Clamor for indie body to look at ‘lemons’ growing
(Conclusion)
ARCILLA
If two disputing parties cannot arrive at a compromise, then a “Solomonic” decision from a third party is needed.
An independent technical body, much like the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is being asked to investigate motor vehicles suspected of being “lemon cars” by owners or buyers. This investigative body would not only provide the final say on the matter, but would also be impervious to the influences of both auto manufacturers and the complainants.
The NHTSA, aside from investigating traffic accidents, also sets standards in highway and motor vehicle safety and investigates suspected anomalies related to such. It is responsible for mandating vehicle recalls based on accumulated complaints.
One such test case for a local counterpart of NHTSA could have been the recent controversy involving the Mitsubishi Montero. Eight months ago, a certain blog from Montero owners began circulating about their vehicles suddenly accelerating for no apparent reason, an apparent déjà vu of the Toyota Prius’ unintended acceleration phenomenon that just a year ago embroiled the world’s No. 1 carmaker in controversy in the United States. A month after the blog was written and posted, and a few months after the Mitsubishi Motors Philippines’ engineers’ findings didn’t satisfy the Montero owner, Mitsubishi Motors Corp. Japan dispatched a team of engineers to investigate the case and released its findings (see the Mitsubishi statement at https://business.inquirer.net/18179/montero-sport-found-safe) that concluded that the parts in question were operating normally within specifications. In other words, the engineers said they found nothing wrong with the Montero.
Arlan Reyes, Mitsubishi Motors Philippines assistant manager for advertising and promotions, would be the first to admit that these findings wouldn’t sit well with the complainants. “We were hoping for an independent committee of engineers, not employed by us, to also oversee the investigation so it would not be viewed with suspicion. Unfortunately there’s none.”
Reyes then told Inquirer Motoring, “Someone like Alex Loinaz would have been the next best thing to head this technical team, but he is understaffed and under equipped.”
Echoing Reyes’ sentiments, social media users have also clamored for such an independent body to investigate allegations of vehicle anomalies.
Automotive technologist Alexander P. Loinaz currently chairs the technical committee on road vehicles known as TC 44, a parallel committee of ISO TC-22 on road vehicles.
For years, Loinaz has been proposing that a bill be filed creating a Bureau of Automotive Repairs, which would look into consumer complaints in the auto industry. “I’ve sent the proposal to several senators, but I don’t think they really understood it,” he told Inquirer Motoring.
REYES
Inquirer Motoring made several calls to the Department of Trade and Industry’s Bureau of Trade Regulation and Consumer Protection, and learned that the staff members were not knowledgeable in matters concerning motor vehicles.
“They have a testing facility for appliances, but none for cars. When they can’t handle a complaint, they ask the tech committee, which then leads to me,” Loinaz quipped. He said he had been sought by the department several times to mediate on cases involving motor vehicles.
Lawyer Albert Arcilla, managing director and chief operating officer of The Covenant Car Company Inc. (Chevrolet Philippines), told Inquirer Motoring that he looked forward to a law that would protect both consumers and sellers, and that which would also provide an objective process on how to determine the rights and liabilities of both parties.
“It must be clear that this is a process and not conclusive until a full determination of the facts (is made) by an objective body. I hope it will also include and be clear as to what are the different causes of action that may be elevated and who are the proper parties in interest. By this, it will distinguish if the cause of action should be based on the product defect or by the quality of service rendered or by the simple disappointment or disagreement of the parties concerned,” he explained.
Matrix of remedies
Road safety advocate Arnel Doria, former vice president for marketing of a Japanese automotive company in the Philippines, said that the law should set a clear definition on what constitutes a lemon product. “Moreover,” he added, “since any one of the vehicle components may cause a breakdown, there must be clear guidelines regarding remedies.”
Doria said that if a manufacturer is mandated to immediately replace all vehicles that suffer breakdowns, none of them would be able to survive as a business.
“A matrix of remedies should be established for different kinds of breakdowns, and depending on the gravity of the problem. In other countries, priority is given to breakdowns that may affect the safety of users; cosmetic problems are usually not prioritized.”
Doria said that penalties should be imposed on (a) manufacturers for not applying remedies to a buyers’ complaint; and (b) buyers found to have bogus claims.
“The lemon law should also be applicable to gray market importers, as well as sellers of used vehicles. It should operate outside of the warranty provisions given by manufacturers,” said Doria. He noted that manufacturers may redefine their warranty provisions once a lemon law is in place.
