Mold Supervisor

Karp v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.-Lexus Division, 2012-0270/FTL (Fla. NMVAB January 30, 2013) In a third air conditioner odor case, the Consumer complained of a foul odor from the air conditioner in her 2012 Lexus IS 250. According to the Consumer, the smell was “vinegar-y” and offensive, and was worse when the vehicle was first started in the morning, so much so that she would leave the door open when she started the car, and started her drive with the windows down in order to air out the vehicle. She testified that on some days the smell tapers off after approximately 30 minutes, but on other days – particularly very hot days – the smell would last all day. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle, because the “concern had been repaired and the customer’s vehicle was currently up to the manufacturer’s specifications.” The Manufacturer’s witness testified that the odor complained of by the Consumer had to have been caused by micro-organisms on the air conditioner evaporator, but because neither he nor the authorized service agent had ever been able to recreate the odor, the problem had to have been corrected by the repairs that were performed. The Board found that the foul odor coming from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund

NONCONFORMITY 681.102(15), F.S. (2012) Rue v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0352/STP (Fla. NMVAB February 10, 2013) The Consumer complained of a foul odor of mold or mildew intermittently emanating from the air conditioner vents in her 2011 Toyota Camry when the vehicle was first started or after the car had been sitting for a few hours. The Consumer testified this odor sometimes lasted for two to four minutes before dissipating. During that time, she rode in the vehicle with the windows open, because it was not convenient to employ the procedure suggested by the Manufacturer’s authorized service agent, which was to get into the vehicle, open all the windows, turn on the engine and air conditioner, get out of the vehicle and let the air conditioner blow for two minutes, and then get back into the vehicle and drive away. None of the repairs corrected the problem. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle. The Manufacturer also asserted that any alleged odor in the vehicle was “the direct result of environmental conditions.” In support of that assertion, the Manufacturer’s witness testified that he experienced a “faint whiff of something” for “one to two seconds” on two of the repair visits; however, he acknowledged he did not know how long the vehicle had been sitting after the Consumer dropped it off and before he performed his test. In his view, “you will smell something for a brief moment in any air conditioner.” The Consumer’s vehicle was dropped off the night before the final repair attempt in order to try to duplicate the conditions under which the Consumer experienced the intermittent air conditioner odor. According to the Manufacturer’s representative, “it is not uncommon to notice a somewhat musty odor” upon initial start-up in any vehicle; however, he stated that he did not notice this odor at all in the Consumer’s vehicle. A majority of the Board concluded the evidence established that the intermittent foul odor substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a replacement vehicle.

Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) This Consumer complained of a foul odor emanating from the air conditioner in her 2012 Toyota Venza when the a/c was first turned on, and often times while the vehicle was being driven. The Consumer’s husband testified that an “unpleasant, obnoxious smell” started coming from the air conditioner vents about one month after they took delivery of the vehicle. The odor did not go away but started to get worse, and the hotter the ambient temperature, the longer the odor would last. When he entered the vehicle, he turned the air conditioner on, put the windows down, and held his breath while he blasted the air conditioner to blow some of the odor out of the vehicle. Nevertheless, sometimes the foul odor lasted 20 to 30 minutes into the drive. The Consumer testified she was the intended driver of the vehicle, but after the odor problem arose she started having allergy issues and she began driving her husband’s vehicle instead. She testified her allergy issues stopped with the change of vehicles. A service writer at one of the Manufacturer’s authorized service agents, told the Consumer nothing could be done and they would not even attempt a repair. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle; and the alleged nonconformity was the direct result of “environmental conditions.” The Manufacturer’s representative testified he conducted the Manufacturer’s final repair attempt. He acknowledged that, when he turned on the air conditioner, he experienced an odor that was “not desirable.” When he drove the vehicle the odor began to dissipate. He explained that the evaporator in the air conditioning unit was warm, and when the air conditioner was turned on it blew cold air on the evaporator, causing condensation to build up in the unit. Therefore, when the vehicle was shut off, the air conditioner should be switched to outside air for the air to circulate in the unit and help dry out any water that has accumulated; otherwise, the accumulated water can start to smell. Following that practice will not eliminate any air conditioner odor, but it will lessen it, and, according to him, this problem was more prevalent in South Florida because of its wet environment and high humidity. The Board found that the foul odor emanating from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

