April 8, 1994. Morrison's review confirmed that Petitioner purchased his vehicle on September 4, 1990. Based on Morrison's calculations, Petitioner had to timely file his arbitration request within eighteen months of the date of purchase or twenty-four thousand (24,000) miles. Morrison used the most extended filing period by referring to the date of purchase and counting forward eighteen months which derived the date of March 6, 1992. Morrison granted Petitioner an additional extension of six months in compliance with extensions allowed if a defect occurs during the "lemon law" period. By granting Petitioner these extensions and the most extended allowable filing period within which the filing had to have been made, all arbitration requests by Petitioner, to be timely filed, had to occur on or before December 4, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for Lemon Law arbitration as it was untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of October, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul G. LaPlaca Post Office Box 787 Valrico, Florida 33594 Barbara R. Edwards, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 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 Whether the Petitioners' Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Section 681.109, Florida Statutes, Respondent's Division of Consumer Services is the state agency in Florida charged with the responsibility to receive and evaluate consumer requests for arbitration pursuant to Chapter 681, which is officially known as the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, but which is more commonly referred to as the "Lemon Law". As part of its responsibilities, the Division of Consumer Services determines whether complaints it receives from consumer against manufacturers pursuant to the "Lemon Law" qualify for referral to the Department of Legal Affairs for further proceedings before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board. 1/ On March 29, 1995, Respondent received and filed Petitioners' Request for Arbitration under the provisions of the Lemon Law. Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes, defines the "Lemon Law rights period" as being ". . . the period ending 18 months after the date of the original delivery of a motor vehicle to a consumer or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever first occurs." The automobile that is the subject of Petitioners' complaint is a Toyota Camry. The Petitioners took delivery of this vehicle on July 25, 1992, the date they leased the vehicle from a Toyota dealer. Eighteen months from July 25, 1992, is January 25, 1994. It was not until September 1, 1994, that Petitioners put 24,000 miles on the vehicle. The initial Lemon Law period, as defined by Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes, expired for the subject vehicle on January 25, 1994. Petitioners made complaints to the dealer prior to January 25, 1994, that remained uncured after January 25, 1994. Because of those complaints, the Respondent assumed that the Lemon Law period was extended for an additional six month period pursuant to Section 681.104(3)(b), Florida Statutes. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Petitioners, the Respondent determined that the extended Lemon Law period expired July 25, 1994. It is found that the extended Lemon Law period for the subject vehicle expired on or before July 25, 1994. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 681.109(4), Florida Statutes, provides that a consumer must request arbitration before the Arbitration Board within six months after the expiration of the extended Lemon Law rights period. Because of that provision, the Petitioners had until January 25, 1995, to file its request for relief under the Lemon Law. The request for relief under the Lemon Law, first filed by Petitioners on March 29, 1995, was not timely.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that denies the Petitioners' Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board on the grounds that the request was not timely. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 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 19th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner’s request for arbitration before the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the Florida Department of Agriculture And Consumer Services, Division of Consumer Services. Respondent administers the “Motor Vehicle Enforcement Warranty” set forth in Chapter 681, Florida Statutes, inclusive of the Florida New Vehicle Arbitration Board. Petitioner is a consumer who took delivery of the then new motor vehicle at issue on December 8, 1995. He received no information from the dealership where he purchased the vehicle concerning his rights to access to Respondent’s arbitration program. On June 1, 1998, Respondent received Petitioner’s request for arbitration. Petitioner’s vehicle had 24,000 miles on it at that time. Petitioner’s arbitration request disclosed vehicle problems requiring at least three repair attempts. Petitioner’s request failed to provide a copy of any written defect notification, or other written notification to the manufacturer of the vehicle. In his arbitration application and later at the final hearing, Petitioner maintained that he had provided the manufacturer with such written notification. However, despite Respondent’s repeated request of Petitioner to provide Respondent with copies of that notification, Petitioner failed to provide any such documentation. The fourth notice by Respondent to Petitioner informed him that a copy of such notification must be received by Respondent no later than August 3, 1998. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with a copy of the manufacturer notification by the deadline of August 3, 1998. Thereafter, by letter dated August 5, 1998, Respondent notified Petitioner that his request for arbitration was denied as ineligible. At the final hearing, the testimony of Respondent’s spokesman, James D. Morrison, established that Petitioner’s failure to provide Respondent with a copy of the Motor Vehicle Defect Information form sent to the manufacturer by Petitioner was the sole reason that Petitioner’s application for arbitration was denied. As further established by Morrison’s testimony, the rationale of Respondent for the requirement of the copy of Petitioner’s notification to the manufacturer, and copy of receipt of acceptance by the manufacturer, is to ascertain that Petitioner has complied with Section 681.104, Florida Statutes, requiring that all applicants for arbitration first notify the vehicle manufacturer by registered or express mail of such application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. 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 7th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard C. Holtzendorf, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Arthur H. Baredian 275 Ravine Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Bob Crawford, Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
