Change of Policy on Tesla Ranger Service

[Mike_HburgVA]

Not having time to read on line, I just found out about this change when a rear passenger window started pushing up some tar and a paper/plastic liner of some sorts. I have no idea what happened to the window to cause this... there was no accident. So I called the Ranger service to have this fixed. It is covered under warranty, but I have to pay 350 dollars for the transportation fee. SURPRISE!!! This was supposed to be 100 dollars. I just bought my car 6 months ago, and there was no mention of this policy changing!

I have read the threads here, and it is clear that no one was notified of this upcoming change. For me, it was one of the major reasons I decided to purchase the car.... since I live a bit from D.C... the closest service center. The salesperson didn't offer me an 8 year plan, but never told me that the 100 fee was subject to change. This is BAIT, and SWITCH.

Tesla has every right to change their policy going forward... but they should honor their commitment to those of us who bought our cars under the 100 dollar assumption.

Has anyone any idea of WHO to contact about this?? I plan to contact an attorney as well, and see if there are any arrangements that can be negotiated. (Perhaps Tesla could offer us a Ranger service plan?_)

 

[sandpiper]

Not having time to read on line, I just found out about this change when a rear passenger window started pushing up some tar and a paper/plastic liner of some sorts. I have no idea what happened to the window to cause this... there was no accident. So I called the Ranger service to have this fixed. It is covered under warranty, but I have to pay 350 dollars for the transportation fee. SURPRISE!!! This was supposed to be 100 dollars. I just bought my car 6 months ago, and there was no mention of this policy changing!

I have read the threads here, and it is clear that no one was notified of this upcoming change. For me, it was one of the major reasons I decided to purchase the car.... since I live a bit from D.C... the closest service center. The salesperson didn't offer me an 8 year plan, but never told me that the 100 fee was subject to change. This is BAIT, and SWITCH.

Tesla has every right to change their policy going forward... but they should honor their commitment to those of us who bought our cars under the 100 dollar assumption.

Has anyone any idea of WHO to contact about this?? I plan to contact an attorney as well, and see if there are any arrangements that can be negotiated. (Perhaps Tesla could offer us a Ranger service plan?_)

Honestly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Tesla has the right to change this sort of thing, and it's tough to imagine that they weren't losing a whole lot of money on the $100 Ranger program. With the increasing number of cars out there I'm sure it was becoming unsustainable.

BUT!!! I think that what they're proposing to charge for the ranger service now is way too much. I wouldn't, personally, have as issue if it was close to cost recovery. Right now they're charging something like $3 per km from a service center. There is no conceivable way that it costs anywhere near that much for one guy in a truck.

Unless they reduce their rates, I can see this change having a really bad effect on sales for people who are not local to the SCs.

 

[Andyw2100]

So I called the Ranger service to have this fixed. It is covered under warranty, but I have to pay 350 dollars for the transportation fee. SURPRISE!!! This was supposed to be 100 dollars. I just bought my car 6 months ago, and there was no mention of this policy changing!

I have read the threads here, and it is clear that no one was notified of this upcoming change. For me, it was one of the major reasons I decided to purchase the car.... since I live a bit from D.C... the closest service center. The salesperson didn't offer me an 8 year plan, but never told me that the 100 fee was subject to change. This is BAIT, and SWITCH.

Tesla has every right to change their policy going forward... but they should honor their commitment to those of us who bought our cars under the 100 dollar assumption.

Has anyone any idea of WHO to contact about this?? I plan to contact an attorney as well, and see if there are any arrangements that can be negotiated. (Perhaps Tesla could offer us a Ranger service plan?_)

Honestly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Tesla has the right to change this sort of thing, and it's tough to imagine that they weren't losing a whole lot of money on the $100 Ranger program. With the increasing number of cars out there I'm sure it was becoming unsustainable.

I am not a lawyer.

That being said, I expect if this is tested in court, Tesla will lose.

