I wrote this letter as a complaint to The Attorney General, The FTC, and the National Motor Vehicle Association. I am hoping by putting this here that someone may be able to give me some advice and that I may be able to help someone as well:

I wanted to address a situation that my son has been going through since he financed his 2014 Subaru Forester. My son Mark Gomez took his vehicle to the dealership after he started experiencing issues with the vehicles transmission and many other things. The first person that he spoke to was Dustin.

Dustin an employee of Subaru with the service department agreed to replace the entire transmission with a new one and Subaru of America refused to agree to it. Subaru of America continued to only allow the dealership to repair the parts required to fix the vehicle to have it in drivable condition. Unfortunately, as you will see below that the vehicle has never been in drivable condition. It took an entire year before they agreed to replace the transmission and it was rebuilt not a new one.

On the date of November 11, 2017 my son took his vehicle in because he recognized issues with the clutch slipping. He felt that the clutch was going out. Subaru recommended replacing the clutch and at a steep price. They decided to estimate charges rated at $2,152.25 for the work after my son has gone through months of issues. Keep in mind that with all of the issues that the vehicle has had directly linked to the clutch, has led to a faulty clutch. Scroll down to August 18, 2016 and read the repair order, my son has had oil issues since then and the dealership claimed that they didn’t find anything at all wrong with the oil levels. My son had to fill up the vehicle to drive safely to the dealership back in August of 2016. On November 11, 2017, he made the dealership aware that the oil light frequently comes on when he is driving, and he stated that he has a concern with this issue, but the dealership did not do anything about the problem. I researched all issues with the 2014 Subaru Forester and found that it is very disturbing that the service department did not feel it was dangerous to send my son away without taking the time to evaluate the vehicle for that concern. Checking the level isn’t a clear assessment of the issue. We both know that checking the oil level doesn’t indicate that there are issues with the vehicle. It only tells you that the vehicle does not need oil at the time of service.

Subaru has had many complaints and even a case that was filed against them in court pertaining to the oil light issue: Disgruntled Subaru Forester , Outback, Legacy, Impreza and Crosstek owners whose cars burned more oil than usual can rest a little easier today. Top Class Actions reports that owners of the defective engines will be reimbursed by Subaru for expenses related to the defect and given a longer warranty. The lawsuit alleged that defective piston rings caused them to burn extra oil, and that Subaru knew of the problem but didn’t disclose it to owners. The lawsuit, as quoted by Top Class Actions , alleges that Subaru “improperly denied many warranty repairs, and then, more recently, secretly changed the scope of its warranty coverage without telling affected drivers.” So, to make good with its owners, Subaru agreed to the following, per Top Class Actions : • Increase the warranty length from 5 years or 60,000 miles length to an 8 years or 100,000 miles • Pay 100 percent of vehicle owners’ costs for repairs, parts and labor, rental cars, towing and the cost of up to six quarts of oil per vehicle • Provide a free oil consumption test and technical service bulletin repairs for owners or leasers of the defective vehicles. According to Torque News , the affected FB engines are the 2.5-liter engines in the 2011-2014 Forester, 2013 Legacy and 2013 Outback and the 2.0-liter engines in the 2012-2013 Impreza and 2013 XV Crosstrek. On the date of November 29, 2016, the vehicle was not shifting correctly again, and it would not even engage at the time of service. By this point I would think that the dealership would have said that something is really wrong with the vehicle and if they send this young man out again with this vehicle something may happen. But, no that did not happen, and they removed and reinstalled another shifter cable due to a damaged cable. They also had to replace the shifter assembly.

On the date of November 19, 2016 Mark went back in to Subaru because he continued to state he feared driving the vehicle with all the issues going on. He felt he was going to get into an accident. I assure you for someone that is in his 20’s and dealing with all this stuff and not really getting the full service, it is concerning to me as a mother. I would imagine that if it had been any of those service department employee’s children they would not have left the vehicle in the condition that they continued to return it to my son in. Saving money by doing small patch work and repairs had been much more important than the safety of my son’s life. Mark took the vehicle back to the dealership because the shifter that was previously patched was not correctly done. 5th and 6th gear were shifting where 3 and 4 should be and 1 and 2 were too far to the left. The dealership confirmed the issue and adjusted the shift cables.

