In a time when one cannot go a day without seeing another recall story in the news, it’s hard to believe that someone in a position of some authority and considered by many to be an expert on the issue is of the opinion that not all recalls are worth fixing. Jeff Carlson, the new NADA Chairman is against fixing recalls on used cars.
In a time when one cannot go a day without seeing another recall story in the news, it’s hard to believe that someone in a position of some authority and considered by many to be an expert on the issue is of the opinion that not all recalls are worth fixing. Jeff Carlson, the new NADA Chairman is against fixing recalls on used cars.
Everyone else, from NHTSA to the automakers themselves, is focused on fixing recalled vehicles and getting doing so in a much more expeditious manner. However, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) has taken a different stance. NADA seems to think that the risks posed by recalls and safety defects isn’t such a big deal and that the government should, essentially, mind its own business.
According to a report in Automotive News, Jeff Carlson, the new NADA Chairman is against fixing recalls on used cars. Say what?
The new NADA chairman has given his vow to continue fighting what he sees as “government overreach” and to make NADA more consumer-focused this year. You all know how one delights in exposing illogic and this one is frankly amazing.
During a speech at a recent convention, Mr. Carlson urged fellow dealers across the country to participate in NADA’s policy and legislative advocacy mission. Part of this mission involves supporting U.S. Senate bill, S. 2663, which would limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) supposed interference into dealer-originated auto loans. Carlson said, “It’s no secret that the dealer franchise system has been under attack, unfairly and relentlessly. But the best defense is a good offense.” He believes the CFPB’s guidance on loans is an “overreach into our business model.”
This opinion, while making great sense for dealers, takes away what some consider valuable oversight in making sure lending practices are fair and equitable. Mr. Carlson also put forth the opinion that dealers should be the only ones authorized to do recall repairs for all consumers. OK, fine, that actually makes sense. After all, dealers have better access to the parts and have factory-trained technicians on staff to make sure the repairs are done correctly.
These opinions, however, are not what make one’s “illogic” alarm sound.
In the same speech in which he vowed to make NADA more consumer-focused, Mr. Carlson warned against any laws that would make it mandatory for dealers to fix all recalls on used vehicles before being allowed to sell them. Put another way, if NADA gets its way, you could go to a used car lot and buy a vehicle with an active recall that would not be repaired before you sign the sales contract.
According to Mr. Carlson, requiring dealers to fix recalls on all used vehicles unnecessarily makes millions of vehicles unavailable as well as diminishes trade-in values. He cited a 2014 study by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers that stated only 6% of all recalls are “hazardous.”
He went on to say that, “Washington must understand that all recalls are not the same.”
So, a more consumer-focused organization favors selling cars with active recalls to unsuspecting consumers? How is that logical? Recalls aren’t issued because automakers want to spend money paying for replacement parts. They’re issued because something is wrong/defective with the affected vehicles.
One could care less that “only” 6% of all recalls are “hazardous.” I’m sure that, at some level, General Motors thought its ignition switch defect wasn’t “hazardous.” If not, one is fairly certain things would have been done about it before it caused so many injuries and deaths. Likewise, the Takata airbag recall. Internal documents showed the company knew of the issue before it became “hazardous.”
If the automakers cannot be relied upon to determine if and when a defect/recall is “hazardous,” how are we to trust that the unrepaired recalls on used vehicles won’t turn out to be in the 6%. Even the “non-hazardous” 94% of defects were serious enough for automakers to issue recalls. Doing so not only costs the manufacturers money for the repair efforts, but it costs them in public reputation. And that often costs them money in sales.
Personally, one finds Mr. Carlson’s opinion on not repairing used vehicles with active recalls to be irresponsible, reprehensible and anything but consumer-focused.
Source:
Join the conversation!