[someguy1993]

It is worth going through all this, because it is wrong. I pay $1485.00 a month for this car. I did NOTHING wrong, and I have to pay for a problem that BMW should have fixed for free. This problem should not have even happened....


"CASE: BMW1528084 Gabrimassihi vs BMW of North America WBSLX9C59DC968437


This letter is intended to establish that my case is in fact applicable to the manufacturer’s new vehicle warranty AND the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
BMW’s new vehicle warranty is applicable up to 48 months, or 50,000 miles, whichever occurs first. My 2013 BMW M6 has 30,000 miles, which meets the first requirement. Furthermore, BMW states “the vehicle must be brought, upon discovery of a defect in material or workmanship, to the workshop of any authorized BMW center.” The vehicle was taken to an authorized BMW center, so this claim still lies under the factories new vehicle warranty. This vehicle was manufactured as a powerful performance vehicle intended to deliver a higher level of performance than the lesser and more inexpensive 6 series models. [Please refer to attachment #1, #2, and #3]. Not only has the engine been modified to deliver more horsepower from the factory, the suspension and chassis have also been reinforced by BMW to be able to handle the increased power. I believe that that failed component on this vehicle, which was a broken axle, is the result of a defective part. I believe that because the manufacturer increased the power of the vehicle without taking into account the reliability of the axle, caused this axle to fail under circumstances not alien to this vehicles intended purpose.


BMW has claimed that an “outside influence” was the cause of this failure. The representative I spoke with, Nancy McDonald, has explained that BMW denied the warranty claim because the repairs needed were “due to aftermarket wheels and multiple burnouts.” The Federal Trade Commission states that The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. The FTC also states that the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage. Neither the dealership nor manufacturer has provided any evidence that the aftermarket wheels installed on the vehicle caused the axle to fail. The wheels that are installed are the same 20 inch diameter as the wheels BMW offers, and I believe there is no factual evidence that can show the wheel had any effect causing the axle to fail. As for the statement that the repair will not be covered under warranty because the vehicle has performed “multiple burnouts,” I have made it clear that negligent “burnouts” were not performed, the vehicle is manufactured with a factory launch control, and using it evidently causes the wheels to lose traction because of the massive tourqe the engine produces, this is not abnormal and there is no possible way to prevent this from happening when a customer is using the launch control feature because of the precise settings the vehicle must be in order to use the feature. The only way to use the launch control feature is to set the cars suspension, steering, and throttle response setting to “sport plus” and also to disengage the vehicles traction control. This is the only possible way to use the launch control, which the customer will know is functioning when the launch control indicator flag is visible on the vehicle dash board [Please see attachment #3.5]. This feature was used only once when this failure occurred. While there is no exact number of launches that BMW has expressed will be deemed as “negligent” driving, I do not believe a single instance constitutes negligence. Under section 1792.2 of the Song Beverly Warranty Act, subsection (a)

“Every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state by a retailer or distributor who has reason to know at the time of the retail sale that the goods are required for a particular purpose, and that the buyer is relying on the retailer's or distributor's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods shall be accompanied by such retailer's or distributor's implied warranty that the goods are fit for that purpose.”

Furthermore under section 1793.1 subsection (a)

(1) Every manufacturer, distributor, or retailer making express warranties with respect to consumer goods shall fully set forth those warranties in simple and readily understood language, which shall clearly identify the party making the express warranties, and which shall conform to the federal standards for disclosure of warranty terms and conditions set forth in the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et seq.)

Since the outcome of my warranty claim is “solely the prerogative of BMW NA,” I believe it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to sincerely review this case and investigate why the field technician whose credentials or factual finding are still unknown to me, assumedly determined that this vehicle was in fact driven in “negligible” manner. According to BMW’s new vehicle warranty, repairs will not be covered under warranty if the driver was “negligent,” driving “improperly,” or if “the vehicle has been used in any competitive event.” This vehicle was being driven on a public road. This vehicle had no performance tune or any type of performance enhancing parts installed that would cause stress unforeseen by BMW’s engineers. The vehicle was being driven in manner that should have been appropriate for the parts installed on the vehicle to handle. If BMW does not agree that this vehicle should be driven in a way its customers are regularly being advised is safe and permissible to drive, I would like to ask why such features such as “launch control” and “sport plus” settings are provided with the purchase of this car and why no warning that using such features may cause a significant component of the vehicle to fail unexpectedly or even worse, why using such features may endanger one’s life because of the unexpected failure of a part. While I believe that this problem may have arisen due in part of the dealership, I have provided Nancy McDonald proof that a similar customer, Stephan Lui in Vancouver, launched his BMW M5 (Exact same vehicle specification as the M6, but with 4 doors) and had BMW provide the warranty services [See attachment #5 #6, and #7].

I believe it is in the manufacturer’s interest to review this case, and determine why

1. The dealership has been so negligent with a loyal customer who has purchased over 5 BMW’s, repeatedly refraining from providing informative pieces of information such as the actual reasons as to why the vehicle was being denied warranty, [Please see attachment #4: Conversation with dealership Service Advisor] and also why the dealership has decided to charge a “storage fee” of $50.00 dollars a day without contacting me in a reasonable amount of time in advance or having the decency to contact me via phone.

2. This repair has been plagued by excuses to exclude loyal customers from their legal right to have their vehicle repaired under warranty and returned to them in a reasonable amount of time. The payments for this vehicle are about $1485.00 per month, the price of the vehicle should reflect the service that will be provided. Not only has this vehicle been out of service, but no effort has been made to investigate this matter. I am disturbed the manufacture would disregard such a serious complaint and not look into the customers dissatisfaction on such matter especially since this vehicle is suppose to be the flagship performance vehicle, regarded as the best performance vehicle this company has.

Thank you for taking the time to read and acknowledge a frustrated, yet loyal customers concerns regarding his vehicle,

Emin Gabrimassihi
September 28, 2015"