I bought a new Toyota Echo in June of 2003 from a dealership in Southern Ontario. Immediately after the purchase, I noticed a noise emanating from the rear of the vehicle. The dealership had closed so I decided to bring the car for repairs on another day.
Over the next 6 months my vehicle made 10 visits (over 32 days total) to the dealership. Each "repair" produced the same result - the noise was still there. I spent numerous hours on the phone with the dealership, and eventually the manufacturer.
Initially, I began to write down the dates I brought the vehicle in. After the first 3 visits in July of 2003, I realized there was going to be an issue getting the work orders. I asked each time I spoke to the dealership's service manager. I only received excuses. Because of this, I decided to tape all conversations with the dealership.
At the beginning of November 2003, I informed the dealership that I was intending to call Toyota Canada (as per the vehicle's manual and CAMVAP).
Dealing with Toyota Canada was no different than the dealership. The representative from Toyota spoke directly to the dealership's service manager. The dealership gave excuses to Toyota Canada, and Toyota provided some suggestions on possible causes of the noise.
After another month passed, I wrote the manufacturer about my situation. In the letter I stated that my vehicle needed to be fixed by a certain date, or I would proceed to CAMVAP.
It was evident I was being ignored. During the entire process the dealership never called to check the status of my vehicle.
At the end of March 2004, I applied to CAMVAP. One of the requirements(which I met) is that your vehicle be less than 1 year old and have under 25000 kms by the date of the abitration hearing.
When you fill out the application you are given the choice of 3 arbitrators. I would suggest selecting no preference - that way there will be no negative feeling with your arbitrator. Mine was professional, courteous and set a comfortable tone for the hearing.
In my application I included transcripts of taped conversations as evidence, as well as the 3 work orders I had received.
After CAMVAP contacted me to set up a hearing date(in my home town), I began organizing my arguments and planning for the hearing.
I prepared an opening statement, a chronology of events and a closing statement. The chronology of events was several pages long, and contained quotes from my transcripts. I had a driving route chosen in advance, that I knew would demonstrate the noise.
The arbitration hearing occurred at the end of May 2004, and lasted 2 hours. Present at my hearing were: the arbitrator, 2 Toyota legal representatives, the dealership’s service manager, myself and my spouse.
After preliminary statements, I demonstrated the noise in my vehicle with a test drive along the pre-planned route. In addition, I constructed a ramp to demonstrate the noise (as a back-up if my driving route was unsuccessful). My vehicle was inspected by the arbitrator and legal rep. The arbitrator noted my odometer reading.
I began my case by reading my prepared statement. I then read my chronology of events. I provided details regarding all visits to the dealership, all phone conversations and all work orders.
The manufacturer's representative then began his case. After hearing my case, he then made some points, but admitted not having been aware of all my issues.
We were allowed to respond to each other's case. Our witnesses were allowed to add additional comments.
The legal rep made a request for one more opportunity to repair the vehicle.
At this time the arbitrator made an interesting statement. “We could not lose”, he said, with their offer. We could give them one last attempt at a repair. After that, we would have 90 days to ensure the vehicle was fixed. If the noise recurred during that time, we could contact CAMVAP and the arbitrator would issue an award (which could go either way).
Our other option was to refuse the offer and ask the arbitrator to issue a decision at that time.
My spouse and I left the hearing room to discuss our options. We agreed that the arbitrator had indicated our best course of action. We did not want to risk losing the option of a buy back. By taking the offer we felt we would be seen as fair and reasonable in the eyes of the arbitrator, in case we needed to contact him again. We were confident that they wouldn’t be able to fix the problem anyways. We took the offer.
The arbitrator issued a consent award, which detailed the agreement between myself and Toyota. We ensured we would be given a rental for the duration of the repair. We requested that the vehicle be delivered by flat bed to their headquarters for repair, to minimize additional kilometres.
After the attempted repair, we had 90 days in which to notify the arbitrator if the problem recurred. The noise came back towards the end of the 90 days. We informed the arbitrator, who set up a conference call a week later.
During the conference call (which lasted 25 minutes), I was given an opportunity to make a statement. After which, their legal rep asked me several questions. His questions were well thought out, but I was again prepared for them. He made some good comments and it seemed he was more prepared.
We were left with an uneasy feeling after the conference call. Had we made the wrong decision at the hearing? The noise was still there and we hoped the arbitrator would award in our favour.
