My car (2011 Lexus CT200h) had all brake lights went on all of a sudden (on 1/20) and brakes are failing: will have to push to ground to slow down the car. Car is unsafe to drive due to the brake condition.

I took the car to Lexus authorized repair center on the next day; they checked and verified the brake issue my car has is exactly as described in the CSP 21LE01 (code C1391, brake booster failure); Nevertheless the coverage was rejected, siting that my car is over 10 years old while this program covers “10 years or 150k miles, whichever comes first”; and quoted me over $3000 to fix the problem.

I have argued that the CSP letter was sent to me in Mar 2022, when my car is already over 10 years then, although mileage has just passed 100k, 2/3 of the mileage limit. Having such term like “whichever comes first” is self-contradictory in this recall: if 10 years or less is a pre-condition, weren’t 2011 models already excluded to begin with?

I believe Lexus should reconsider this “whichever comes first” term, especially in this case: the car's mileage is only 2/3 of the coverage limit; Brake issue is really about how much we drive, rather than how long it’s been sitting in a garage, right? (Due to the pandemic, I have driven much less this couple of years; otherwise I would’ve spotted this brake issue much earlier).

P.S.

I found it interesting that during my conversation with one of the Park place service managers, I kept hearing that this is “not a recall but a CSP”; I told him that this is actually your own words (see attached) and I think we all know what it really is.

The key thing is, brake issue is a major safety concern, and it won’t be of a lesser problem just by giving it a "softer" name. And the very purpose of such program, regardless the name, is to prevent risk from happening on the road, for all drivers’ sake: it is a PUBLIC SAFTY ISSUE; it should never have so many strings attached.