Protesters at Plant Claim GM Ignored ‘Lemon Law’ : Consumers: Plaintiffs in a class action contend the auto maker does not comply with a 1982 California statute protecting new car buyers.

For years, John and Gracie Davis, both 67, of Glendale coveted a Cadillac, a symbol that they had “made it” in the world.

But they say their dream of luxury travel turned into a nightmare when they finally purchased a new Cadillac El Dorado in 1987.

After only 1,200 miles, the car’s computer--which controlled everything from the speedometer to the headlights to engine functions--began to malfunction. Since then the car has been in the shop for serious repairs 22 times, the Davises said, with each visit lasting two to four days. At the moment, the car is in the shop, with its engine totally dismantled, they said.

“I won’t get in the car. It’s a hazard,” Gracie Davis said.

The Davises were among more than a dozen frustrated General Motors customers with pending lawsuits against the company who gathered outside its Van Nuys plant Friday morning to vent their anger. Some of the protesters, such as the Davises, have filed individual lawsuits against the company; others were plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed Thursday that contends General Motors does not honor the California “lemon law.”

“This is my first demonstration ever in 67 years, but this car has got me that mad,” John Davis, a retired computer engineer, said.

Under the lemon law, enacted in 1982, a car buyer is entitled to a new car or a refund--less depreciation--from the manufacturer if, during the first year or the first 12,000 miles of driving, a specific problem cannot be repaired after four attempts or if the car is out of service for more than 30 days due to mechanical problems.

The law is administered by the New Motor Vehicle Board.

To receive the refund or exchange, a motorist must notify the manufacturer in writing of the failure of an authorized dealer to make repairs and the matter is then referred to an arbitrator chosen by the manufacturer. Decisions can be appealed by consumers to the courts.

Attorney Norman F. Taylor said General Motors does not comply with the regulation, and he has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking damages on behalf of three buyers he said have been cheated out of their full refunds.

When customers try to obtain new vehicles, he said, GM fights them “with tooth-and-nail tactics,” leading to lengthy litigation.

Taylor said he told one of the plaintiffs in his class-action suit not to bother with arbitration because he said it was rigged to favor the car manufacturer and to cheat the consumer.

Bill Ott, GM’s director of media relations, denied that the company ignores customers’ complaints or tries to skirt the state lemon law. He said the company’s top priority is consumer satisfaction, and that they have an arbitration process that allows purchasers to get refunds or replacement vehicles.

“We want to make them happy with their vehicles,” Ott said. “We will do everything we can to assist them.”

He refused to discuss the complaints or other specific cases.

The State Department of Consumer Affairs said statistics on complaints about GM cars and lemon-law compliance were unavailable Friday because of a staff shortage. A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Automotive Repair said the lemon law itself, with its strict rules on timing, notice and documentation, prevents some disgruntled consumers from receiving new cars or full refunds.

The Davises, however, said they cannot get even the basic services promised in their warranty.

Their contract promises that Cadillac will pay any car-rental costs the Davises incur while the car is in the shop for repairs, but the Davises say they have been unable to collect that money.

Now, they said, all they want is a refund so they can buy another car from another company.

“After this experience, I wouldn’t want a Cadillac if you told me I could have two of them for free,” Gracie Davis said.