NHTSA Complaint #10488722 — 1999 BMW 323I

AFTER 6 MONTHS OF SQUEAKING & RATTLING SOUNDS COMING FROM THE REAR OF MY VEHICLE, I WAS DRIVING ON CA ROUTE 10 WHEN I NOTICED THE SOUNDS WERE BECOMING MORE PREVALENT, AS THE CAR'S HANDLING BEGAN TO FEEL LOOSE. I REDUCED SPEED FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TRIP, FEARING LOSS OF CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE, AND UPON ARRIVING HOME HAD MY VEHICLE INSPECTED BY BEVERLY HILLS BMW, WHERE THEY TOLD ME THAT MY VEHICLE'S SUBFRAME WAS DAMAGED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CAR WAS "NOT ROAD WORTHY" ([XXX]) AND I WAS ADVISED TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED OUT OF THE SHOP. I CONTACTED BMW CUSTOMER SERVICE AGENT [XXX], WHO INFORMED ME THAT BMW HAD A PROGRAM (THAT I BELIEVE IS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT), IN WHICH THEY RECOGNIZED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THE EARLY E46 BMW MODELS' SUB-FRAMES AND OFFERED TO HAVE THEM INSPECTED & IN SOME CASES WOULD PAY FOR THE COST OF THE REPAIR. BMW CHOSE TO DENY ME REPAIR, CITING THAT THEY HAD MAILED ME A LETTER ABOUT THE PROGRAM PREVIOUSLY (THAT I HAD NEVER RECEIVED) & THAT THE PROGRAM HAD NOW ENDED. AFTER HAVING MY VEHICLE REPAIRED BY AN INDEPENDENT PARTY, I CONTACTED[XXX]TO SEE IF BMW WOULD REIMBURSE ME FOR SOME OF MY COSTS OF REPAIR AND CAR RENTAL, SEEING AS HOW THEY WERE A FRACTION OF THE QUOTE FROM BMW. SHE TOLD ME TO FORWARD MY INVOICES ($2207.70 IN TOTAL) TO HER EMAIL, WHICH I DID. DESPITE 3 FOLLOW-UP EMAILS, 3 VOICE MAILS, AND ONE CERTIFIED LETTER, I HAVE RECEIVED NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION FROM BMW. THE MECHANICAL / STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF A VEHICLE'S FRAME, OR SUB-FRAME, SHOULD NEVER BE COMPROMISED BY REGULAR USE. HAVING A DEFECTIVE SUB-FRAME IN A CAR MANUFACTURED IN THE LAST 80 YEARS IS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE AND CONSTITUTES A NEED FOR INVESTIGATION CONCERNING A POTENTIAL RECALL, RATHER THAN SOME MANUFACTURER-CONTROLLED PROGRAM WITH TIME LIMITS THAT AFFECT THE SAFETY OF ITS CUSTOMERS. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR