2002 TOYOTA PRERUNNER — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

I HAD MY VEHICLE IN FOR SERVICE ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2013 AT WHICH TIME THE VEHICLE FRAME WAS INSPECTED AND DETERMINED TO HAVE PERFORATIONS DUE TO RUST. TOYOTA INFORMED ME THAT THE VEHICLE IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR/REPLACE THE FRAME BECAUSE I HAD NOT HAD RUST PROOFING APPLIED DURING A CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM THAT BEGAN IN LATE 2008 AND ENDED SEPTEMBER 2011. THE PURPOSE OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM WAS TO INSPECT THE FRAME OF THE TRUCK AND REPLACE IT IF RUST CAUSED PERFORATIONS OR TO APPLY RUST COATING IF IT PASSED INSPECTION. I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. HOWEVER, BY CHANCE, I DID HAVE THE FRAME INSPECTED BY TOYOTA ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009 AT WHICH TIME THE FRAME PASSED INSPECTION, BUT TOYOTA FAILED TO APPLY THE REQUIRED RUST PROOF COATING OR TO INFORM ME OF THE ONGOING CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. HAD I KNOWN ABOUT THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM, I WOULD HAVE DEMANDED TOYOTA APPLY THE COATING. SUBSEQUENTLY, I HAD MY TRUCK IN FOR MAINTENANCE AT TOYOTA ON APRIL 7, 2010 AND MAY 24, 2010 AT WHICH TIME THEY ONCE AGAIN DID NOT INFORM ME OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM. TOYOTA HAD THREE CHANCES TO INFORM ME OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM WHILE I HAD MY VEHICLE IN FOR MAINTENANCE AND THEY DID NOT DO SO. NOW I HAVE A TRUCK THAT IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE AND THAT I CAN'T GET REPAIRED BECAUSE TOYOTA BLAMES ME FOR NOT ADHERING TO THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM RULES OF WHICH I NEVER HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE. TOYOTA HAD MY CURRENT ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM AND NEVER BOTHERED TO NOTIFY ME. IN MY OPINION, THEY DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN INFORMING CUSTOMERS OF THE PROGRAM AND SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO REPLACE THE FRAME ON THE TRUCKS. I DID FILE A CUSTOMER COMPLAINT WITH TOYOTA BUT THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY ASSISTANCE IN REPAIRING MY TRUCK. *TR

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TOYOTA OF POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST YEARS AGO . (ABOUT 2007) I DID THE INSPECTION MYSELF AND THOUGHT FRAME WAS GOOD. DID NOT TAKE TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION . IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 I FIND OUT THAT TOYOTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND I MISSED THE DEADLINE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT A NHTSA ISSUED RECALL, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A EXPIRATION DATE ON THE RECALL . THE BOTTOM LINE IS I GOOFED UP . BUT THERE STILL EXISTED THOUSANDS OF TACOMAS AND TUNDRAS ON THE ROADS TODAY THAT ARE A HAZARD TO THE DRIVER AND ALL OTHERS AROUND THEM . WHY DIDN'T THE NHTSA ISSUE A MANDATORY RECALL ? *TR

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TOYOTA OF POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST YEARS AGO . (ABOUT 2007) I DID THE INSPECTION MYSELF AND THOUGHT FRAME WAS GOOD. DID NOT TAKE TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION . IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 I FIND OUT THAT TOYOTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND I MISSED THE DEADLINE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT A NHTSA ISSUED RECALL, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A EXPIRATION DATE ON THE RECALL . THE BOTTOM LINE IS I GOOFED UP . BUT THERE STILL EXISTED THOUSANDS OF TACOMAS AND TUNDRAS ON THE ROADS TODAY THAT ARE A HAZARD TO THE DRIVER AND ALL OTHERS AROUND THEM . WHY DIDN'T THE NHTSA ISSUE A MANDATORY RECALL ? *TR

I RECEIVED NOTICE FROM TOYOTA OF POSSIBLE EXCESSIVE FRAME RUST YEARS AGO . (ABOUT 2007) I DID THE INSPECTION MYSELF AND THOUGHT FRAME WAS GOOD. DID NOT TAKE TO DEALER FOR INSPECTION . IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013 I FIND OUT THAT TOYOTA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND I MISSED THE DEADLINE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT SINCE IT WAS NOT A NHTSA ISSUED RECALL, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT A EXPIRATION DATE ON THE RECALL . THE BOTTOM LINE IS I GOOFED UP . BUT THERE STILL EXISTED THOUSANDS OF TACOMAS AND TUNDRAS ON THE ROADS TODAY THAT ARE A HAZARD TO THE DRIVER AND ALL OTHERS AROUND THEM . WHY DIDN'T THE NHTSA ISSUE A MANDATORY RECALL ? *TR

CONSUMER LOST CONTROL OF VEHICLE AND HIT A TREE HEAD ON. UPON IMPACT, NEITHER DRIVER'S SIDE NOR PASSENGER'S SIDE AIR BAGS DEPLOYED. ALSO DRIVER'S SIDE SEAT BELT DIDN'T RETRACT. AS A RESULT, CONSUMER'S HEAD HIT THE WINDSHIELD. CONSUMER RECEIVED 17 STITCHES. *AK