# HELP -- BMW won't honor my factory warranty



## mafranz1 (Apr 20, 2004)

I'm desperate. 

Less than 2 months ago I bought a CPO 2008 328i convertible with 30K miles from BMW in Salem Oregon for $35K. It has another 16 months on its original factory warranty, plus the CPO coverage, plus free maintainance thru 6 years/100k as part of the BMWFS promo.

Here's the short version: The convertible roof started leaking in the rain about a month after I purchased the car. I took it to my local Portland dealer (Rasmussen BMW). After almost 2 weeks in the shop, they were able to "confirm 1mm of difference in clearance between the left and right windshield pillar (larger gap on the drivers side)." 

The following day I was informed by Roy Blumesehein, the head of the service department, that they had conferred with the "district technical department" and determined that the problem was not covered by any BMW warranty because "it did not appear consistent with day to day normal use of the car." They let me know they would take no further action under warranty coverage. 

After soiling my pants, I called BMW NA and spoke with Lainy Chase, a customer representative. She called Rasmussen and confirmed that BMW would not service this issue under the warranty as "our dealers go by whatever the district technical department determines." She informed me I that I have no other recourse with BMW. She did say I always have the "right as a consumer to take legal action.":thumbdwn:

So, I have notified Salem BMW and they have picked up the car and assure me they will "fix the problem." But how can they possibly fix it if BMW NA has said it's not covered -- especially when only Rasmussen has the proper highly technical equipment to work on RHT in all of Oregon? 

All in all, my car has been in the shop for 26 days of the 56 that I've owned it for various issues. And yes, this is a BMW official CPO car purchased on January 29, 2011.

Frankly, I would be content if Salem BMW just bought it back at its original purchase price and be done with it. 

I've been a loyal BMW owner since 2004. I even flew to Munich to pick up my first one. I feel like BMW is giving me the absolute shaft. In my opinion, it is shameful behavior. Furthermore, it is stupid business. They have lost a 40 year old customer who was likely going to buy BMWs for the next several decades.:tsk:

Can anyone offer me any advice?

Thanks.
-Mike


----------



## soupcon (Sep 13, 2008)

start by sending polite but firm letters to the head of bmw na, head of bww worldwide, cc: head of both dealerships. overnight for morning delivery. cc a lawyer if you have one. i have no idea what they're thinking has been done inappropriately to the car, but i would as well not want to have anything to do with the car any more.


----------



## calebwoodd (Mar 27, 2011)

Send all correspondence via certified mail and CC your attorney as well as the corporate head of the BBB. ( better business bureau). Let them know that the issue isn't going to go away. If you have an attorney, pay him $100 to draft a letter personally. That's BS and they should take care of the problem... Period!


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

Here is a thought- the car had some kind of damage/body work done. It should never have been CPOd, but Salem turned a blind eye.

THen when you went to Rasmissen, they realized all this but did not want to risk THEIR relationship with BMWNA by fixing something an trying to bill BMWNA. If BMWNA says 'prior damage', rasmussen is stuck with the bill.

Lets see what happens with Salem... you have a legal case agaisnt Salem. Buy you will need an INDEPENDENT expert (ie not a BMW dealer) to do an inspection and determine what CAUSED this 'gap'.

The ****s at BMWNA consumer affairs are absolutely worthless. "We welcome you suing us". Frigging morons

You will probably need a lawyer.

I assume you did not do a PPI on this car....yet another horror story where people thing a CPO means something.


----------



## ZoomVT (May 30, 2008)

^^^ what he said is a very likely story.

Now, Salem may fix it out of pocket because they know they F-ed up the CPO process.


----------



## tagheuer (Jun 10, 2004)

yeah.....you really need to get the full story.

Exactly why are they saying its 1mm off....are they implying that the car was damaged (i.e. had bodywork) and was improperly repaired?

Did you get a carfax? Did selling dealer make any representations regarding whether car was ever in an accident?

I don't think it matters from the customer's POV whether they screwed up with the CPO process, if the car had major body damage, and it wasn't disclosed, you might get some traction yelling fraud.

I haven't seen CPO warranty in a long time....does it "warranty" car has not had significant body damage? I thought cars cannot/should not be CPO'd with major body damage....but maybe this representation/standard doesn't benefit you.