Karp v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.-Lexus Division, 2012-0270/FTL (Fla. NMVAB January 30, 2013) In a third air conditioner odor case, the Consumer complained of a foul odor from the air conditioner in her 2012 Lexus IS 250. According to the Consumer, the smell was “vinegar-y” and offensive, and was worse when the vehicle was first started in the morning, so much so that she would leave the door open when she started the car, and started her drive with the windows down in order to air out the vehicle. She testified that on some days the smell tapers off after approximately 30 minutes, but on other days – particularly very hot days – the smell would last all day. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle, because the “concern had been repaired and the customer’s vehicle was currently up to the manufacturer’s specifications.” The Manufacturer’s witness testified that the odor complained of by the Consumer had to have been caused by micro-organisms on the air conditioner evaporator, but because neither he nor the authorized service agent had ever been able to recreate the odor, the problem had to have been corrected by the repairs that were performed. The Board found that the foul odor coming from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

REASONABLE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS §681.104, F.S.: What Constitutes a Reasonable Number of Attempts §681.104, F.S.; §681.1095(8), F.S. Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) (See “Nonconformity” above) The Manufacturer stipulated that the vehicle was presented to an authorized service agent for repair of the air conditioner odor nonconformity on September 12, 2012 (no repair order given to Consumer) and September 13, 2012, when water was found around the evaporator core, and an air conditioner mist service was performed. The Manufacturer stipulated that it was afforded a final opportunity to repair the vehicle after receipt of written notification from the Consumer. On October 10, 2012, the vehicle was presented to the Manufacturer's designated repair facility for the final repair attempt. At that time, the evaporator was cleaned and the Consumer was instructed to set the air conditioner to outside air prior to turning off the vehicle. The Consumer again brought the vehicle in for repair of the foul odor on October 27, 2012, and November 17, 2012. The evidence established that the nonconformity was subjected to repair by the Manufacturer’s service agent a total of five times. Under the circumstances, the Manufacturer had a reasonable number of attempts to conform the subject vehicle to the warranty as contemplated by the Lemon Law. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund

McBride v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., 2013-0445/JAX (Fla. NMVAB March 10, 2014) The Consumers complained of a mold or mildew odor from the air conditioning vents in their 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE. The Consumers first noticed the odor around the time of their 5,000 mile service, but attributed it to the fact that there had been a lot of rain in their area; they assumed the odor would go away after the rain subsided. The odor remained, however, and worsened. The odor was described as pungent, and became worse as the outside temperature and humidity increased. The odor occurred when the vehicle was first started in the morning, lasting for 40 to 60 seconds. The odor would recur if the vehicle sat without the engine running for approximately one and one-half hours, although it was not as pungent later in the day as it was first thing in the morning. Mr. McBride acknowledged that he declined to have a cleaning and filter change performed that was recommended in a Toyota Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) related to HVAC odors, because he felt that he should not have to pay $300.00 for the service, particularly since the service was intended only to improve, and not to eliminate, the odor problem. Mr. McBride pointed out that the 2011 Toyota Sienna he and his wife traded in for the 2013 Sienna did not exhibit a similar problem. Mr. McBride testified that the odor was a health problem for him, because of his allergies, and he was concerned about the health of his three-year-old and one-week-old children. The Manufacturer, represented by Southeast Toyota Distributors, asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle. In addition, Southeast Toyota Distributors stated, “[f]urthermore, the customer declined the dealer and manufacturer the opportunity(ies) [sic] to perform the Technical Service Bulletin that would minimize what the customer is experiencing.” A Senior Field Technical Specialist with Southeast Toyota Distributors, testified that Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., had determined that HVAC odors were not covered under its warranty, and were therefore the responsibility of the Consumer to correct. He indicated that he has frequently smelled the odor in question in other Toyota vehicles, and believes it was not mold, but simply “stale air.” He acknowledged he had no personal knowledge as to whether any tests were performed by the Manufacturer to confirm that the odor was not caused by mold. The Board concluded that the mold or mildew odor from the air conditioning vents substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumers were awarded a refund.