In September 2004, we received an award in our favour.
Over the next 6 months my vehicle made 10 visits (over 32 days total) to the dealership. Each "repair" produced the same result - the noise was still there. I spent numerous hours on the phone with the dealership, and eventually the manufacturer.
Initially, I began to write down the dates I brought the vehicle in. After the first 3 visits in July of 2003, I realized there was going to be an issue getting the work orders. I asked each time I spoke to the dealership's service manager. I only received excuses. Because of this, I decided to tape all conversations with the dealership.
At the beginning of November 2003, I informed the dealership that I was intending to call Toyota Canada (as per the vehicle's manual and CAMVAP).
Dealing with Toyota Canada was no different than the dealership. The representative from Toyota spoke directly to the dealership's service manager. The dealership gave excuses to Toyota Canada, and Toyota provided some suggestions on possible causes of the noise.
After another month passed, I wrote the manufacturer about my situation. In the letter I stated that my vehicle needed to be fixed by a certain date, or I would proceed to CAMVAP.
It was evident I was being ignored. During the entire process the dealership never called to check the status of my vehicle.
At the end of March 2004, I applied to CAMVAP. One of the requirements(which I met) is that your vehicle be less than 1 year old and have under 25000 kms by the date of the abitration hearing.
When you fill out the application you are given the choice of 3 arbitrators. I would suggest selecting no preference - that way there will be no negative feeling with your arbitrator. Mine was professional, courteous and set a comfortable tone for the hearing.
In my application I included transcripts of taped conversations as evidence, as well as the 3 work orders I had received.
After CAMVAP contacted me to set up a hearing date(in my home town), I began organizing my arguments and planning for the hearing.
I prepared an opening statement, a chronology of events and a closing statement. The chronology of events was several pages long, and contained quotes from my transcripts. I had a driving route chosen in advance, that I knew would demonstrate the noise.
The arbitration hearing occurred at the end of May 2004, and lasted 2 hours. Present at my hearing were: the arbitrator, 2 Toyota legal representatives, the dealership’s service manager, myself and my spouse.
After preliminary statements, I demonstrated the noise in my vehicle with a test drive along the pre-planned route. In addition, I constructed a ramp to demonstrate the noise (as a back-up if my driving route was unsuccessful). My vehicle was inspected by the arbitrator and legal rep. The arbitrator noted my odometer reading.
I began my case by reading my prepared statement. I then read my chronology of events. I provided details regarding all visits to the dealership, all phone conversations and all work orders.
The manufacturer's representative then began his case. After hearing my case, he then made some points, but admitted not having been aware of all my issues.
We were allowed to respond to each other's case. Our witnesses were allowed to add additional comments.
The legal rep made a request for one more opportunity to repair the vehicle.
At this time the arbitrator made an interesting statement. “We could not lose”, he said, with their offer. We could give them one last attempt at a repair. After that, we would have 90 days to ensure the vehicle was fixed. If the noise recurred during that time, we could contact CAMVAP and the arbitrator would issue an award (which could go either way).
Our other option was to refuse the offer and ask the arbitrator to issue a decision at that time.
My spouse and I left the hearing room to discuss our options. We agreed that the arbitrator had indicated our best course of action. We did not want to risk losing the option of a buy back. By taking the offer we felt we would be seen as fair and reasonable in the eyes of the arbitrator, in case we needed to contact him again. We were confident that they wouldn’t be able to fix the problem anyways. We took the offer.
The arbitrator issued a consent award, which detailed the agreement between myself and Toyota. We ensured we would be given a rental for the duration of the repair. We requested that the vehicle be delivered by flat bed to their headquarters for repair, to minimize additional kilometres.
After the attempted repair, we had 90 days in which to notify the arbitrator if the problem recurred. The noise came back towards the end of the 90 days. We informed the arbitrator, who set up a conference call a week later.
During the conference call (which lasted 25 minutes), I was given an opportunity to make a statement. After which, their legal rep asked me several questions. His questions were well thought out, but I was again prepared for them. He made some good comments and it seemed he was more prepared.
We were left with an uneasy feeling after the conference call. Had we made the wrong decision at the hearing? The noise was still there and we hoped the arbitrator would award in our favour.
In September 2004, we received an award in our favour.