IMO this man wins the Sherlock Holmes Award of the thread. I really don't think the dealership would risk getting the crap sued out of them by painting and lying. Heck, people paint cars and people can talk. Mini and the VDC aren't gonna risk anything either for the same reason. Why would they? But at the factory I'm sure it's legal to repaint an undamaged panel whilst the car's being made. And they don't have to tell anybody or keep any records either I bet. A new paint job is a new paint job whether it's 6 or 9 mm thick. And it would be possible for someone (lawyer) to find out if such a thing occurs at the Mini factory.
I'm sure Coffeeman has ditched the thread because of a lawsuit, as he should. But we'd like to know how this comes out, wouldn't we? I bet it goes nowhere.

 

There would not be a visible tape line on any factory or VPC paintwork. The VPC is the final inspection point, and all models are held to the same extremly high standards.

 

Actually, they can, and often are. But what the heck does that have to do with what I said? The OP is complaining about the cover up and associated violation of the law, not that his car was damaged.

 

Read my post. There may not have been any coverup at all. A visible tape "stripe" and 3mm difference in paint thickness does not in and of itself mean that a crime has been committed. The Carfax people told the OP his panel had been "repainted". How do they know that the surface was painted, sanded, prepped, and repainted? They would have to do some surgery on it to know that. All they did was see some stripe and measure the thickness.

 

Again, going from the OP's statements, he has presented via independent evidence that the panel was repainted. He says he bought the car new and never had it repainted. So far, the only defense presented for Mini is "why would they do that, if they could get in trouble?" Again, with that logic, there'd be no crimes. It's up to a jury to decide the facts. Again, following your logic, why would the OP make up his story, given the risk of a lawsuit from Mini? I'm sure Mini is in a much better position to pay for a suit than he is. Also, the fact that BMW was previously sued and lost speaks to the fact that, yes, they are willing to take the risk.

 

I'm not saying anybody's lying. For sure, in order to know if a panel had been painted twice at different places it would have to be dissected/inspected. No Carmax dude on the lot can say that for sure. I'm saying that IF the Mini plant in Oxford has a procedure for repainting a panel that has a problem with the first go round that could possibly explain what Carmax Man found, and why nothing was reported to Mini, the VDC, or the dealer. In short, panels have to be painted again at the plant. Could that be the case here? If I was a lawyer handling the plaintiff's case that would be one of the first things I'd find out (and I bet he hasn't done it either, he's probably threatening the suits with caselaw, etc).

 

There are a lot of opinions on this matter, however none are based on the facts of this case becasue no one here really knows what happened. I imagine most of the opinions are based more on the writer's general philosophy than anything else.
Since we don't know who, if anyone, damaged the car, who, if anyone, repaired the car, or how much the repairs costs, we don't know if any statutes were violated. That's what the trial is for and any statements before the real evidence is produced at trial are merely uninformed opinions, including mine.

The following text is a footnote from BMW v. Gore. Keep in mind that this case is over ten years old. The law below may have changed since then. I attach it here only becasue many people seem to be interested in this subject matter in general. It is not intended to be considered applicable to any particular case.

"Four States require disclosure of vehicle repairs costing more than 3 percent of suggested retail price. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §28-1304.03 (1989); N. C. Gen. Stat. §20-305.1(d)(5a) (1995); S. C. Code §56-32-20 (Supp. 1995); Va. Code Ann. §46.2-1571(D) (Supp. 1995). An additional three States mandate disclosure when the cost of repairs exceeds 3 percent or $500, whichever is greater. Ala. Code §8-19-5(22)(c) (1993); Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §§9990-9991 (West Supp. 1996); Okla. Stat., Tit. 47, §1112.1 (1991). Indiana imposes a 4 percent disclosure threshold. Ind. Code §§9-23-4-4, 9-23-4-5 (1993). Minnesota requires disclosure of repairs costing more than 4 percent of suggested retail price or $500, whichever is greater. Minn. Stat. §325F.664 (1994). New York requires disclosure when the cost of repairs exceeds 5 percent of suggested retail price. N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§396-p(5)(a), (d) (McKinney Supp. 1996). Vermont imposes a 5 percent disclosure threshold for the first $10,000 in repair costs and 2 percent thereafter. Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 9, §4087(d) (1993). Eleven States mandate disclosure only of damage costing more than 6 percent of retail value to repair. Ark. Code Ann. §23-112-705 (1992); Idaho Code §49-1624 (1994); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 815, §710/5 (1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §190.0491(5) (Baldwin 1988); La. Rev. Stat. Ann §32:1260 (Supp. 1995); Miss. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, Regulation No. 1 (1992); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann.§357-C:5(III)(d) (1995); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4517.61 (1994); R. I. Gen. Laws §§31-5.1-18(d), (f) (1995); Wis. Stat. §218.01(2d)(a) (1994); Wyo. Stat. §31-16-115 (1994). Two States require disclosure of repairs costing $3,000 or more. See Iowa Code Ann. §321.69 (Supp. 1996); N. D. Admin. Code §37-09-01-01 (1992). Georgia mandates disclosure of paint damage that costs more than $500 to repair. Ga. Code Ann. §§40-1-5(b)-(e) (1994) (enacted after respondent purchased his car). Florida requires dealers to disclose paint repair costing more than $100 of which they have actual knowledge. Fla. Stat. §320.27(9)(n) (1992). Oregon requires manufacturers to disclose all "post manufacturing" damage and repairs. It is unclear whether this mandate would apply to repairs such as those at issue here. Ore. Rev. Stat. §650.155 (1991). "Many, but not all, of the statutes exclude from the computation of repair cost the value of certain components--typically items such as glass, tires, wheels and bumpers--when they are replaced with identical manufacturer's original equipment. E.g., Cal. Veh. Code Ann. §§9990-9991 (West Supp. 1996); Ga. Code Ann. §§40-1-5(b)-(e) (1994); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 815, §710/5 (1994); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §190.0491(5) (Baldwin 1988); Okla. Stat., Tit. 47, §1112.1 (1991); Va. Code Ann. §46.2-1571(D) (Supp. 1995); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 9, §4087(d) (1993).

 

How? If there was damage at the factory or VPC that was "covered up", the dealer wouldn't know to disclose it, and wouldn't be at fault. If factory or VPC repair was disclosed to the dealer, or if the damage happened at the dealer, the dealer "covered up".

My point was that the OP is definitely suggesting a boycott of the manufacturer and dealer without knowing the facts, only knowing that his car has had some paintwork.

 

If he just wants money heck just come on over here to the NW as 04 and newer minis are selling for the same if not more than new.Which is the reason we bought new. I couldn't see spending 28,000 for a 04 s with 56000 miles when the one we put together was only 25,650. I'd have to say it sounds as if the east coast gets the shaft on resale value.