Arbitration decision of my PCS dispute

[ucmndd]

Is arbitration precedent setting? If Tesla wins one arbitration does that mean the AAA finds automatically for them in every case that looks like the same thing?

No, I don’t believe there is any formal precedent set through arbitration. I mean more informally - if people get used to the idea that they don’t fight or simply resolve arbitration claims with goodwill service then someone’s gonna put up a TMC post explaining such and encouraging a bunch of copycats that ultimately does become expensive. You know, like someone did recently with their small claims experience.

If Tesla charges a core charge, then I would ask to have them install a refurbished one at a discounted price. If they do not sell refurbs, then ask them what the cores are used for.

You can sure ask all you want, though you’re unlikely to get a satisfying answer.

Plus, if the module has a core charge, Tesla's invoice must say it by CA law:

And indeed it will, the moment you ask for your old parts back (if they are parts Tesla actually wants to keep for some reason or another).

 

[gearchruncher]

And indeed it will, the moment you ask for your old parts back (if they are parts Tesla actually wants to keep for some reason or another).

They're not allowed to revise an estimate because you asked for the parts back after they gave you an estimate. It's up to them to make all of that clear on the original estimate.

https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/writeitright.pdf

3. What is required in an estimate? An estimate must contain a description of the specific job and the estimated price for all parts and labor. Each part listed in the estimate shall be new unless specifically identified as a used, rebuilt, or reconditioned part. B&P § 9884.9, CCR § 3353

8. Are replaced parts required to be returned to the customer? Yes, if requested by the customer at the time the estimate is authorized. However, parts that are sold on an exchange basis and parts that must go back to the supplier under a warranty or core arrangement (e.g., battery) are not required to be returned to the customer. In these circumstances, the customer must be offered the opportunity to see the replaced parts. Any replaced parts that cannot be returned to the customer must be recorded on the invoice. B&P § 9884.10, CCR §§ 3355, 3356(i)

Do I need to inform the customer about the core charge or include it on the estimate?

Along with the list of all parts used and auto repair charges, the core charge must be disclosed to the customer and separately itemized on the estimate.

1. How is authorization obtained? All repairs must be authorized by the customer in written, oral, or electronic form. The authorization must be obtained and recorded on the estimate before beginning any repairs. The customer must be provided a copy of any document requiring his or her signature at the time of signing. B&P § 9884.7(a)(3), CCR § 3353.1(a)

if people get used to the idea that they don’t fight or simply resolve arbitration claims with goodwill service then someone’s gonna put up a TMC post explaining such and encouraging a bunch of copycats that ultimately does become expensive. You know, like someone did recently with their small claims experience.

Tesla LOVES a good NDA. There are people here under NDA for issues they had with Tesla. They can just request an NDA as part of arbitration, and then when people win, they can block them from telling anyone. They can't do that when they don't show up though...

 

[ucmndd]

They're not allowed to revise an estimate because you asked for the parts back after they gave you an estimate. It's up to them to make all of that clear on the original estimate.

https://www.bar.ca.gov/pdf/writeitright.pdf

I know the law. I also know how Tesla operates and I'm sure it won't surprise you to know those two aren't always perfectly aligned.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well, the PCS is inside the battery. And if you buy a battery it comes with the PCS...

But what really matters is that this is a servicing and packaging convenience purely at Tesla’s discretion, not a requirement.

Analogy - if Tesla decides that it’s easier for them to replace half-shafts when they do drive unit replacements, does that compel them to cover all half shaft failures under the drive unit warranty?

Of course it doesn’t.

You both make a fair point. The arbitrator probably sided with the latter argument (and I'm not sure the former argument was ever presented). The PCS was put in the penthouse of the battery pack in the Model 3 for service convenience, but the equivalent component had always been considered not part of the battery (even though it was still put in the general area under the rear seats in Model S/X). I'm guessing Tesla also presented the arbitrator with the fact the PCS is a separate serviceable part in the invoice and that the replacement of it is a unique item.