There are laws in place to protect customers from exactly this kind of thing. For those of us living a great distance from the nearest service center, being able to get the car serviced for a maximum cost of $100 or less when needed was a material consideration in the purchase of the car. It's not something Tesla can (legally) change after the purchase has been completed, (in my opinion, which again, is not the opinion of an attorney.)

If Tesla made a bad decision about this, and was losing money providing service this way, they are free to change their policy going forward, for new customers. They are not free to unilaterally materially change for the worse the terms of sales that have already taken place.

 

[sandpiper]

I am not a lawyer.

That being said, I expect if this is tested in court, Tesla will lose.

There are laws in place to protect customers from exactly this kind of thing. For those of us living a great distance from the nearest service center, being able to get the car serviced for a maximum cost of $100 or less when needed was a material consideration in the purchase of the car. It's not something Tesla can (legally) change after the purchase has been completed, (in my opinion, which again, is not the opinion of an attorney.)

If Tesla made a bad decision about this, and was losing money providing service this way, they are free to change their policy going forward, for new customers. They are not free to unilaterally materially change for the worse the terms of sales that have already taken place.

I've not looked through it myself, but apparently there is some legaleze buried in their more recent sales agreements (mine included) that says that they have the right to change this. I don't know how long it's been there but I think that they've known for a while that this policy would have to change and they've been careful to ensure that it was legally permissible. For people who post-date any such verbage, you have no leg to stand on. Before that may be a different matter.

 

[Andyw2100]

I've not looked through it myself, but apparently there is some legaleze buried in their more recent sales agreements (mine included) that says that they have the right to change this. I don't know how long it's been there but I think that they've known for a while that this policy would have to change and they've been careful to ensure that it was legally permissible. For people who post-date any such verbage, you have no leg to stand on. Before that may be a different matter.

Again, I am not an attorney, but just because they printed something that said they had the right to do something doesn't mean they really had the right to do it.

I took a business law class in college, and the professor used the following example to illustrate something similar to this.

If you park your car in a parking garage where you drive up, give an attendant the keys, they take your car away and park it, and later being it back to you, and you pay them for this right, they may hand you a parking stub that will say, on the back of it, "Not responsible for damage to vehicle." But they --ARE-- responsible for damage to the vehicle.

I'm not sure the ranger and valet service was ever written about explicitly in any part of the purchase agreement. But before I entered into the agreement I had most certainly asked about the policy, as had hundreds of other customers. We were all told essentially the same thing about Tesla policy, and how service would be handled.

Even if somehow Tesla can get away, legally, with changing this policy now, it's absolutely not the right thing to do to customers that trusted them.

 

[>NetZero]

Well it has been 4 months ago since I started this thread. There's been quite of bit of action with many people describing the troubles we went through in regards to Tesla Ranger service visits. I haven't heard anything from Tesla or from anybody else for the matter about Tesla's stance on this. It appears they want to stay quite on it for now leaving a lot of existing customers and prospective customers in the dark. While we were taken care of by Tesla to our full satisfaction, we can not assure anyone else who buys a new car that they will receive the same treatment.

Oddly enough I was contacted by a journalist from California yesterday in regards to this issue. They are looking for me to have a short conversation with them about my experience and thoughts relating to Tesla's Ranger service. I told them I would be happy to do it. I thought if this would bring attention to the situation something good might come of it.

I will discuss the history of what happened with our Tesla ranger experiences but the main thing I would like to get across to the journalist is that I believe Tesla needs to be open to authorizing third party service centres to work on their vehicles as I have written before. I want to see millions of Tesla's on the road ASAP but in order to realistic service these vehicles they will need help. I just don't see them being able to do it ALL themselves. Especially for those places that are far from a Tesla Service Centre.

I wanted to post here to see if there were any other TMC members with something else that I should try and bring up during the conversation so that it might get out publicly?