----------



## FastMarkA (Apr 21, 2008)

FoxNews might be able to get your car fixed for free. ;-)


----------



## soupcon (Sep 13, 2008)

fwiw years ago a guy on one of these boards posted a story about having bought a 328 CPO. it had a sunroof and it started leaking. turned out the car didn't come with a sunroof. it was added aftermarket. a bunch of us read thru the CPO guidelines and i believe he used it to get the car bought back, since an aftermarket sunroof violated the criteria for CPOing the car. 

observation of structural damage should invalidate the CPO as long as you can prove it didn't happen while you had it. they should take that car back. 

carfax is so often not right and you can't count on dealers to make the right judgements. i bought a starmark merc years ago and it was clear it had been hit, but because nothing was on the carfax, they could sell it to me for a premium as a certified car. this is why i lease new cars now. never again, unless i know the person who had the car previously.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

There is nothing in the BMW CPO guidelines that requires a dealer to disclose damage. Also, a car can be hit and repaired and STILL be 'legally' CPO'd per BMW's guidelines. However, there are critical body structures that- if damaged and even if repaired- will preclude CPO approval.

There are a great many places where the CPO guidelines and the CPO checklist have been published on line. Google is your friend.

OP, the dealer is _required_ to give you the written CPO checklist when they sold you the car. DO YOU HAVE THAT? very important IMO

A


----------



## Robert A (May 18, 2003)

Three comments:

- Have you requested an in-person meeting with the BMW field service engineer? 
- If you are a member of BMWCCA, you might employ their ombudsmen service.
- Check you BMWNA warranty booklet to see if BMW offers a dispute resolution service.

To me, it sounds like you have either a manufacturing defect (which should be covered), or some aftermarket damage (that wouldn't).


----------



## tagheuer (Jun 10, 2004)

ard said:


> There is nothing in the BMW CPO guidelines that requires a dealer to disclose damage. Also, a car can be hit and repaired and STILL be 'legally' CPO'd per BMW's guidelines. However, there are critical body structures that- if damaged and even if repaired- will preclude CPO approval.
> 
> There are a great many places where the CPO guidelines and the CPO checklist have been published on line. Google is your friend.
> 
> ...


if this car was hit so badly that the roof is no longer aligned and leaks I highly doubt that it could have/should have been CPOd

Also, even though CPO warranty doesn't necessarily require BMW dealer to disclose accident history, there may be some other dealer specific form where such a representation was made (unlikely but possible)

You could also argue that you know BMWs with significant body damage cannot be CPOd, that you relied upon BMW's CPO warranty/process to ensure that the car you buying did not suffer from severe body damage, your reliance was reasonable and you were damaged as a result (yeah, I'm a commercial litigation attorney)

You need to say you reviewed the CPO checklist prior to buying the car, that it did not disclose any significant repairs/bodywork, and that you relied upon that written document.


----------



## mafranz1 (Apr 20, 2004)

I really appreciate all the responses my original post has generated. I want to answer a few questions that have been posed and give more details to the history:

1.	The car has a clean 1-owner car fax history with no reported collisions.

2.	This car is still under its full bumper to bumper warranty for another 16 months/20K miles before the CPO warranty kicks in. 

3.	Rasmussen says that they have never had to repair an e93 hardtop before. They say they bought the expensive equipment to do it but have not had to use it. (I think they know they would never get reimbursed enough on a warranty payment to a) learn how to use the tool b) spend the time it takes to actually realign the RHT or whatever else they need to do)

4.	Rasmussen says that a a gap as large as a “1 mm misalignment” is indicative that something beyond normal daily use happened. Really?? So how many micrometers would be within the range that they would repair??

5.	When I originally purchased the car, the RHT got stuck coming out of the trunk and needed manual assistance to pull it out. This was inconsistent but visualized by the sales rep at Salem who “guaranteed” that they could fix it. Subsequently, I took it to Rasmussen who “lubricated” the RHT mechanisms and it worked just fine for several weeks until the above mentioned leak.

6.	When the car was first at Rasmussen for the lube of the RHT, I also had them check out the well-known “shuttering/wind buffeting” effect that occurs on e93s with the RHT up between 40-60 MPH (see other threads). They discovered that the car had non-OEM tires on all 4 wheels and that one was so worn that it was about to expose steel. Salem came up, picked the car up, and replaced it with 4 new OEM Michelin Pilot RFT. 

7.	I never received the CPO inspection checklist nor was it offered to me until I found out about the non-OEM tires and requested it. I just received it about 3 weeks ago in the mail and everything was checked “OK”. I’m not convinced Salem ever inspected the car.

8.	Salem has provided me with a 2010 328i convertible as a loaner. They won’t be getting it back until my car is fixed, or better yet, they buy it back at full purchase price.

9.	I’d be interested in a “trade assist” – do you think I might have a case for that? 

I feel dumb for trusting Salem in the first place. But I still think I have been treated extremely poorly by Rasmussen and BMW NA and that they need to make this right.