I looked at the website of the OP, it seems he presented examples of invoices of other users that got PCS covered under the HV warranty, but such invoices don't set any precedents (as it can easily be a mistake by individual SCs). Presumably OP didn't present invoices that when a battery pack is replaced under warranty, it is replaced as a unit with PCS and evidence that PCS is part of that battery pack part number.

 

[KJD]

Any time you have a major repair right after the warranty expires, that looks bad for Tesla. This car was only out of coverage by a couple thousand miles.(52K miles. 04/2018 build date.) There was a time when Tesla would give the customer the benefit of the doubt and cover that under goodwill.

Those days are gone.

The fact that the PCS is INSIDE the battery housing (sealed within a weathertight enclosure) says to me that it's part of the battery. I think many people would consider this a reasonable argument to make. The fact that a replacement battery comes with this case sealed adds to that logic.

There was a thread here on TMC about how to take Tesla to small claims court and win. I can't seem to locate that thread right now, but that might be a path for the OP to follow.

 

[Rocky_H]

but I do not agree with the alarmist language that these failures are happening or will happen in large numbers.

You don't agree with it? Tesla has already explicitly admitted this. It's THEIR alarmist language! Tesla created a service bulletin for this exact thing, with the explanation that they got a big batch of these PCS parts that were initially defective and were failing too early.

So that is how some people were getting this covered. But the thing that is really a problem is that in the service bulletin, Tesla said "These are only the range of VIN cars that contain these defective PCS parts." And it seems that Tesla was either not accurate or not honest in the number of cars covered, as a lot more people are affected by this. Owners have gone to Tesla with this failure and referencing the service bulletin, but Tesla has just told them their VIN is not affected.

This isn't a uniquely Tesla thing either. My wife had an iPhone, and it got a push of a new version of iOS, which messed up the battery system, so that when it got down to 40%, it would just instantly shut down. Apple released an announcement saying, we realize we had a bad batch of batteries in these affected serial numbers of phones, which cause this problem, and we will replace those batteries. My wife went to the Apple store to have them fix it, but they told her, "Your phone isn't one of the affected ones." (even though it was) She contacted Apple directly, and they looked up her serial number and told her the same thing.

 

[gearchruncher]

It's THEIR alarmist language! Tesla created a service bulletin for this exact thing, with the explanation that they got a big batch of these PCS parts that were initially defective and were failing too early.

Is this the one you are talking about? It only covers 5 weeks of production and doesn't explain why at all:

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2018/MC-10148850-9999.pdf

 

[stopcrazypp]

Is this the one you are talking about? It only covers 5 weeks of production and doesn't explain why at all:

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2018/MC-10148850-9999.pdf

Yeah, considering how many Model 3s are out there, it's a very small amount of cars that are affected (or marked as affected by a TSB). It could be most cars have not reached that age yet, but at the moment, I don't think it can be characterized as a widespread problem (even though it definitely exists).

One path to get this covered after warranty is to report problem to NHTSA and hope it gets turned into a recall instead of a TSB.

 

[ucmndd]

One path to get this covered after warranty is to report problem to NHTSA and hope it gets turned into a recall instead of a TSB.

Recalls are for safety issues and safety issues only. What safety concern exists with a failing PCS module?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Recalls are for safety issues and safety issues only. What safety concern exists with a failing PCS module?

While most of these seem to fail during charging, presumably they can fail on the road and cause the car to shut down. Anyways, whether that rises to level of safety concern is up to NHTSA to determine.

 

[ucmndd]

While most of these seem to fail during charging, presumably they can fail on the road and cause the car to shut down. Anyways, whether that rises to level of safety concern is up to NHTSA to determine.

That would seem to be a completely different and thus far unobserved failure scenario. “PCS” in the context of this dispute has meant the failure of onboard AC-DC rectifiers used for level 2 charging. These devices have no role in propulsion.

