OK. I will explain it to you and type more slowly this time.

Certified cars are supposed to be the cream of the crop. I say supposed to be because it is a documented fact that many dealers are/were using the certification programs to cleanse and command higher prices for subpar cars. The California law, as I recall, specifies what can and can't be a certified car. For example, cars coming off rental fleets can't be "certified". A car with a history of body damage can't be "certified". Some (and I say some) manufacturers' definition of "certified" allowed such cars. How could they do this? Because (prior to the CA law) there were no legal definitions for what consitutes a "certified" car, and the definition varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer. Also, as everyone involved is making money, sometimes, people looked the other way and rules got ignored or bent.

 

You are assuming, of course, that a subpar car necessarily means more warranty work.

For example, many people are scared of ex-Avis or Herz cars. Justified or not, they discount rental cars. So they are not willing to pay as much for them. Perfectly good cars, just "soiled" in the eyes of the consumer.

So, a dealer puts a rental car into the "certification" program and voila! He suddenly gets not just a fair price, but a premium price for a "soiled" car.

 

Ah- now I'm getting there.

1) According to California (and Oregon, Washington, and most WC states), body damage, prior rental fleet use, buybacks, etc have to be disclosed prior to sale whether the vehicle is certified or not. These are actually separate issues, but they require full disclosure to the consumer prior to sale. It is the dealership's responsibility to do due diligence to research the cars history and disclose- in other words, it's not up to the consumer to research. Violations of that out here are ugly- at the minimum, you'll loose the dealership and your dealers licence- forever. At the minimum.

2) A certified car means it has gone through a series of checks and, based on that information, the manufacturer is putting a manufacturers warranty on it. This is different than the extended service contract written by many dealers, because the warranty implies merchantibility and fitness of the product involved . Not a big deal until you went to court- the manufacturer is standing behind one, not the other.

3) Warranty and damaged vehicles. Buybacks and prior damage vehicles do not have a full factory warranty- that died the day the car did, which is why I mentioned the manufacturers police that so heavily.

4) Rental units cannot be certified used, either Chebbie or Ford (I assume Toyota would be the same). How do the manufacturers know? Care to guess who we buy rental units from? If you guessed GM and Ford, you're Rental units are short-term leases, and are generally owned by the manufacturer.

Finally- none of this is new. "New," "program," and "certified" cars were all part of The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (otherwise known as Californias "Lemon law"). It was passed in 2000, implemented in 2001. Other states have passed similiar regulations since then. No part of the act was specifically targeted at certified used cars, though. It does go, at great length, to define a "new car" as any vehicle still under the terms of the new car warranty.

Edit: this is the exact wording from the proposed changes to the existing lemon law (Cal AB68). Most of the changes refer to financing fees, etc:

"Certified used cars" - Auto manufacturers and dealers
widely advertise and promote so-called "certified"
used vehicles. "Certified" vehicles commonly command





AB 68 (Montanez)
Page 9



a premium, costing consumers sometimes as much as
$3,000 extra. However, no standard exists for
defining what qualifies as a certified vehicle. Some
California consumers have been sold unsafe rebuilt
wrecks, lemon cars branded as a "Lemon Law buyback,"
or other problem vehicles under the guise they had
passed rigorous inspections and were "certified" to be
a cut above the average used car. AB 68 will prohibit
these vehicles from being presented to unsuspecting
consumers as "certified."

It looks like they're only seeking to clarify what's already written into the original bill.

 

This very well may be. The gist of the article that I remember reading was that the term "certified" had no legal meaning. While subpar cars may be covered elsewhere, there was no specific definition.

Now, if CA can only pass a law the legally defines "Employee Pricing".

 

Now, if CA can only pass a law the legally defines "Employee Pricing".

Touche!

 

Let's back up a bit here. I read the article, and the only thing they're relaxing is the year and mileage. If they were lowering the inspection/ mechanical standards ("it's been in a wreck? Ah, let it slide..."), it would be a different story. But isn't it possible that a well-cared for, 6 year-old Camry with 80,000 miles could actually be a better used-car buy than a 5 year-old, 70,000-mile one that was abused and poorly maintained? When it comes to used cars, I go by care and condition. I can't tell you how many low-mileage, "little old lady" cars we've sold have turned out to be warranty nightmares for us down the road. "Mrs. Miller, didn't you ever change the oil?" "Yes, but only when the red 'oil' light came on. That's what the light's for, right?"