 

[neroden]

And off I go to Drive Electric Week. And since Tesla still hasn't fixed this, I'll be telling people in upstate NY that *although* it's the greatest car in the world, they shouldn't buy it, because they're exposed to unlimited costs in the case of warranty problems.

Oy. Management at Tesla doesn't seem to understand the first thing about customer service. If they had any real competition (which they still don't, and won't until 2017 at the *earliest*), they'd be in big trouble.

 

[hpham007]

Visiting car dealerships probably ranks up there with visiting dentists but one constant on prior cars is that I've never had to pay one penny for a warranty repair ever. To have to pay 3 dollars a mile to get items under WARRANTY fixed is a tough pill to swallow.

 

[mspohr]

Visiting car dealerships probably ranks up there with visiting dentists but one constant on prior cars is that I've never had to pay one penny for a warranty repair ever. To have to pay 3 dollars a mile to get items under WARRANTY fixed is a tough pill to swallow.

I've never paid for warranty but I've always had to deliver the car to the dealership.

 

[AnOutsider]

I've never paid for warranty but I've always had to deliver the car to the dealership.

There were likely a number of dealerships relatively nearby though, so not sure that's a great comparison. I believe I've got 2 Audi dealers within 20-25 miles and a ridiculous number of independent shops that are authorized to service them. Heck, I drive past 2 on my way to work.

My local SC is something like 70ish miles away.

 

[mspohr]

There were likely a number of dealerships relatively nearby though, so not sure that's a great comparison. I believe I've got 2 Audi dealers within 20-25 miles and a ridiculous number of independent shops that are authorized to service them. Heck, I drive past 2 on my way to work.

My local SC is something like 70ish miles away.

Closest dealers are 60 miles from me . Tesla is 85. Not much difference.

 

[Andyw2100]

Closest dealers are 60 miles from me . Tesla is 85. Not much difference.

The difference is Tesla made a promise, people purchased cars based on that promise, and now Tesla is reneging on that promise.

Also the difference for you may not be that significant--85 miles vs. 60 miles--but for me, and for many of us the distance to the nearest service center is quite a bit more than that. I live more than 200 miles from the nearest service center. There are currently no superchargers on the route, so I couldn't safely drive there in the winter even if I wanted to. And I don't want to, because it's not what I signed up for.

I didn't just pay for the car. I paid for the car, and the exceptional service that was supposed to come with it. Part of that exceptional service was supposed to be my not having to do much of anything when the car did need something. I shouldn't now have to pay over $600 for something that I was told would be free before I paid for the car. (I was actually told that because I lived more than 200 miles from a service center, the $100 fee didn't apply, and there would be no charge at all when I needed ranger service, and that if the service was something the ranger could not provide on site, the car would be taken by flat-bed truck to the service center instead, still at no charge. Others were also told this.)

Tesla needs to step up to the plate and make this right again. They can charge whatever they like for new customers, but they need to keep the promises they made to customers who have already purchased based on those promises.

 

[LetsGoFast]

I didn't just pay for the car. I paid for the car, and the exceptional service that was supposed to come with it. Part of that exceptional service was supposed to be my not having to do much of anything when the car did need something. <snip> Tesla needs to step up to the plate and make this right again. They can charge whatever they like for new customers, but they need to keep the promises they made to customers who have already purchased based on those promises.

Agree completely. I would ordinarily not buy a car where the nearest dealer was 100 miles away, but did so based on all the raves about their service and the $100 charge. I'm not sure I would have bought it if I'd have known it would be $350 every time I had a service issue and I'm quite sure I wouldn't have signed up for the extra service visits. Thus far, the service center has not actually charged me for any of them, only described the new policy.

 

[mspohr]

The difference is Tesla made a promise, people purchased cars based on that promise, and now Tesla is reneging on that promise.

Also the difference for you may not be that significant--85 miles vs. 60 miles--but for me, and for many of us the distance to the nearest service center is quite a bit more than that. I live more than 200 miles from the nearest service center. There are currently no superchargers on the route, so I couldn't safely drive there in the winter even if I wanted to. And I don't want to, because it's not what I signed up for.

