ok4450 - I believe there is a legal and ethically right answer to who should get the refund. If that answer is that my neighbor should get the refund, then trying to get a share of it would never cross my mind.
For the sake of discussion:
Buyer A purchases a product with a defect. The manufacturer offers two choices. Have the defect repaired for free or accept $600 as compensation. Either choice makes the owner whole and the manufacturer has fulfilled it’s obligation.
Buyer A sells the produce to B. If A took the money he is obligated to discount the selling price by $600 dollars. If the repair was done he is transferring the product without defect. Either way buyer B is whole.
If buyer A takes the $600 dollars then later changes his mind and uses the $600 to have the repair done then sells the product to B. B is still whole.
The only case where B is entitled to compensation is if A did nothing when offered the choice of the repair for free or the $600. The manufacturer then has an obligation to offer the same deal to B.
Buyer B, in my opinion, isn’t entitled to both a defect free product and the $600 dollars. The only thing confusing this issue is the order of events. The $600 isn’t a windfall. It is just compensation after the fact for the repairs A made.
Of course there is charity and good will toward B who is helping A to get the $600. Only A can put a price on that.
Well, I just got off the phone with a very nice guy at BMW. I could hear a lot of head scratching going on, and he had to get his customer service manager to help.
The bottom line, but not the end of the story:
The refund is intended only for the person who paid for the repair, and they will not issue her a check. They are happy to issue me the check under the following conditions.
The current owner has to bring the car into a BMW dealership and have the repair certified (the only dealership in the area is the one where I had the repair done). There may be a charge for the inspection, which I would be willing to cover.
The recall notice (which was sent to her), combined with the certification of an approved repair, which she will have to get from the dealer, will trigger the payment of the check to me.
For BMW, it’s a timing game. There are 241,000 cars involved, sold between 2002 and 2005. The problem was acknowledged in 2004, but the recall wasn’t issued to 2011. You want to delay the recall as long as you can without getting an official sanction from the NHTSA. Statistically, there is a relatively small percentage of original owners who had the repair done who still own the car after that amount of time. If cooperation between current and former owners is required to get the refund, an even smaller percentage of refunds will actually be paid out.
That being said, the CSR was very interested in this particular case, gave me his personal contact information and said that if I can make the inspection happen, he will personally make sure the refund is processed quickly.
I will have lunch with her father today and explain the situation. Under these circumstances, I am more than happy to split the refund with her 50/50. If that isn’t acceptable to either of them, then the $600 will just stay in the BMW treasury, and life will go on.
Will keep you posted.
Just my guess, but on a practical matter I doubt BMW will refund any money at all, since you no longer own the car. If they do do a refund, I’d expect they’d only refund it to the person who paid for the service – you in other words will get the check.
Whether you should keep it or not is the ethical question I guess. I’m inclined to say that you indeed should keep it. After all, the buyer of your car didn’t purchase it expecting to receive a cash bonus later. The price agreed upon was based on his not receiving a cash bonus. So since the price paid was fair as-is, on an ethical basis, you should get and keep any refund for repairs you made and later refunded by BMW.
The only caveate would be if the current owner has expenses of his own caused by this. If so, ethically you might be required to re-imburse the current owner for those expenses, but no more than the amount of any refund you have already received.
As you stated previously $600 means little let it go and kiss it good bye, but having raised children I have raised them not to be deceitful. I consider this a form of deceit that they are getting reimbursement for a repair that they did not perform, and in my book belongs to you.
The casual neighbor gets the money. It’s like finding a wallet. Am I entitled to all the cash in the wallet as a reward if I return it without asking the rightful owner? I think not. The owner is entitled to everything in the wallet when I find it. Virtue is its own reward.
After your posting additional information about the program I was curious as to whether or not BMW would target any payment to you instead of her and that appears to be the case. In that scenario I think you should get the money and also understand BMW’s position about an inspection.
If it wasn’t for that particular facet of the program I’d still think that once the vehicle changes hands the new owner is entitled to everything that occurs with the car from that point on. Just my humble opinion anyway.
A 50/50 split seems very fair and I certainly hope that this issue does not become a wedge in a relationship. Best of luck. 
