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
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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is estopped from denying Petitioners' request for arbitration under Florida's Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, Chapter 681, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioners, William and Margarent Newell, are husband and wife. The Newells reside in Lake City, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Among other things, the Department is responsible for the receipt and evaluation of complaints and requests for arbitration involving disputes between automobile dealers and manufacturers doing business in Florida and the citizens of the State of Florida. See Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. The Newells' Automobile Purchase. On August 6, 1993, the Newells took possession of a new Dodge Colt (hereinafter referred to as the "Colt"). The date the contract of purchase was signed, and, therefore, the date of purchase, was August 9, 1993. Stipulated Facts. The Colt was purchased from Sunbelt Chrysler (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer"), in Lake City, Florida. The Newell's Experience with the Colt and the Department's Advice. During the first week after taking possession of the Colt, Ms. Newell began to experience trouble with the automatic transmission. The transmission would "slip" resulting in the engine "winding out". On August 14, 1993, Ms. Newell took the Colt to the Dealer and reported the transmission problems. An employee of the Dealer took the Colt for a test ride and told Ms. Newell that he found nothing wrong with the transmission. Ms. Newell was told to bring the Colt back if she continued to experience trouble with the transmission. No documentation of the August 14, 1993 visit with the Dealer was provided to Ms. Newell by the Dealer. Ms. Newell's testimony concerning the date and incident was unrefutted. The Newells continued to experience problems with the transmission. On September 23, 1993, Mr. Newell took the Colt back to the Dealer and reported the transmission problem again. This time the Colt was left with the Dealer. The Dealer returned the Colt to the Newells on September 23, 1993 and told them that no problem was experienced or discovered with the transmission. Again, the Dealer told the Newells to bring the Colt back if they experienced further trouble. No documentation of the September 23, 1993 visit with the Dealer was provided to the Newells by the Dealer. The Newells' testimony concerning the date and incident was unrefutted. Mr. Newell took the Colt back to the Dealer for the third time on September 27, 1993. This time the Colt was kept overnight by the Dealer. The Colt was returned September 28, 1993. Again, no problem with the transmission was found by the Dealer. The Dealer provided documentation to the Newells of the September 27, 1993 effort at repair. On April 8, 1994, after continuing to experience problems with the Colt's transmission, Mr. Newell contacted a representative of the Department in an effort to gather information about how to file a claim under Florida's Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, Chapter 681, Florida Statutes. The Department's representative told Mr. Newell that he would need "documentation" of a minimum of three repair attempts on the Colt by the Dealer before a claim could be filed. What constituted "documentation" was not explained, but it was resonable for Mr. Newell to conclude that written documentation from the Dealer of three attempts was required. Mr. Newell only had documentation of one repair attempt from the Dealer as of April 8, 1994. Mr. Newell was not told that the two undocumented repair attempts of August 14, 1993 and September 23, 1993, could also qualify as repair attempts if Mr. Newell provided an affidavit stating that repair attempts were made on those dates. In reasonasble reliance on the information provided by the Department to Mr. Newell on April 8, 1993, the Newells did not file a claim with the Department. On May 25, 1994, the Colt had been driven 24,000 miles. This constituted the end of the "Lemon Law rights period" as used in Section 681.109, Florida Statutes, and as defined in Section 681.102(9), Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Facts). The transmission continued to malfunction after April 8, 1993. On July 21, 1994, the Newells had the Colt serviced for the transmission problem. They received their second "documentation" at this time from the Dealer. On October 12, 1994, the Newells had the Colt serviced again for the same problem. The transmission had to be rebuilt on this occassion. The Newells received their third "documentation" at this time from the Dealer. Despite having three "documentations" of repair attempts as of October 12, 1994, the Newells did not file a claim with the Department at that time. The Newells' reliance on the representations of the Department made on April 8, 1994, would not, therefore, reasonably explain why they did not file a claim upon receiving the documentation that they believed was necessary on October 12, 1994. Reliance on the Department's representations of April 8, 1994, does not explain or justify the Newells lack of complaince with the time requirements for filing a request for arbitration. On or about January 6, 1995, Mr. Newell again spoke with a representative of the Department concerning this matter. Mr. Newell explained that he had the three repair documents that he had been told he needed. He had also completed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board which he intended to file with the Department. Mr. Newell was incorrectly told, however, that the time for filing the request had expired. In reliance upon this representation, Mr. Newell again failed to file the request for arbitration. On January 25, 1995, the Newells sent notice to the manufacturer of their problem with the Colt. On February 14, 1995, a representative from the manufacturer inspected the Colt. Again, nothing was found wrong with the rebuilt transmission. On May 25, 1995, the statutory period for requesting arbitration expired. The Newells were entitled to a six-month extension from May 25, 1994, to November 25, 1994, pursuant to Section 681.104(3)(b), Florida Statutes, because they had reported the problem with the transmission during the original Lemon Law rights period and it had not been cured. Pursuant to Section 681.109(4), Florida Statutes, the Newells had six-months after the end of the extended Lemon Law rights period, or from November 25, 1994 to May 25, 1995, to file their request for arbtiration. On September 1, 1995, the rebuilt transmission on the Colt again burned up. The Colt has remained parked since that date through the date of the hearing in this case. The Newells' Request for Arbitration. On September 28, 1995, after again speaking to a representative from the Department, the Newells filed a Request for Arbitration by the Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board with the Department. This request was filed just over four months after the deadline for filing the request expired. The Department denied the request by letter dated October 11, 1995, based upon the Department's determination that the request was untimely.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department accepting the request for arbitration filed by William and Margaret Newell. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, 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 22nd day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5938 The Department has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Fahami did not file a proposed order. The Newells' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 3. Accepted in 5. Accepted in 6-7. Accepted in 8-9. Accepted in 11-12. Accepted in 14. 9-10 Accepted in 15. Accepted in 16. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 17. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 19-20. See 22. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 24. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 2. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 3 and 18. Accepted in 18 and 24. 5-6 Accepted in 24. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Petitioners' testimony constitutes unrefutted, credible evidence that they made repair attempts priot to September 27, 1993. See 14. Not relevant. The publication was not offered into evidence. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove what information the publication included. The significant phone conversation took place on April 8, 1994. While the phone bills were not offered into evidence, Petitioners' unrefutted, credible testimony was sufficient to prove that the phone call took place. 11 See 14-16. 12 Accepted in 15-17. 13-14 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 23. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17-18 Hereby accepted. But see 17 and 22. Accepted in 26. Accepted in 27. COPIES FURNISHED: John K. McPherson, Esquire 703 North Main Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Rhonda Long Bass, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
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
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 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