On the date of October 31, 2016 Mark was concerned once again because his vehicle was not working correctly, and he couldn’t drive it in the condition that it was in. He explained his concerns about the shifter knob not working when in neutral. The dealership removed and installed gear selector cables due to binding while shifting into neutral. He stated that there was a loud noise on acceleration and a loud sound like metal balls were shaking in a tin can. At this time the dealership did not verify the noise and did nothing to repair this concern and sent my son with his vehicle still damaged. On the date of October 19, 2016, Mark took the vehicle to the dealership with concerns related to the transmission again. He stated that the gears were not synchronizing. They found pieces of gear on the drain plug and rattling around inside the case. (go back up to the date of October 31, 2016 and the same noise was happening, nothing was done) The case was cracked and leaking. Pieces of the gears were found to be damaged and there were damaged case halves. Each time my son took the vehicle to get fixed, they would patch up and repair but never replace the transmission. I went to the dealership with my son to address this situation. My son and I sat down with the vehicle service department employee and we discussed the on-going issues. The service rep stated that they had a transmission out of state that they needed to order and were waiting since it was on back order. My son had a loaner vehicle for over 30 days now. I requested that they exchange the vehicle with something safer because this vehicle had to have been damaged by the previous owner. I wanted peace of mind knowing my son was no longer driving an unsafe vehicle. The issue was not just that my son had financed a damaged vehicle but also that the service department made things worse by trying to repair and not replace items that needed to be replaced with new products. The dealerships service department continued to save money and put lives at risk. They continued to patch and repair, then they would send my son away in a vehicle that was not fully repaired, and it was dangerous to drive. My son has driven this vehicle in a state of concern because the damage to the vehicle was so bad that it was almost impossible to maneuver the gears to drive it anywhere. It still does not run smoothly or safely. Mark feared for his life because he drove a damaged unrepaired vehicle that could have killed him due to the second-hand remedies. The remedies led to damaged gears, a bad transmission and now the clutch. So many more issues have risen because nothing was ever truly corrected nor was anything done in a timely manner. The longer Subaru forced my son to wait for repairs has caused more internal vehicle damage. Mark drove the vehicle with a damaged gear that was lopsided, and the dealership allowed him to drive away like this. They sent my son on his way, onto the road in this condition. More than once this happened. More than once his life was put in danger. Yet, Subaru employees continued to do patch work and not completely fix the damages. This has never been normal wear and tear. My son’s 2014 Subaru Forester only has 60,540 miles on it. When he financed the vehicle, it was around the 40,000 mark. At one point the dealership sent my son home with a shifter that was so lopsided that it rubbed against his hand break. And still Subaru was fine with sending my son away with his vehicle in this condition. The gears were so stiff that he had a difficult time moving it and it was impossible to drive it this way. Yet, Subaru expects the payment to be made in a timely manner on the vehicle and in order to make payments Mark had to go to work and in order to go to work and get there safely the vehicle should have been repaired correctly. Reflect to repair order detail – Internal copy dated August 18, 2016. It states that my son addressed that he was having issues with the oil levels in his vehicle. He had to add oil before taking the vehicle to get checked to prevent damage to the vehicle while driving. The dealership did not acknowledge his ongoing concern. They checked the vehicle at the time of inspection and they assessed it as being at level and never notated that my son had to add oil to the vehicle to prevent it from further damaged to the vehicle. They state that the oil level was ok and provided an oil SVC. On this date the issues that were serviced were as follows: • Reflash performed for premature lamp oil change service was done • Replaced right front axle assembly • Sleeve coupling • Insert shifting • Carbon ring baulk • Plate friction • NDLE BRG 18x25x22 • Gasket case R • Gasket 8.3x14x1.0 • Shim drive pinion • High perf gear oil • Gasket 26.3x32.3x1 When they completed the part replacement they stated they conducted a retest and the test came out ok. On the date of July 30, 2016 my son went to the dealership with concerns. Mark explained to the dealership that the transmission would not go into 5th, 6th or reverse once again. There were many other issues before this date, but Subaru did not provide those repair orders to us upon request. When the vehicle was tested it failed. On this date the issues that were serviced were as follows: • Fork CP shifter reverse • Rod fork reverse • P1260393 PIN • Plunger interlock • Prunger interlock • Gasket • Oil Seal • Gasket case R • Three bond 1217H They performed a 24-point inspection and the vehicle was returned to my son still not running as required by state regulations. I found this article in Forbes dated July 07, 2017. This alone explains the issues with the Subaru company. Rather than list the issue as a recall the company decided to add an extended warranty that would supersede the original warranty of 5 years or 60K miles. It has been extended to 10 years or 100K miles. This issue has been swept under the rug and the Subaru owner and dealerships do not want to do the right thing and comply with the laws to protect their buyers even though they claim their slogan is to: I nvest in the safety of their buyers. Please review: Subaru has begun offering an extended