McBride v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., 2013-0445/JAX (Fla. NMVAB March 10, 2014) The Consumers complained of a mold or mildew odor from the air conditioning vents in their 2013 Toyota Sienna XLE. The Consumers first noticed the odor around the time of their 5,000 mile service, but attributed it to the fact that there had been a lot of rain in their area; they assumed the odor would go away after the rain subsided. The odor remained, however, and worsened. The odor was described as pungent, and became worse as the outside temperature and humidity increased. The odor occurred when the vehicle was first started in the morning, lasting for 40 to 60 seconds. The odor would recur if the vehicle sat without the engine running for approximately one and one-half hours, although it was not as pungent later in the day as it was first thing in the morning. Mr. McBride acknowledged that he declined to have a cleaning and filter change performed that was recommended in a Toyota Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) related to HVAC odors, because he felt that he should not have to pay $300.00 for the service, particularly since the service was intended only to improve, and not to eliminate, the odor problem. Mr. McBride pointed out that the 2011 Toyota Sienna he and his wife traded in for the 2013 Sienna did not exhibit a similar problem. Mr. McBride testified that the odor was a health problem for him, because of his allergies, and he was concerned about the health of his three-year-old and one-week-old children. The Manufacturer, represented by Southeast Toyota Distributors, asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle. In addition, Southeast Toyota Distributors stated, “[f]urthermore, the customer declined the dealer and manufacturer the opportunity(ies) [sic] to perform the Technical Service Bulletin that would minimize what the customer is experiencing.” A Senior Field Technical Specialist with Southeast Toyota Distributors, testified that Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., had determined that HVAC odors were not covered under its warranty, and were therefore the responsibility of the Consumer to correct. He indicated that he has frequently smelled the odor in question in other Toyota vehicles, and believes it was not mold, but simply “stale air.” He acknowledged he had no personal knowledge as to whether any tests were performed by the Manufacturer to confirm that the odor was not caused by mold. The Board concluded that the mold or mildew odor from the air conditioning vents substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumers were awarded a refund.

REASONABLE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS §681.104, F.S.: What Constitutes a Reasonable Number of Attempts §681.104, F.S.; §681.1095(8), F.S. Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) (See “Nonconformity” above) The Manufacturer stipulated that the vehicle was presented to an authorized service agent for repair of the air conditioner odor nonconformity on September 12, 2012 (no repair order given to Consumer) and September 13, 2012, when water was found around the evaporator core, and an air conditioner mist service was performed. The Manufacturer stipulated that it was afforded a final opportunity to repair the vehicle after receipt of written notification from the Consumer. On October 10, 2012, the vehicle was presented to the Manufacturer's designated repair facility for the final repair attempt. At that time, the evaporator was cleaned and the Consumer was instructed to set the air conditioner to outside air prior to turning off the vehicle. The Consumer again brought the vehicle in for repair of the foul odor on October 27, 2012, and November 17, 2012. The evidence established that the nonconformity was subjected to repair by the Manufacturer’s service agent a total of five times. Under the circumstances, the Manufacturer had a reasonable number of attempts to conform the subject vehicle to the warranty as contemplated by the Lemon Law. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

Karp v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.-Lexus Division, 2012-0270/FTL (Fla. NMVAB January 30, 2013) In a third air conditioner odor case, the Consumer complained of a foul odor from the air conditioner in her 2012 Lexus IS 250. According to the Consumer, the smell was “vinegar-y” and offensive, and was worse when the vehicle was first started in the morning, so much so that she would leave the door open when she started the car, and started her drive with the windows down in order to air out the vehicle. She testified that on some days the smell tapers off after approximately 30 minutes, but on other days – particularly very hot days – the smell would last all day. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle, because the “concern had been repaired and the customer’s vehicle was currently up to the manufacturer’s specifications.” The Manufacturer’s witness testified that the odor complained of by the Consumer had to have been caused by micro-organisms on the air conditioner evaporator, but because neither he nor the authorized service agent had ever been able to recreate the odor, the problem had to have been corrected by the repairs that were performed. The Board found that the foul odor coming from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