I didn't just pay for the car. I paid for the car, and the exceptional service that was supposed to come with it. Part of that exceptional service was supposed to be my not having to do much of anything when the car did need something. I shouldn't now have to pay over $600 for something that I was told would be free before I paid for the car. (I was actually told that because I lived more than 200 miles from a service center, the $100 fee didn't apply, and there would be no charge at all when I needed ranger service, and that if the service was something the ranger could not provide on site, the car would be taken by flat-bed truck to the service center instead, still at no charge. Others were also told this.)

Tesla needs to step up to the plate and make this right again. They can charge whatever they like for new customers, but they need to keep the promises they made to customers who have already purchased based on those promises.

I understand that you (and others) feel that "promises were made" which entitled you to free ranger service for the life of your service contract but usually service contracts have a written contract which states the terms of service. Do you have a service contract which states that you will receive free ranger service for the life of the contract? If so, it should be a simple matter to hold Tesla to that contract.
On the other hand, if you are relying on your recollection and interpretation of verbal statements then I don't think you have a very good case.

 

[Doug_G]

Of course a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[Andyw2100]

I understand that you (and others) feel that "promises were made" which entitled you to free ranger service for the life of your service contract but usually service contracts have a written contract which states the terms of service. Do you have a service contract which states that you will receive free ranger service for the life of the contract? If so, it should be a simple matter to hold Tesla to that contract.
On the other hand, if you are relying on your recollection and interpretation of verbal statements then I don't think you have a very good case.

First of all, this isn't even about the service contract. Tesla is trying to impose these fees for any trip to the service center, including warranty stuff.

My ten month old car started leaking about a month and a half ago. The plan was to wait until my annual service, which I had already scheduled back then, but needed to wait about seven weeks to get an appointment for. And for this first one the service manager is waiving the fee. But for argument's sake, let's say this leak occurred when I had nothing scheduled, and the service manager wasn't interested in trying to work with me. Based on Tesla's new policy, I'd be paying over $600 to get the car to them because it was leaking. That's just crazy!

We're not talking about random promises. What I was told about was Tesla policy. It didn't need to be in writing, because it was widely known. Everyone was being told what the policy was. My point is that we purchased cars, based on this policy. Tesla can't change it after the fact.

Of course a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken about that. As I was taught in that business law class I mentioned, oral contracts are just as valid as written ones for pretty much anything other than real estate. Here's some documentation of that fact:

--
Is A Verbal Agreement Legally Binding?

Is A Verbal Agreement Legally Binding?

Written by J. Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff

Verbal agreements and oral contracts are generally valid and legally binding as long as they are reasonable, equitable, conscionable and made in good faith. Although most people associate contracts with legal documents printed on paper for the purpose of getting them signed and stamped by notaries, the fact is that only a few types of contracts are required by statute to be written.
--


The article goes on to talk about the advantages of written contracts over oral ones, and points out that with oral contracts, it's possible for one of the parties to lie. That's not an issue here. There is no question as to what the policy had been, since there are hundreds, if not thousands of customers who had the policy explained to them the same way.



In fact, this is still on Tesla's website:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/creating-world%E2%80%99s-best-service-and-warranty-program-0

--
Valet Service
Your time is valuable and should not be spent driving to or waiting at our service centers. Tesla is putting in place a valet service, so that your car is seamlessly picked up and replaced with a loaner and then returned as soon as we are done. There is no additional charge for this.
--


Tesla can't unilaterally change their policy for the worse after they have our money. It's probably not legal, and it's certainly not right.

 

[Krugerrand]

But for argument's sake, let's say this leak occurred when I had nothing scheduled, and the service manager wasn't interested in trying to work with me. Based on Tesla's new policy, I'd be paying over $600 to get the car to them because it was leaking. That's just crazy!

