Headlights condensation
01-13-20 | 01:17 PM
#16
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,301
Likes: 417
From: GA
Not normal...the seal has been breached. These are ultrasonically welded and a seal applied. Very tricky process. Lexus has a massive issue with the 2nd GEN RX 2004 to 2009. And unfortunately it has failed again. But definitely a warranty item. It is not normal.
01-14-20 | 06:43 PM
#17
Driver School Candidate
Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
Unfortunate Update from my Experience at Lexus Corporate Regarding the Headlight Issu
So, after some back and forth with Lexus Corporate, I was told by Lexus Corporate that whatever failure of the 2016 RX350 headlights, which includes peeling and condensation, were result of some "outside influence." I asked what do these terms mean but was not given any specific definition from Lexus Corporate.
I also asked how do they determine that this was the result of some "outside influence" and therefore, according to Lexus Corporate, a non-warrantied item. They just said that their Lexus Corporate Representative at the Dealership made the Determination and that determination is now considered final.
I further asked whether we can have an independent shop take a look at the situation and get an independent opinion. Lexus Corporate made an expressed verbal affirmation that the sole party that can make a final determination of whether an issue is covered by warranty repair is Lexus Corporate and no other person, party, and/or Entity. This verbal affirmation made by Lexus Corporate appears at best disingenuous and at worst deceptive particularly given that 16 CFR 700.8 promulgated under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 USC 2301 et seq.) explicitly prohibits a manufacturer of goods (including cars) from making such representations in writing:
I am sure making them verbally would equally be contrary to the intent behind the CFR and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Regardless, to say I am more than displeased with Lexus Corporate would be an understatement.
I welcome anyone else's thoughts and how they were able to make a warranty claim for this issue. Many thanks in advance.
I also asked how do they determine that this was the result of some "outside influence" and therefore, according to Lexus Corporate, a non-warrantied item. They just said that their Lexus Corporate Representative at the Dealership made the Determination and that determination is now considered final.
I further asked whether we can have an independent shop take a look at the situation and get an independent opinion. Lexus Corporate made an expressed verbal affirmation that the sole party that can make a final determination of whether an issue is covered by warranty repair is Lexus Corporate and no other person, party, and/or Entity. This verbal affirmation made by Lexus Corporate appears at best disingenuous and at worst deceptive particularly given that 16 CFR 700.8 promulgated under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 USC 2301 et seq.) explicitly prohibits a manufacturer of goods (including cars) from making such representations in writing:
§ 700.8 Warrantor's decision as final.
A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor, or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute concerning the warranty or service contract. Nor shall a warrantor or service contractor state that it alone shall determine what is a defect under the agreement. Such statements are deceptive since section 110(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d), gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract.
A warrantor shall not indicate in any written warranty or service contract either directly or indirectly that the decision of the warrantor, service contractor, or any designated third party is final or binding in any dispute concerning the warranty or service contract. Nor shall a warrantor or service contractor state that it alone shall determine what is a defect under the agreement. Such statements are deceptive since section 110(d) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d), gives state and federal courts jurisdiction over suits for breach of warranty and service contract.
I welcome anyone else's thoughts and how they were able to make a warranty claim for this issue. Many thanks in advance.
Last edited by gamma1; 01-14-20 at 07:06 PM. Reason: clerical updates and clarification
01-16-20 | 07:17 AM
#18
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,301
Likes: 417
From: GA
Happened to me, likewise rejected on a claim to replace the headlamp. I simply ended up applying a silicone bead on the parting line on the top and problem went away. I suggest you do the same. Water is leaking into the inside of the housing and depending on humidity and season, your inside will fog up. Much like your windshield if you not turn on your defogger/AC and direct flow to the windshield.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post