NONCONFORMITY 681.102(15), F.S. (2012) Rue v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0352/STP (Fla. NMVAB February 10, 2013) The Consumer complained of a foul odor of mold or mildew intermittently emanating from the air conditioner vents in her 2011 Toyota Camry when the vehicle was first started or after the car had been sitting for a few hours. The Consumer testified this odor sometimes lasted for two to four minutes before dissipating. During that time, she rode in the vehicle with the windows open, because it was not convenient to employ the procedure suggested by the Manufacturer’s authorized service agent, which was to get into the vehicle, open all the windows, turn on the engine and air conditioner, get out of the vehicle and let the air conditioner blow for two minutes, and then get back into the vehicle and drive away. None of the repairs corrected the problem. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle. The Manufacturer also asserted that any alleged odor in the vehicle was “the direct result of environmental conditions.” In support of that assertion, the Manufacturer’s witness testified that he experienced a “faint whiff of something” for “one to two seconds” on two of the repair visits; however, he acknowledged he did not know how long the vehicle had been sitting after the Consumer dropped it off and before he performed his test. In his view, “you will smell something for a brief moment in any air conditioner.” The Consumer’s vehicle was dropped off the night before the final repair attempt in order to try to duplicate the conditions under which the Consumer experienced the intermittent air conditioner odor. According to the Manufacturer’s representative, “it is not uncommon to notice a somewhat musty odor” upon initial start-up in any vehicle; however, he stated that he did not notice this odor at all in the Consumer’s vehicle. A majority of the Board concluded the evidence established that the intermittent foul odor substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a replacement vehicle.

Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) This Consumer complained of a foul odor emanating from the air conditioner in her 2012 Toyota Venza when the a/c was first turned on, and often times while the vehicle was being driven. The Consumer’s husband testified that an “unpleasant, obnoxious smell” started coming from the air conditioner vents about one month after they took delivery of the vehicle. The odor did not go away but started to get worse, and the hotter the ambient temperature, the longer the odor would last. When he entered the vehicle, he turned the air conditioner on, put the windows down, and held his breath while he blasted the air conditioner to blow some of the odor out of the vehicle. Nevertheless, sometimes the foul odor lasted 20 to 30 minutes into the drive. The Consumer testified she was the intended driver of the vehicle, but after the odor problem arose she started having allergy issues and she began driving her husband’s vehicle instead. She testified her allergy issues stopped with the change of vehicles. A service writer at one of the Manufacturer’s authorized service agents, told the Consumer nothing could be done and they would not even attempt a repair. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle; and the alleged nonconformity was the direct result of “environmental conditions.” The Manufacturer’s representative testified he conducted the Manufacturer’s final repair attempt. He acknowledged that, when he turned on the air conditioner, he experienced an odor that was “not desirable.” When he drove the vehicle the odor began to dissipate. He explained that the evaporator in the air conditioning unit was warm, and when the air conditioner was turned on it blew cold air on the evaporator, causing condensation to build up in the unit. Therefore, when the vehicle was shut off, the air conditioner should be switched to outside air for the air to circulate in the unit and help dry out any water that has accumulated; otherwise, the accumulated water can start to smell. Following that practice will not eliminate any air conditioner odor, but it will lessen it, and, according to him, this problem was more prevalent in South Florida because of its wet environment and high humidity. The Board found that the foul odor emanating from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) This Consumer complained of a foul odor emanating from the air conditioner in her 2012 Toyota Venza when the a/c was first turned on, and often times while the vehicle was being driven. The Consumer’s husband testified that an “unpleasant, obnoxious smell” started coming from the air conditioner vents about one month after they took delivery of the vehicle. The odor did not go away but started to get worse, and the hotter the ambient temperature, the longer the odor would last. When he entered the vehicle, he turned the air conditioner on, put the windows down, and held his breath while he blasted the air conditioner to blow some of the odor out of the vehicle. Nevertheless, sometimes the foul odor lasted 20 to 30 minutes into the drive. The Consumer testified she was the intended driver of the vehicle, but after the odor problem arose she started having allergy issues and she began driving her husband’s vehicle instead. She testified her allergy issues stopped with the change of vehicles. A service writer at one of the Manufacturer’s authorized service agents, told the Consumer nothing could be done and they would not even attempt a repair. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle; and the alleged nonconformity was the direct result of “environmental conditions.” The Manufacturer’s representative testified he conducted the Manufacturer’s final repair attempt. He acknowledged that, when he turned on the air conditioner, he experienced an odor that was “not desirable.” When he drove the vehicle the odor began to dissipate. He explained that the evaporator in the air conditioning unit was warm, and when the air conditioner was turned on it blew cold air on the evaporator, causing condensation to build up in the unit. Therefore, when the vehicle was shut off, the air conditioner should be switched to outside air for the air to circulate in the unit and help dry out any water that has accumulated; otherwise, the accumulated water can start to smell. Following that practice will not eliminate any air conditioner odor, but it will lessen it, and, according to him, this problem was more prevalent in South Florida because of its wet environment and high humidity. The Board found that the foul odor emanating from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) This Consumer complained of a foul odor emanating from the air conditioner in her 2012 Toyota Venza when the a/c was first turned on, and often times while the vehicle was being driven. The Consumer’s husband testified that an “unpleasant, obnoxious smell” started coming from the air conditioner vents about one month after they took delivery of the vehicle. The odor did not go away but started to get worse, and the hotter the ambient temperature, the longer the odor would last. When he entered the vehicle, he turned the air conditioner on, put the windows down, and held his breath while he blasted the air conditioner to blow some of the odor out of the vehicle. Nevertheless, sometimes the foul odor lasted 20 to 30 minutes into the drive. The Consumer testified she was the intended driver of the vehicle, but after the odor problem arose she started having allergy issues and she began driving her husband’s vehicle instead. She testified her allergy issues stopped with the change of vehicles. A service writer at one of the Manufacturer’s authorized service agents, told the Consumer nothing could be done and they would not even attempt a repair. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle; and the alleged nonconformity was the direct result of “environmental conditions.” The Manufacturer’s representative testified he conducted the Manufacturer’s final repair attempt. He acknowledged that, when he turned on the air conditioner, he experienced an odor that was “not desirable.” When he drove the vehicle the odor began to dissipate. He explained that the evaporator in the air conditioning unit was warm, and when the air conditioner was turned on it blew cold air on the evaporator, causing condensation to build up in the unit. Therefore, when the vehicle was shut off, the air conditioner should be switched to outside air for the air to circulate in the unit and help dry out any water that has accumulated; otherwise, the accumulated water can start to smell. Following that practice will not eliminate any air conditioner odor, but it will lessen it, and, according to him, this problem was more prevalent in South Florida because of its wet environment and high humidity. The Board found that the foul odor emanating from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