warranty for the automatic transmission on about 1.5 million vehicles covering a wide range of models going back to the 2010 model year. The action comes as more than 100 owners - some of who were angry or frightened - have complained to federal regulators about transmission problems causing stalling. However, there isn’t a sole reason for the continuously variable transmission (CVT) warranty being extended, said Subaru spokesman Dominick Infante. Infante said the automaker was responding to “general customer feedback” including complaints about repairs and performance. Subaru was not “comfortable” with that level of unhappiness and decided to extend the warranty “to alleviate concerns from customers with longevity worries,” he said. Letters sent to owners this month notifying them of the program simply note that the campaign is the result of the automaker’s “dedication to customer satisfaction” without detailing the problem or symptoms. Some of that customer feedback has been shared with federal safety regulators. “My 2011 Subaru Outback is experiencing shuddering and stalls when coming to a stop resulting in the engine shutting off,” a Texas owner wrote the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April. “It occurs randomly, and I nearly got in accidents with drivers behind me having to react to the sudden, full stops.” He said the repair to the transmission’s torque converter was expected to cost $4,400 and “given the danger of random stalling events…I think this should be strongly considered for a recall.” In 2014 Subaru sent dealers a technical service bulletin that described problems with the torque converter on the 2010 – 12 Outback and Legacy models. And it noted that owners might complain of a “condition is similar to coming to a stop in a manual transmission equipped vehicle without depressing the clutch.” That would seem like the vehicle is stalling or cause it to stall. Typically stalling is seen by federal regulators as a problem that requires a recall. Under a recall every vehicle has to be fixed, making it a vastly more expensive situation. Under an extended warranty only vehicles exhibiting a problem are repaired. In letters sent to owners Subaru says unless the transmission is misbehaving the car does not have to go to the dealership. The extended warranty covers the 2010-15 Legacy and Outback; 2015 Legacy and Outback with 3.6 liter V-6; the 2012-15 Impreza; 2013-15 Crosstrek; 2014-15 Crosstrek Hybrid; 2014-15 Forester with 2.5 liter four-cylinder; 2014-15 Forester with turbocharged 2.0 liter four cylinder and 2015 WRX 2.0. That totals a little more than 1.5 million vehicles, Infante said. The original CVT warranty was five years or 60,000 miles, whichever came first. The new warranty extends it to 10 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. Vehicles that are already older or have higher mileage have a one-year extension, ending July 31, 2018. The automaker also says owners who paid for transmission repairs after the normal warranty expired are eligible to be reimbursed. My concern is that after an entire year of my son taking the vehicle in for repairs and having the dealership address some but not all issues and only rebuilding and repairing and not actually completely replacing the damaged parts as a whole has led to the clutch damage. My son is quoted saying to me, “They have stated that the clutch wear and tear is from my driving habits, but my driving habits were drastically changed when I was forced to adjust to the faulty repairs and death trap (vehicle) that they kept returning to me.” I felt that I had to share this because it is the real expression of a young man that works hard and has had to deal with a vehicle that falls right into the lemon law, the extended 10-year warranty or 100k miles and the oil lawsuit. He has had to take so much time to return the vehicle for repairs and to feel afraid to enjoy his vehicle. A monthly payment for a young adult and the cost of insurance is not cheap. To drive to work daily in fear of not knowing how long the vehicle will last without malfunctioning is not something someone should have to think about on a regular basis. And the ongoing repairs and issues along with the condition that my son was handed the vehicle back did not pass state required regulations. Yet, Subaru did not have a concern and did not follow regulations. The Subaru dealership did as little as they could for a very long time. The issues that they previously patched up or disregarded are directly linked mechanically to the current required repairs and they are refusing to admit that the clutch and the flywheel are connected to the underlying issues that Mark has been faced with each time he took the vehicle in for repair. He has contacted Subaru of America and they told him they could take the transmission and break the entire part down to see if it is damaged and has caused the wear and tear of the clutch. My son agreed but when he called back, Jim from Subaru of America gave him a work order number (SR# 1-17874832895) and then refused to discuss anything further with Mark. Basically, he said that he was done discussing anything with him and abruptly ended the phone call. Again, had this been any of the employees from the service departments child or Jim’s child that so quickly cut my son off, they would be raising hell and they would make sure their child was in a safe vehicle. But because it is not directly related to them on a personal or emotional level they have refused to do the right thing and either exchange the vehicle for a safe one or completely rebuild the internal system of the vehicle. I went into the dealership and sat down to go over each repair invoice. Even after reviewing the work, still it was unclear to the employee that everything was linked together. Please review the laws that are available to protect my son as a consumer and the condition of my son’s vehicle and request that the dealership and Subaru America do the right thing. Mark has continued to pay for his vehicle even in the condition that it is in. We are hopeful that we will not have to take this a step further.