----------



## mclaren (Jan 5, 2005)

There have been people on this board who had E93 buy backs on account of leaking. Mine never leaked a drop, I was lucky but it was a factor in my decision to trade it.


----------



## Robert A (May 18, 2003)

I'm having difficulty understanding why your claim was denied. If it's a defect in materials and workmanship, it should be covered. If it is being suggested that this is not a defect, what is their basis for this position?

FWIW, the dealer should be going to bat for you on this one. They are in the position to do the most.

BMW customer relations probably won't help, and threatening legal action is kind of a joke (remember, BMW is an industrial giant and is well armed to defend warranty denials). Complaining to a state agency (such as the bureau of automotive repair), or writing a letter to the president of BMWNA, might help.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

mafranz1 said:


> I
> 
> After soiling my pants, I called BMW NA and spoke with Lainy Chase, a customer representative. She called Rasmussen and confirmed that BMW would not service this issue under the warranty as "our dealers go by whatever the district technical department determines." She informed me I that I have no other recourse with BMW. She did say I always have the "right as a consumer to take legal action.":thumbdwn:


Lainy deserves special recognition for her special 'fail' in this situation.

It is one thing when BMW Corporate says "we can't be paying for all these sob stories", but this really sounds like BMW dealers and BMW tech reps simply failing to do an adequate job...and her refusal to do even a cursory inquiry.


----------



## mafranz1 (Apr 20, 2004)

I do think Salem still has a chance to do the right thing, although I still don't think they inspected the vehicle for the CPO status prior to my purchase. My concern is that they don't have the equipment to fix the misalignment. Only Rasmussen does in the entire region. I'm also wary that even if they fix it, this RHT will continue to have problems. 

As recommended by an attorney I've consulted, I'm going to take the car to an independent body shop to have it examined for evidence of past collision and/or a manufacturer defect. If it shows either of these, the attorney says she wants to take on the case without charge to me.


----------



## calebwoodd (Mar 27, 2011)

Atta boy! Possession is 9/10 of the law!



mafranz1 said:


> I really appreciate all the responses my original post has generated. I want to answer a few questions that have been posed and give more details to the history:
> 
> 1.	The car has a clean 1-owner car fax history with no reported collisions.
> 
> ...


----------



## AnonCA (Oct 26, 2010)

RE:"although I still don't think they inspected the vehicle for the CPO status" That doesn't matter if the original manufacturer's warranty is still in place RE:"My concern is that they don't have the equipment to fix the misalignment" That's their problem, not yours. If you car is covered by the original manufacturer's warranty, it's covered by the orginal manufacturer's warranty; period. It's their job to fix it. A CPO warranty doesn't cover a whole helluva lot beyond the extreme basics. All of the cars we put on the lot go through basically the same inspection process, CPO or not. Yes, the CPO does have guidelines, mostly relating to oil changes(go figure), matching ("BMW approved"-read- "pricey") tires and more. CPO status, from any manufacturer is simply a warm and fuzzy marketing plan designed to get get BMW/Mercedes/Porsche/etc. FS-owned lease returns off the books quicker. People get all caught up in CPO or not CPO. BMW offers a comparably priced extended warranty that covers a lot more than the CPO. Like we all know, marketing and advertising rule the world. That's why we all have to have a CPO...no other reason
Long story short, your car is covered by the original warranty. They need to fix it.


----------



## AnonCA (Oct 26, 2010)

RE:"They won***8217;t be getting it back until my car is fixed". I'd definitely consult your attorney on that one. Grand theft auto is tough to get expunged.


----------



## 1985mb (Apr 2, 2008)

AnonCA said:


> RE:"although I still don't think they inspected the vehicle for the CPO status" That doesn't matter if the original manufacturer's warranty is still in place RE:"My concern is that they don't have the equipment to fix the misalignment" That's their problem, not yours. If you car is covered by the original manufacturer's warranty, it's covered by the orginal manufacturer's warranty; period. It's their job to fix it.[snip]
> 
> Long story short, your car is covered by the original warranty. They need to fix it.


As has been suggested in the other thread on the same subject, the problem could have resulted from a collision or accident (in which case it would not fall under BMW's new car or any other warranty).

This question should be easy to prove. What is harder to prove is whether this happened before or after leaving Salem's lot.


