azmiller1976 wrote

Thank you TooLoud10, thats exactly how I looked at it. Fortunately it is a simple DIY. I think California BMW dealerships need to consider incorporating that cosmetic credit or a parts voucher, if the buyer asks about the holes, its a write off for them and only makes them look good and makes the transition happen. Thank you for your input.

GREENPUS wrote

I live in Illinois which requires a plate on the front. Don't assume the dealer is going to drill holes for the front plate. My BMW dealer does not drill holes unless the buyer wants the plates mounted when purchased new. I've said this before, I love my dealer If I bought a used car or CPO, I wouldn't even ask about the holes in the bumper. It's just part of buying used

brandofo wrote

If you look through a CPO worksheet you will not see front license plate holes as a reason to fail CPO inspection.

They will just sell the car to the next guy if this is a deal breaker for you. If you are buying a used car and the previous owner was legally required to have a front plate, you can expect to see these holes drilled.
That is different than the poster who equated this to a previous owner drilling holes in the interior dash for a phone mount. One was a legal requirement. The other was not. In any case, the dealer disclosed the condition of the front bumper and it is up to you to decide if that car is worth the price. I am sure if you asked for a $30 discount to close the deal to cover the cost of bumper plugs they would agree to that.

M a r t y wrote

I get what you are saying but in terms of license plate holes, do not agree. Mounting front plates is mandatory in many states and although there are a number of methods to do that, a dealer will take the path of least resistance and many owners will too or they just don't care.

tooloud10 wrote

I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

tooloud10 wrote

I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

tooloud10 wrote

When I asked my last dealer rep if they planned to put holes in my brand new bumper, she gave me an overdramatic horrified look and chuckled "OMG we would never do that unless the customer asked."



The fact that the damage was due to installing a license plate does not make it any less "damage"; I'm unaware of any exception in the CPO process for non-factory holes in the bodywork.

In fact, they keep the phrasing intentionally vague so as to not have to list every possible damage scenario, so of course it's not referenced.



I live in a state that legally requires me to display a front plate; there is no legal requirement that I put holes in the car, so mine has none.



I agree with most of that, just not the part where the CPO process shouldn't flag non-factory holes in the bodywork based on speculation of what they were used for.

The fact that a dealer or previous owner took the easy route to satisfy legal requirements in their region doesn't make it any less damage to an otherwise good car. I actually believe this kind of thing is exactly what CPO was designed to address.

What if the holes weren't for a plate but for an aftermarket laser jammer or additional driving lights? What makes the damage any different?

azmiller1976 wrote

It was a wrong call on my part I agree, and a learning curve. Appreciate the insight I really do, make sense going forward to blow off minusscule issues like that, I just didnt think it would be wrong just to ask, thats all that happened. Thanks again.