Karp v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.-Lexus Division, 2012-0270/FTL (Fla. NMVAB January 30, 2013) In a third air conditioner odor case, the Consumer complained of a foul odor from the air conditioner in her 2012 Lexus IS 250. According to the Consumer, the smell was “vinegar-y” and offensive, and was worse when the vehicle was first started in the morning, so much so that she would leave the door open when she started the car, and started her drive with the windows down in order to air out the vehicle. She testified that on some days the smell tapers off after approximately 30 minutes, but on other days – particularly very hot days – the smell would last all day. The Manufacturer asserted the alleged nonconformity did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the motor vehicle, because the “concern had been repaired and the customer’s vehicle was currently up to the manufacturer’s specifications.” The Manufacturer’s witness testified that the odor complained of by the Consumer had to have been caused by micro-organisms on the air conditioner evaporator, but because neither he nor the authorized service agent had ever been able to recreate the odor, the problem had to have been corrected by the repairs that were performed. The Board found that the foul odor coming from the air conditioner substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle, thereby constituting one or more nonconformities as defined by the statute and the applicable rule. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.

REASONABLE NUMBER OF ATTEMPTS §681.104, F.S.: What Constitutes a Reasonable Number of Attempts §681.104, F.S.; §681.1095(8), F.S. Browning v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., 2012-0347/FTL (Fla. NMVAB February 15, 2013) (See “Nonconformity” above) The Manufacturer stipulated that the vehicle was presented to an authorized service agent for repair of the air conditioner odor nonconformity on September 12, 2012 (no repair order given to Consumer) and September 13, 2012, when water was found around the evaporator core, and an air conditioner mist service was performed. The Manufacturer stipulated that it was afforded a final opportunity to repair the vehicle after receipt of written notification from the Consumer. On October 10, 2012, the vehicle was presented to the Manufacturer's designated repair facility for the final repair attempt. At that time, the evaporator was cleaned and the Consumer was instructed to set the air conditioner to outside air prior to turning off the vehicle. The Consumer again brought the vehicle in for repair of the foul odor on October 27, 2012, and November 17, 2012. The evidence established that the nonconformity was subjected to repair by the Manufacturer’s service agent a total of five times. Under the circumstances, the Manufacturer had a reasonable number of attempts to conform the subject vehicle to the warranty as contemplated by the Lemon Law. Accordingly, the Consumer was awarded a refund.