----------



## rmorin49 (Jan 7, 2007)

ard said:


> Great advice in the post...wanted to comment on this piece.
> 
> While I can consider Salem as a 'victim' as a practical matter (ie now the GM has a problem and that wasn't his personal doing), the truth is that a CPO inspection is billed as a thorough refurbishment of a used car to 'exacting BMW standards'. (OK, up off the floor) The actual fact is that these are cursory inspections. One can see why it was missed given how the majority of CPO inspections are performed: tires, detail...thats it, if brakes are <50% it prolly never gets a cpo-. But this car had damage history, this called for a careful inspection, and clearly Salem didn't do their job. The signs should have been there, but we know dealers turn a blind eye to this all the time. Not all, but enough that a CPO means nothing.
> 
> A


One of the big selling points of a CPO car is supposed to be the warranty.

Sent from my iPhone using BimmerApp


----------



## quackbury (Dec 17, 2005)

I have yet to see a warranty that covers body damage due to collision. I am sure if the OP had a mechanical problem it would be covered. But "warranty" doesn't mean "we will fix anything that goes wrong with this car, even if you or the previous owner did it." 

In this story, the "CPO" is a red herring. The car is covered by the balance of the new car warranty. Which excludes damage caused by fire, flood, collision, demonic possession or alien abduction. If the OP had performed a PPI, he probably would not have purchased this car.

The moral of the story is don't rely on CarFax or a CPO. Anytime you buy a used car, you do so at your own risk.


----------



## mafranz1 (Apr 20, 2004)

I really appreciate everyone's support on this thread. I am being advised to stop posting at this point. I hope to be able to let you all know the conclusion of this drama at some point in the not-to-distant future. Thanks again.

-Mike


----------



## pylt (Jun 10, 2003)

mafranz1 said:


> I really appreciate everyone's support on this thread. I am being advised to stop posting at this point. I hope to be able to let you all know the conclusion of this drama at some point in the not-to-distant future. Thanks again.
> 
> -Mike


Mike,

Concur.

Just keep this internal to you and the dealership involved for now. The reality would appear to be that the CPO "inspection" wasn't up to snuff. Hence, you have a damaged car that you WANT/NEED to get out of, and at no cost.

Lawyer up if needed, but try to be nice first. Talk to the GM, CALMLY explain what's happened so far, and that you want out of the deal with ZERO out of pocket. It's their problem, not yours . . . .

Keep us informed by a short note when you're done with the process.

Thx.


----------



## adgrant (Aug 13, 2003)

mafranz1 said:


> I think you've nailed it exactly. But now that the district technical director has made a determination of no warranty coverage (likely at the urging of Rasmussen), I wonder how Salem can get the issue covered. They are probably going to have to pay it themselves.


Why would a dealer urge BMW to make a determination of no warranty coverage. What's the upside for them?


----------



## Llarry (May 17, 2002)

adgrant said:


> Why would a dealer urge BMW to make a determination of no warranty coverage. What's the upside for them?


In this case, the selling dealer was BMW of Salem (Oregon) and the customer took the vehicle to Rasmussen as they were closer to his home. So Rasmussen really did not have any money involved, except for doing warranty work (or not) on BMW's dime. And if a dealer does warranty work for something they should not have done and bills BMWNA, then BMW can deny the warranty claim and leave the dealer holding the bag. So Rasmussen quite properly (I think) told BMW it was not a warranty issue.


----------



## nsfw (Apr 8, 2011)

Wow i just read this whole thread and think i'm soured over CPO. BMW has to know a lot of people will read this forever and all over pocket change for a large corp.


----------



## Munich77 (Jul 16, 2008)

As a tip to the OP for conducting business over the phone, next time ask BMW for an e-mail address as well or use their general e-mail address. You can always send a nice confirmatory e-mail address to create a document trail and end the e-mail with language to the effect that BMW should respond to you in writing if there are any misunderstandings. 

As for the OP - good idea to stop posting on here. Let's hope the issue will get resolved in your favor.


----------



## Llarry (May 17, 2002)

mafranz1 said:


> I really appreciate everyone's support on this thread. I am being advised to stop posting at this point. I hope to be able to let you all know the conclusion of this drama at some point in the not-to-distant future. Thanks again.
> -Mike


Hi Mike, hopefully this has been resolved in the month since your last post. Any news yet?


----------



## mafranz1 (Apr 20, 2004)

Should have an update very soon.


----------



## cha777 (Sep 19, 2006)

mafranz1 said:


> Should have an update very soon.


Anything....I've been very curious about this....


----------



## dalekressin (Sep 3, 2008)

I am also very dissapointed to read this.
CPO? I have read other concerns about the quality of CPO.
I also have read opinions both ways whether an accident is a disqualifier for CPO.
Probably NOT.


----------

