Taking PCNA to Small Claims next week

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!!

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?

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.

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.

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!!

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?

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?

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. I love the sentence " HE PAID FOR A CAR THAT CHECKED OUT PERFECT, IF IT DIDN'T THEN I WOULD HAVE ADJUSTED THE PRICE ACCORDINGLY. NOT MY PROBLEM THE COOLANT BOTTLE LEAKED AFTER HE BOUGHT IT" Seems to me your sueing BHP PCA for the same thing! You paid for work....it was done..it worked for a day or two....then was faulty. Tuff luck, right?

I think he is referring to the money paid to repair the rear main seal.

I must have missed something, if was denied warranty work?? why should he lose?? Id like to know how this turns out as Id like to take BMW NA to small claims, over a comparably notorious problem

Tough luck it is. That is why some sellers offer a warranty. That is why Porsche offers a warranty. That is why some independent shops offer a warranty for repair work. It is factored in the cost. This panerai poster wanted comments about his small claims case against PCNA and BHP. After he paid money out of his pocket to correct the problems when they refused. All the responses I have seen so far are as if the buyer of the car wanted to go after the seller, paneria. The buyer has not asked a question. As far as I can tell the question is whether or not panerai can get hiis money back. I do not care if he made or lost money on the sale. I do not care if he gave the current owner the correct time of day. I do not care if there were problems with the car after the sale. You folks need to read his original question.

Ok from what I've read: Watchman claims BHP did not tell PCA of the warrenty problem. All warranty work must be done by a factory authorized dealer. NO way around that. PCA pays the dealer to do the work. PCA knows about EVERY WARRANTY CLAIM. I'd still like to know why "all warranty work/claims etc would be denied" The dealership cannot just deny warranty coverage. They can choose not to work on a car. If thats the case, why? or better yet...why not take it to another Porsche dealer?

You need to read the messages again. He had a 1999. First question I asked. Factory warranty was over at the time of the repairs that he paid for out of his pocket at an independent shop. If it was my car and I had a warranty then I would have taken it to another dealer since we have a few in Silicon Valley. One dealer says no, and the next dealer says yes. You shop around. Out of warranty and if they do not like the color of your eyes, then you have a problem.

Hey, please give the new owner the free 60k service. And don't take the 1000 for your GT.

L-E-T M-E T-R-Y T-O E-X-P-L-A-I-N T-H-I-S T-O Y-O-U G-U-Y-S, W-H-O A-R-E B-A-R-K-I-N-G A-T P.-W-A-T-C-H TWO SEPERATE ISSUES HERE, You guy's are blaming him for not diclosing to the new owner the possibility of the coolant leak in the future. 1) The lawsuit is NOT for the RECURRENT leak, it is for a repair that was done under warranty that failed within a short time that porsche is refusing to repair again PERIOD.(I know the problem was coolant leak, but he is not suing porsche for the recurrent coolant leaks, just for that ONE REPAIR) 2) To make it even easier, we all know that RMS can fail, now porsche doesn't disclose that during their sale, but if I happen to get a car with RMS problems, now am I suppose to tell the future buyer that RMS can keep failing. 3) To make it even easier, imagine a guy trying to sell a Ferrari, the guy has to write a BOOK each time he sells a ferrari of what all can go wrong. So, this is basically a car that keeps giving problems (coolant leak) to P.watch due to a possible manufacturing defect we all know is there with a porsche 996, he is tired of dealing with it, and he REPAIRED THE CAR TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITIES THROUGH A PORSCHE AUTHORIZED MECHANIC and he has sold it, what the f*&k do guy's not understand. P.W. Good luck with you lawsuit!

wow! jeeva are you on the take for p-watch? I have never seen anybody get so worked up for another person on this board. I think the reason everybody has taken the stance they have is the manner in which p-watch has approached this whole situation with the apparent lack of ethics and disregard for the new owner of his car. Maybe he is in the right, but the facts ARE NOT out there even after several people has asked specific questions to understand his complaint. It would be nice if p-watch was to answer those questions people are asking (why wasn't it repaired, etc?) so they can maybe understand where he is coming from. Who knows, maybe we would all be on his side after that. I think this thread just needs to die so we can get back to what we do beston this board.....talk about all the mods kirb is doing or what is the maximum tire size I can put on a rim, etc.