Now if their failure mode was more catastrophic, as in “catch on fire”, then sure - that’s probably recall worthy. But again - no evidence of that happening at all.

 

[rootusrootus]

Interesting information, thanks for sharing. I understand how the arbitrator could find in favor of Tesla based on the language of the warranty, but I very much appreciate you pointing out that Tesla is fairly unique in this regard. I will take that under advisement when making my next car purchase.

 

[Bessy]

Yeah, considering how many Model 3s are out there, it's a very small amount of cars that are affected (or marked as affected by a TSB). It could be most cars have not reached that age yet, but at the moment, I don't think it can be characterized as a widespread problem (even though it definitely exists).

One path to get this covered after warranty is to report problem to NHTSA and hope it gets turned into a recall instead of a TSB.

I have a LR MR RWD born in 06/2018. My PCS failed and not covered by warranty. Was about 3 months out ~40k miles. They didn’t care what the TSB said even though mine would seem to fit the criteria. They claimed I would have been notified if affected…very upsetting to shell out $1.5k for this repair. They refuse to share the data on the car when the first module of PCS fails (no warning for consumer)

 

[hamtonp]

My 2018 LR RWD only charges 25A now. I have 59k miles on the car. I believe it originally failed around 45k mark but it didn't know about the PCS issue. It was charging at 32A max but I really thought I had a bad grid or power issue. I'll keep using it until the max Amp goes down to 16A. Hoping for some good news down the line.

 

[gearchruncher]

My 2018 LR RWD only charges 25A now.

This is a weird failure method.
There are 3X 16A blocks. They tend to fail completely.
So you get 16, 32, or 48A max charging.
Not sure anyone has ever reported losing all of one, and then 44% of the second one.
You sure there isn't something else up?

 

[android04]

My 2018 LR RWD only charges 25A now. I have 59k miles on the car. I believe it originally failed around 45k mark but it didn't know about the PCS issue. It was charging at 32A max but I really thought I had a bad grid or power issue. I'll keep using it until the max Amp goes down to 16A. Hoping for some good news down the line.

Check if your charge current is set to 25A/32A on the car's charging screen while charging. Like gearcruncher mentioned, this does not look like a failure of one of the PCS phases.

 

[hamtonp]

I think it's a weird partial failure. It was charging at 32A max for a while then a few months later it dropped to 25A. I tried my mobile charger and my home charger which is a 40A charger. It does say 25A/40A. Funny thing is that if I reduce the amp rate, the charging rate goes down too but at a lower rate.
Example. If I set it charge at 28A, the actual charge rate drops to 23A.

 

[android04]

I think it's a weird partial failure. It was charging at 32A max for a while then a few months later it dropped to 25A. I tried my mobile charger and my home charger which is a 40A charger. It does say 25A/40A. Funny thing is that if I reduce the amp rate, the charging rate goes down too but at a lower rate.
Example. If I set it charge at 28A, the actual charge rate drops to 23A.

What does your voltage show? If the voltage sags down a lot while charging, the car will reduce the charge current. Also if any of the plugs get to hot and the car or charge connector sense it, the current will be reduced as well.

Have you tried going into Service Mode to see if there are any hidden error messages? To do so, go to vehicle controls on the car screen (car icon), Software, tap and hold on your Model 3 trim level (such as "Model 3 Long Range"),v and type in "service".

 

[Yanquetino]

For those interested: since the arbitrator for my dispute sided with Tesla, I had no choice but to pay for the repair of my Model 3's PCS out-of-pocket before it deteriorated even further. I have posted a brief writeup of getting that service done. The good news is that my car is once again charging at its full 48A rate. Let's hope this PCS lasts long beyond Tesla's 1 year or 12,500 mile warranty on replacement parts!

 

[davewill]

I had asked if I could keep the old, faulty part when the job was completed, but they said that it wasn't possible according to Tesla's policies on parts.

I belive they may have violated your consumer rights, although it depends on your state laws.