paneraiwatches

This is the beginning of the saga to make a long story short--

https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...paneraiwatches

After all this, I was contacted by Corbett Head Regional Service Manager for PCNA.

He offered me a free 60,000 mile service!! What a joke. Declined the offer and then they came up with another offer of $1,000.00 credit towards a new car.
Problem was the car cost me approx $1,700.00 from an independent to have fixed.

By the way it was the cars 3rd rear main seal and the fourth coolant tank.

After the judgement I will report back on what happened. Any comments appreciated!!

Tool Pants

You paid an independent shop to replace the seal, your third seal replacement, and the tank, this being your fourth tank replacement. All prior seal and tank replacements were done while you owned the car and while is was under warranty, at no cost to you.

Is this correct? What is the year and how many miles?

paneraiwatches

Yes I paid an independent shop approx $1,700.00 to replace rear main seal, water pump, coolant resevior. I did this after I pulled the car from Beverly Hills Porsche after denying any and all claims by me. The previous work was all done by a Porsche dealer. The car is a 99 year model and it has approx 50,000 miles on it now. Just sold it finally, got a good price the next day the guy called me the tank hose or whatever was leaking again. SOOOO happy it's gone, now time for my GT3.

Phil

why did the dealer "deny any and all claims"by you?
I spent 17 yrs in the retail auto biz, and I've never heard of anything like that.

paneraiwatches

The dealer never explained the whole problem to PCNA. When I first spoke with the Regional Service Manager I had asked if he knew the whole story. He replied that all he knew is that the car is out of warranty and it was leaking coolant. The dealer never let him in on the fact that it would be my third coolant tank, and the car had been in previously 5 times for cooling system problems. The Regional service manager said of course they would have fixed it under warranty if they knew the whole story. So I faxed him the documentation after it was repaired by an independent and he said they would compensate, then I got the BS offers of a fee 60,000 mile service or $1000 off of a new Porsche. At this point I am tired of dealing with it, BTW I also sued Beverly Hills Porsche. This should be fun!!

LVDell

So let me get this straight. You are taking BH Porrsche AND PCNA to court over a car that you no longer have? Does the new owner know all the trouble you have had and how many times each item has been fixed (as well that you are you going to court? Not sure I am following this one now. Can you shed any light?

paneraiwatches

Yes, I am out of pocket $1,700.00. Yes I sold the car, thank god!!

The new owner has all the previous service records.Why does it matter if the new owner knows or does not about the court case?

LVDell

It matters b/c I am curious why it is the new owner that is hung out to dry by you dumping your car on him yet you are going after the recovery which is something that the new onwer will not benefit from (for example, the turned down 60K service). Does the new owner realize the irritation you have been through and how unhappy you are with the car and the company? Or did you just give him the records and sugar coat it saying it has been a really great car with just a few recurring things and that you are wanting to get into a newer car, hate to see her go, etc, etc, etc?

Sorry for appearing to take the side of the new owner but I think this is a good example of why NOT to buy private and why you should try to get a certified one from a dealer.

Now if the new owner has read this thread (and the original one) and is aware how frickin mad you are at PCNA and BH Porsche, then please accept my apologies for taking the side of the clueless bonehead that bought this problem car.

Tool Pants

I have no problem with you paying for the repairs and then getting rid of the car. But since I'm in the legal biz I do not understand why Porsche is legally responsible to reimburse you if they were not obligated to pay for the current repairs to begin with.

I bought a 1997 Boxster in 1999 and back then there was just a 2 year warranty so I never had a warranty. I never read the warranty book so I do not know how it works. If Porsche replaces your tank under warranty a week before the warranty expires, then the replacement tank goes bad 2 months later, then I thought you had an addition 2 years from when the tank was replaced under warranty. From reading the messages in the link this is apparently not the case. If your warranty ends in a week and if the replacement tank goes bad 2 months later, the car is out of warranty and Porsche is not obligated to replace it again for free as you have no warranty left. Then you are at the mercy of Porsche for a "goodwill" free replacement.

If what I have said is correct, then there was no legal obligation for Porsche to do anything for you. Good will is just that. If Porsche does not want to show you good will for whatever reason then I do not see the reason they are legally obligated to pay for repairs to an out of warranty car.

The fact the regional service manager was not give the whole history does not change anything. If he had known the entire history he could have still denied what is a good will claim.

I hope you win but I do not understand how Porsche is legally liable for out of warranty repairs.

paneraiwatches

LVDell,
The new owner is not hung out to dry. He had all the time and resources to check out the car. When it was sold, it was perfect, not a spot of oil or coolant. The new owner should not benefit from my loss. I paid out the $1700 to have it fixed before I even thought of selling it. I should recieve reimbursment not him. He paid for a car that checked out perfect, if it didnt then I would have adjusted the price accordingly. Not my problem the coolant bottle leaked after he bought it.

Tool Pants,
On the back of the work orders I was given when the car was in for warranty service it states "Free repair or replacement of defective parts and accessories for 24 months, or unlimited miles."
It says nothing about the warranty on newly installed parts expiring the date that the original new car warranty expires? So I guess what I'm getting at is they were responsible for the parts they installed a month before factory warranty expired. Maybe just a play on words?
With this said I hope I do have a case, I'm really bummed it has gotten to this point..