Since the parts repeatedly failed they should have fixed it. Good luck in court. The transmission in my wife's honda failed under warranty. Since it was a known issue they replaced it and gave an extended 100,000 mi. warranty on the trans. Evidently Honda is more worried about their reputation for reliability than PCNA.

[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:] https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/jumper.gif https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/beerchug.gif

ROFLMAO!

Tool Pants, Exact wording on the work order is: In bold face type:"Free repair or replacement of defective parts and accessories for 24 months, or unlimited miles. 1.PcoNA warrants that every new and factory rebuilt Porsche part and accessory, which is imported or distributed by PcoNA and sold as new or factory rebuilt part or accessory to a retail customer, will be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service for 24 months after the date of delivery of the part or accessory to the original retail customer or until the vehicle in which the part or accessory is installed has been driven unlimited miles." It states nothing about authorized warranty repair to the retail customer. Do you have any idea if there is any warranty? I think jeeva summed it up nicely. How can you blame me for the possibility of mechanical failure somewhere in the future? What part of that do you guys not understand? My lawsuit in not about a RECURRENT leak it's for a repairs done under PORSCHE WARRANTY by an authorized dealer that failed soon after repair. RMS, and coolant tanks fail in these cars, it's a fact we all know about. One of the guys here is on his 5th. This thread is not about the new owner it's about the old owner!! I fixed this car to the best of my ability and then sold it. According to ScottS and LVDell if your car has RMS problems or coolant leaks you should just find someone willing to take a gift of a 996 cabriolet, because it's worth nothing or close to nothing anyway! Oh yeah, don’t forget to write a book noting every possible problem that the future owner could experience. You must be joking. It's not like I held a gun to the buyers head and told him this is the only 996 you can buy. He was a big boy and understood that he was buying a preowned car. FWIW a week after the new owner had been driving the car I got a call from him telling me that this car was perfect for him, he loves it and he's been looking for a car like this for a long while. I did tell him about all the great Porsche websites out there with number one being Rennlist (so I hope he's reading), but the most important site is Renntech.org with all the repair and DIY information! Maybe LVDell and ScottS should start a thread with a name like how to inform future Porsche owners that 996's have RMS and coolant issues. Then you could add every problem that might occur just to cover your ***. You guys need to read and if necessary re-read my original question it's black and white. LVDell and ScottS just interested do you guys support the Kerry campaign? Guys, Thanks for the good wishes with the suit.

The language on the work order is almost identical to what is on the back of mine. Technically they should not use the preprinted paper with that language on the back on a warranty work order since it has no application to warranty work. But my dealer on has one type of paper in the printer, and warranty and non warranty work or printed on the same paper. That is the warranty language for a cash paying customer that pays out of pocket for parts and labor. The 4 year warranty that came with your car has nothing to do with this. I assume none of the prior repairs done under warranty were paid for by you. You were never sold nor did you purchase a new or rebuilt part. You were not a retail customer, you were a warranty customer. Based on what I have read so far you had a goodwill claim. It was denied for whatever reason - the reason is not relevant. Cross your fingers and hope the small claims judge is also a pissed off Porsche owner.

As a Porsche owner continually since 1980, I'm dismayed that Porsche can't fix this problem once and for all. My 99 Boxster had a coolant leak at 10,000 miles, and now is at 30,000. With the rms issues, coolant issues, and track use issues, I'm torn between doing the 30K service and keeping the car, or just selling it now. This is a problem of Porsche's making, and they can solve it by standing behind a clearly defective product. To satisfy the moral indignation of several posters, I'd have to tell every prospective buyer to read Scouser's posts, and then wait to see if he still wants a Porsche. GM sells a lot more cars, but I'm doubtful that they have this many RMS leaks- granted no data, but I suspect we'd hear a class action suit by now. At this point, I'm guessing we're all a mite anxious about impending leaks. AS

Does "to the original owner" mean anything to anybody? Couldn't that preclude any subsequent owner from warranty acting like like a non transferrability clause?