You can’t get the money without her taking the car in for inspection and she can’t get the money without you cashing the check. Sounds like a stand off. I think you should have lunch with her and not her dad to figure it out between the two of you.
ok4450 - I do understand BMW’s position on the inspection. For one thing, they want to make sure that DIY repairs are not reimbursed, but instead repaird by a dealer. Other than that, it’s just business, particularly since there is no indication that anyone was physically hurt because of the defect. I can envision a very sophisticated statistical model that was used to calculate the most cost effective date for issuing the recall with the least impact to the balance sheet. I think I could build the model, but I would struggle with its execution, since I would know that I was doing my best to cheat as many people as possible out of a legitimate refund. Fortunately, that isn’t my ethical dilemma to deal with today.
As for the wedge in the friendship, I don’t think so. Explaining the situation to Dad at lunch was actually pretty fun. When I reminded him that my offer was much better than the one he offered me, he jumped to the defense of his daughter, saying that she suggested the possibility of splitting the refund with me, but didn’t at his insistance. “So, if anyone was screwing you over, it was me!” We both laughed about it, but his face was very red. He also reminded me that since I still do a lot of business with the local dealer, I could simply go there, explain the situation and they would probably certify the repairs without seeing the car based on the work order that they used in the first place. They would also give me reprints of the receipts and a copy of the recall letter. My new BFF at BMW customer relations said he would take it from there. I have no intention of doing that, but he’s probably right. If she does nothing by next week, I may reconsider.
First the fact it’s your friend doesn’t matter, had you sold the car to me, with all the receipts, records etc. and you mentioned the fix to me. Later I find out BMW will reimburse the cost of said repair. I fill out the paperwork and BMW send me a check. Are you entitled to the check? NO. No more than you would be responsible if a tire blew out, or the engine blew up, you sold all your interest in the car, and all it’s problems. Unless you are willing to say, truthfully, that you would have paid for the repair AFTER you sold the car then you have no right to ask for a refund of the repair.
Now had you paid for the repair, AFTER, you sold the car, then yes you would be entitled to the refund.
No word yet on when or if she is going to have the car inspected, and that’s OK. This will be my last post on this topic and I wanted to say thanks to ALL of the posters over the last week (I will continue to read any future comments). As I mentioned, I have never posted on a discussion forum before, though I regularly read many. I’ve stayed out because there is always at least 3 or 4 jerks who throw out a caustic one liner that pushes everything after that out of context. As I read back on the 50 responses, EVERY posting was provided by someone well practiced at using their brains and expressing their opinions. For me, this really was an ethical dilemma, and I am comfortable with the resolution largely because of the debate on this forum. So again, Thanks.
The next time you see Beartracker, it will be to ask technical questions about one of my hobbies, a 1970 Pontiac LeMans convertible (Cardinal Red). Fully restored about 5 years ago, but with a few… quirks.
Regards
@Beartracker–A 1970 Pontiac LeMans convertible–it’s great to now know that you have a real car. Fortunately, you sold the right car–the BMW. It would be unethical to send the Pontiac LeMans to a new home.
P.S.
I received another call from my BMW Customer Relations friend today. He said that BMW just issued another service bulletin that clarifies who is eligible for a refund (the person who paid for the repair), and simplifies the process for getting said refund. If I go back to the dealer that did the work, no inspection is required, and they will submit the claim to BMW for me.
I’m not sure what to conclude from this other than the possibility that there is a team of internet savvy interns working at the major car manufacturers scanning the message boards looking for good or bad PR “opportunities”.
So, maybe this is a shameless plug, but BMW came through on this one, and I hope this CSR doesn’t retire any time soon. I still own a 535, and I may need a friend in high places some day after the warranty runs out.
Reimbursement for recall related repairs is part of the TREAD ACT (Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation). I don’t think they can require you to bring the vehicle in if it had been sold or scraped. You paid for the repair to be able to use the vehicle for a period of time and where the vehicle is now should be irrelevant. Perhaps the current owners attempt to collect on this aroused suspicion.
From NHTSA;
“If I pay for needed repairs before a recall is ordered, am I entitled to reimbursement?”