Tool Pants

I looked at the back of my work order from last year when I paid for an air flow sensor replacement and a smog test. I paid for this. Very hard to read with my old eyes.

On my work order it says that the 24 months is for new or rebuilt parts sold to the original retail customer. Your prior replacements were under warranty. You did not purchase anything and Porsche sold nothing to you. You were not a retail customer.

I, on the other hand, meet the requirements since I paid for the air flow sensor and to have it installed. I am the retail customer.

What is the exact wording on your work order. Got to get you ready for your big day in court.

ScottS

I am shocked at your double standard. You expect PCNA to behave ethically and assist you to fullest extent you feel entitled to but you "got rid" of your car. AT A GOOD PRICE! Not even offering a modest discount knowing that the market value of your car was less due to these chronic issues which you had not resolved at the time of sale. Nice guy you are.

Did the buyer ask you if the car had or has any problems that you know of? And did you disclose the history and not just offer the records for analysis. That is why I would call the service place prior to buying any car. Yes, the car checked out because it was just repaired. So does the independent now offer warranty on their work or is the new owner stuck?

By failing to disclose a known problem you have not ( ethically) lived up to good faith and yourself could be open to litigation. I hope the buyer calls and runs his VIN by PCNA. Especially after you sue those guys.

You are right that the work done should be warrantied for the time listed not merely the cars warranty. The part and labor is warrantied and this action supercedes the inherent warranty on the WHOLE CAR. You are in fact due compensation whether you own the car still or not. But beware. It is not that easy even in small claims court. They will go with a lawyer and fight even a small case. Never that simple.

Caveat: A guy I know around here became a persona non grata at all nearby dealerships by suing two of them. He cannot buy or service locally. And he was in the right. You may win but in the end you will lose.

Tool Pants

Lots of emotional stuff that has nothing to do with whether or not he is entitled to recover for the out of warranty repairs. I volunteer as a small claims judge in Santa Clara County, California. He is also from California. In California attorneys are not permitted in small claims court.

I hope he wins but based on what I know so far I would rule against him. Both problems are know cronic problems on some 996s and Boxsters as well - with Boxsters we are on the 10th generation of the plastic tank. But his claim, as far as I understand it, is based on what is stated on the back of the work order. Therefore, the exact language is very important.

ScottS

Just curious as a volunteer in Small claims court, are you an attorney?

Whether or not he is vindicated in court, he diminshes all of us by his behavior and lack of good faith in the sale of his car. In doing so, he makes it harder for us to sell our well maintained cars without extensive checks, PPI with leakdown etc. Honesty in transactions is a dying ethic. He seems almost gloating in "getting rid of his car" at a good price. And there is no response to whether he fully disclosed any known or previous defects?

What is CA law on disclosure in a sale?

My .02 probably worth 00.

Tool Pants

I was admitted to the California State Bar in 1981. Cars and motorcycles are my hobby. As a young attorney years ago I handled a few "lemon law" cases when California passed the legislation. He does not have a lemon law case. I now mostly handle real estate cases so I have not kept current on car stuff.

My county never had the funding for real judges to cover small claims court. And back when I started small claims court was limited to $1,500 or $2,500 - I do not remember. The jurisdictional limit for small claims court in California is now up to $5,000. We used court comissioners for small claims court. Comissioners are attorneys hired by the the county on a full time basis, so they no longer have a law practice. They are not appointed by the governor or elected, and they are paid less so it saves the county money. They do not have the same powers as a "real" judge. They are also used in traffic court for what we call infractions, like simple speeding. For serious traffic matters, like drunk driving, you are charged with a misdemeanor and go to the real court with a real judge.

I am in Northern California and he is in Southern California, so I do not know what they do down there in their county court system. But in the entire state of California attorneys are not permitted to represent either party in small claims court. If a defendant loses a small claims case in my county then they can appeal to the superior court where you get a real judge and then you can have an attorney.

It use to be that any attorney with at least 5 years of practice could volunteer to hear and decide small claims cases. Then about a dozen years ago a law was passed that required attorney volunteers to also take a training seminar and get certified. We were given a bunch of books at the seminar that dealt mostly with consumer law issues. I am certified. I do not remember the exact date since my certificate is at the office.

In California an individual can sell as car "as-is." If something goes wrong with the car after the sale then too bad. But if a buyer ask you did you ever have x, y, or x problems, and you lie with the answer, then you might be on the hook as that is called fraud. Plus, and it is not a legal issue, he paid about $1,700 to fix the problems he knew about before he sold the car. From a moral, not a legal standpoint, he did nothing wrong other than to sell his car on the assumption he thought the problems were fixed at the time of the sale based on what I have seen so far.

If I was to extend the emotional statement in this thread to the extreme then I should not sell my Boxster without informing the potential buyer, what? That I paid to have an air flow sensor replaced and Boxsters/996s are known for air flow sensor problems. That I paid to have have an oxygen sensor replaced about 3 years ago and the exact same sensor was replace again at no cost during the smog inspection because I paid for it 3 years ago. That these are cronic problems along with the seal issue and it may happen again.