The dealer refused to perform the required FRM recall inspection and denied the recall without providing any of the federally required documentation. I was forced to pay out‑of‑pocket for the FRM module replacement even though my VIN is listed under the safety recall. MINI of Murray stated my FRM “failed,” but admitted they never opened the module, which is required to determine internal moisture intrusion. • The Service Manager stated they based their denial on “carpet and headliner moisture,” which is not part of the FRM recall inspection procedure. • I requested the FRM inspection report, photos, and the MINI Corporate denial code. I received none of these. • MINI Corporate Recall Team confirmed they had no documentation from the dealer and incorrectly stated that the module does not need to be opened. • Without a completed inspection uploaded to MINI Corporate, a denial code cannot be generated. • I was charged for the FRM replacement part, even though the recall should cover the repair if the module is affected. • The dealer only offered to waive a $149 programming fee. Safety Concern: The dealer failed to follow required recall procedures, failed to document the inspection, and denied federally mandated recall coverage without evidence. This violates recall protocol and leaves the safety defect unresolved. The module was replaced at my expense.

Source: NHTSA complaint ODI #11713743 · view all complaints for this vehicle at nhtsa.gov

Trailer brakes disconnected in 18k lb trailer while driving down mountain. This bulletin is the issue, should be a recall. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Source: NHTSA complaint ODI #11585140 · view all complaints for this vehicle at nhtsa.gov

ON THURSDAY,JULY 30, 2015 MY HUSBAND WAS HEADED TO WORK. HE WAS REAR ENDED WHILE HE WAS AT A COMPLETE STOP. HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH SEVERE WHIPLASH AND HAS SUSTAINED INJURIES. THE INSURANCE COMPANY FOR THE PERSON WHO HIT MY HUSBAND ADMITTED FAULT IMMEDIATELY. TWO VEHICLE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE BY AN ADJUSTER. MY HUSBAND WAS DRIVING A MINI COOPER AND HE WAS REAR ENDED. THE ADJUSTER INFORMED HIM THAT THE VEHICLE DID NOT HAVE A STEEL PLATE. HENCE, THE IMPACT TO THE BACK OF HIS VEHICLE MAY HAVE BEEN MUCH GREATER. AFTER SPEAKING WITH AN ADVISOR AT THE CONCORD, CA MINI COOPER DEALER, I LEARNED THAT THE STEEL PLATE IN THE MINI COOPER IS STANDARD AND A REQUIRED SAFETY FEATURE. THE MINI COOPER WAS PURCHASED FROM CARMAX.COM ( CARMAX IN FAIRFIELD, CA ). MY CONCERN AND QUESTION IS WHETHER ON NOT CARMAX KNEW THIS AND DO THEY GENERALLY SELL USED VEHICLES THAT DO NOT MEET STANDARD SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. I HAVE NOT CONTACTED CARMAX ABOUT THIS. THANK YOU. *TR

Source: NHTSA complaint ODI #10760604 · view all complaints for this vehicle at nhtsa.gov

I HAD JUST PARKED IN OUR GARAGE AND GOT OUT TO GET ITEMS OUT OF THE TRUNK OF THE CAR. MY LEG TOUCHED THE TAIL PIPE OF THE CAR AND THERE WAS IN INSTANT BURN TO THE CALF OF MY LEG. IT ONLY TOOK ONE SECOND. IT WAS THE SIZE OF A QUARTER AND SKIN WAS BURNED OFF INSTANTLY. IT IS QUITE PAINFUL. I TOOK A PICTURE OF THE INJURY AND I ALSO TOOK A PICTURE OF THE TAIL PIPE TO SHOW THAT IT STICKS OUT BEYOND THE BUMPER. I FEEL THAT THIS IS A POOR DESIGN IN REGARDS TO SAFETY. *TR

Source: NHTSA complaint ODI #10534180 · view all complaints for this vehicle at nhtsa.gov