“Yes, under certain conditions. Manufacturers are required to provide reimbursement for certain costs incurred by owners to remedy safety defect conditions prior to a recall. Vehicle manufacturers are required to reimburse owners for costs incurred to remedy a defect based on either (1) the date NHTSA opens its Engineering Analysis, or (2) one year prior to the manufacturer’s notification of a defect to NHTSA, whichever is earlier. The closing date of eligibility for reimbursement of repair of a motor vehicle is 10 days after the manufacturer mails the last of the owner notices informing owners of a safety defect recall and cost-free remedy. For replacement of equipment, the closing date is either the same as for motor vehicles or 30 days after the manufacturer’s closing of its efforts to provide public notice of the existence of a defect, whichever is later. Documentation of the costs is required for reimbursement. While the current reimbursement policy is a relatively new requirement, manufacturers have in the past often voluntarily agreed to absorb such costs, provided customers could prove the pre-recall repairs remedied the defect in question.”
The question may be was the repair performed before the engineering analysis began?
Thanks for the thought-provoking question. Seems like looking in an ethical rule book would be as confusing as Boston traffic patterns. Here are some considerations:
-
When you sold her the car, you sold it as-is, which included all the repair costs you have made. If you increased the price of the car by some increment of the $600 repair, shouldn’t this factor into your decision? After all, part of your decision was to have a safer car for YOU to drive, not just the next buyer. And if she discovered a crock of gold in the car, it would be hers, not yours, even if you had it in the car when you owned it.
-
On the other hand, BMW wanted to reimburse whomever made the repair, not to enrich somebody at the end of the ownership food chain. As you noted, letting her get away with something sets a bad example. For her. So it may be good to sit down with her over a cup of coffee.
-
On the third hand, it sure looks like BMW sleazed up on this one. It’s one thing to wait until enough data is in, and it’s another to delay paying the Guilt Money for several years. Be thankful you did not have an accident because the repairs were not done.
So…this issue could be argued many ways, as with most decisions we face each day (and how we manage these contradictory situations can help our character evolve). You sound like a decent and conscientious person, so when you reach into your subconscious conscience to pull out an answer, it will be based on the goodness of your character, and maybe that’s the best way to make a decision here. Best wishes.
I think had I purchased a car for which a recall was issued, but the repair had been made by the former owner and the car company refunded the money to me, I would try to track down the former owner and give him/her the money. I am not owed any money by the car company. The repair did not increase the resale value of the car–one expects to have working tail lights on a car. The former owner who made the repair is due the refund when the auto manufacturer made good on a defect.
I’m with Texas on this one. It’s a market transaction, buyer and seller. The $600.00 was not part of the price, just as a new bathroom doesn’t necessarily get back what you put in it when selling a house. If it were a stranger, that person would just take the $600 if BMW mails the check to them. If BMW mails the check to you, that’s their procedure, keep the money.
Now, it would be nice if she reimbursed the money. But it’s something that never would have bothered you if you didn’t know the people in question. And actually, since you did that repair a year before the sale, you really aren’t out the full $600.00 you got benefit.
I would move on. Maybe I’d chalk up that you wouldn’t take on either father or daughter as business partners; you clearly see these things differently. You probably should not make another sale to them, you clearly see these things differently.
Let’s use the house example. I put a new high efficiency HVAC system in my house at my expense. The government decides to give a tax rebate for this high efficiency system. I sell the house. Should I or the new owner get the tax rebate?
Tridaq, if it were a new tax rebate, it wouldn’t be retroactive the way this one is. If it was just done and I handed over all receipts, hmmm, food for thought.
In general, improvements made and depreciation all is accounted for in a market sale. But I may change my mind on the question - good example.
“. . .you really aren’t out the full $600.00 you got benefit”.
I’m not certain about the benefit here. I expect the tail lights on a car to be operational and not have a defect that would burn the car up for the life of the car. This is different than, say, a battery with a two year replacement warranty that I install in a car and later sell after a year. If the subsequent owner gets a replacement battery before the end of the warranty period, he is entitled to it. I did get a year from the battery and I expected it to go the warranty period and then some. However, if I had to pay $600 to keep the tail light circuit from destroying the car, that is an entirely different matter.
Incidentally, I did have a situation like that arise, but fortunately the car was under warranty. I purchased a new Ford Tempo back in 1985. When I would make a right hand corner at night, the fuse would blow for the tail lights. The problem turned out to be a tail light monitor system that my Tempo didn’t have. This system would warn the driver of a burned out bulb. However, somehow the thin wire for that circuit was connected to power the tail lights instead of the heavier wire in the harness that was supposed to power the tail lights. The insulation melted off the thin wire and when I would go around a corner, it would make contact with the car body causing a short circuit.