There is a saying "None are so blind as those that don't want to see" and another "You can lead a horse to water but cant make it drink"
These sayings came into my head as a result of comments by those that clearly have never used the consumer Act - or indeed the previous Sale of Goods Act to enforce their statutory rights and mock the very idea that a layman consumer (David) could ever triumph over a business (Goliath) without the help of a solicitor or legal professional when it comes to the premature failure of consumer goods.
Its a fact, business, most of the time, tries to resist claims outside of the warranty, and consumers, most of the time, accept that. In the UK, the population is not litigious, tends not to argue, and may not know that warranties are in addition to their statutory rights.
Its also a fact, If you dismiss or reject the idea the average "Joe" is capable of enforcing their statutory rights and are able to hold any business no matter how large or influential they are to account for the manufacture of goods that don't last a reasonable amount of time then perhaps those people have already accepted defeat - and will be proven correct.
I'm not a solicitor - just an average "Joe" I did enrol at night school many years ago to study criminal and civil law - enrolled on a whim rather than a purpose and found the whole thing intriguing and fascinating.
People here are debating what is a "reasonable amount of time" in the longevity of an item, but the truth is that isn't closely defined and only the judge can decide that, but, the law indicates "reasonable" as in "the eyes of a reasonable person" and that reasonableness is dependant on the cost and purpose and general expectation of the specific item of good(s)
The small claims court is specifically there for the average "Joe" to enforce their statutory rights which include premature failure of performance of goods or services, or for the TORTs of others - A Tort is negligence, Simplified, its making people and business accountable for their actions or omissions of the business or its employees (Business are responsible for the actions of employees in the term Vicarious liability)
When consumers contact a business regarding the failure of goods or services they are speaking to an employee, who usually interprets their obligations in line with their limited training and sadly many employees don't know consumer law - just the fact of when warranty applies and when its ended and solely on that basis will accept or reject a free repair.
If a claim is rejected the consumer has a right to know why but its impossible to know if that employee has the authority to reject a claim, or is acting Ultra Virus (exceeding their authority) so a rejection needs to come from a named employee that is speaking on behalf of the company, and confirmed in writing, this will provide the basis of the Vicarious liability.
Of course, any litigation issued will go to the firms legal department or legal advisor and the reply to that is most likely to be different from the initial employee that answered your call.
Its quite rare that when litigation is indicated that the business is happy to defend itself in court, at this point majority will simply accept liability and offer a "goodwill" gesture to rectify - they just want you gone.
Not a single case of my intended litigations have ever reached the court, two have got as far as serving the paperwork and every single complaint I've made I have been more than willing to see in court - and some were very big international businesses, ICI, Ford, Hotpoint.
The small claims court expect both parties to try and resolve their differences - usually with the alternative dispute resolution, although that's not an obligation - my claims have never even got that far, the serving of the court paperwork has always been enough for me to be able to correspond with someone from the company that has the authority to review the full circumstances of the complaint and make a decision.
In this specific case, a 4 yr old car with a defective heater In my view its -
1- Unreasonable for Tesla to reject a repair 9 days out of warranty
2- A heater is expected to last at least the design life of the car - 8 to 12 years
3- A reasonable person wouldn't consider 4 years as compliant with consumer law "last a reasonable amount of time"
4 - The fault is due to premature failure of a component or control system (Thermistor, relay, resistive element, control module)
5 - The heater is a non serviceable component - so nothing the owner could influence
6- The heater is a major component of the car, a safety issue (keeping screen defrosted) and the early failure indicates the fitted components that have failed were not of reasonable strength and composition or fit for purpose.
In my view this isn't something Tesla will consider fighting once they understand the potential to be tested in a court, its impossible to defend - on the balance of probabilities.