But for argument's sake, let's not make up hypothetical stuff and then get bent about it. That's just crazy! The fee has been waived for you. Wasn't that awesome of Tesla to do under the current circumstances?

Sometimes policy changes. The reasons can be numerous. Off the top of my head a reasonable explanation would be that Tesla found they could no longer afford (personnel wise and/or monetary wise) to maintain the original policy. Surely you can see the drag on resources that is/was happening? Would you prefer they spend too many resources on Ranger Service such that they can't get to their ultimate goal or it puts them out of business? Would that make you a happy camper? Who will service your car then?

There wasn't suppose to be this many Model S's on the road at this point in time. There also wasn't suppose to be all those little niggly things (door handles, 12v batteries, spontaneously cracking windshields, etc.. to fix that they've had to, nor those 'combustion events' that caused non-recall service, nor drivetrain lack of lubricant events, et al... Nor was Tesla expecting to have to build a Gigafactory, or expand the SuperCharger Network, stores, galleries and service centers so fast. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Poo happens and things change because they have to change. It sucks, but there it is.

 

[Andyw2100]

But for argument's sake, let's not make up hypothetical stuff and then get bent about it. That's just crazy! The fee has been waived for you. Wasn't that awesome of Tesla to do under the current circumstances?

So far the fee has been waived for me once. And no, I don't think that was "awesome." I think that was Tesla giving me exactly what I paid for.

Sometimes policy changes. The reasons can be numerous. Off the top of my head a reasonable explanation would be that Tesla found they could no longer afford (personnel wise and/or monetary wise) to maintain the original policy. Surely you can see the drag on resources that is/was happening? Would you prefer they spend too many resources on Ranger Service such that they can't get to their ultimate goal or it puts them out of business? Would that make you a happy camper? Who will service your car then?

There wasn't suppose to be this many Model S's on the road at this point in time. There also wasn't suppose to be all those little niggly things (door handles, 12v batteries, spontaneously cracking windshields, etc.. to fix that they've had to, nor those 'combustion events' that caused non-recall service, nor drivetrain lack of lubricant events, et al... Nor was Tesla expecting to have to build a Gigafactory, or expand the SuperCharger Network, stores, galleries and service centers so fast. I could go on, but I think you get the point. Poo happens and things change because they have to change. It sucks, but there it is.

All of these things you mention were things that Tesla had control over but we as customers did not. Are you really making the argument that because the cars Tesla is building are proving to be less reliable than Tesla expected them to be, and thus more costly to maintain, we as customers should be bearing that additional cost instead of Tesla?

 

[Krugerrand]

All of these things you mention were things that Tesla had control over but we as customers did not. Are you really making the argument that because the cars Tesla is building are proving to be less reliable than Tesla expected them to be, and thus more costly to maintain, we as customers should be bearing that additional cost instead of Tesla?

They bore the cost, they fixed everything (and have done a lot of extra stuff for customers along the way for free). Now they've changed their Ranger policy so that they can survive, reach their ultimate goal (which btw isn't some insignificant, self-serving goal), AND still be around to service cars for years to come. I know you don't like it, but there's this saying about not being able to get blood from a stone. Tesla doesn't have the resources to continue the old Ranger policy. They just don't. Seppuku doesn't serve them, current customers, future customers, nor the goal of seeing a world of sustainable transportation. So vent away about the injustice of it all, that can be therapeutic as long as you realize is doesn't change anything but your blood pressure.

 

[Andyw2100]

They bore the cost, they fixed everything (and have done a lot of extra stuff for customers along the way for free). Now they've changed their Ranger policy so that they can survive, reach their ultimate goal (which btw isn't some insignificant, self-serving goal), AND still be around to service cars for years to come. I know you don't like it, but there's this saying about not being able to get blood from a stone. Tesla doesn't have the resources to continue the old Ranger policy. They just don't. Seppuku doesn't serve them, current customers, future customers, nor the goal of seeing a world of sustainable transportation. So vent away about the injustice of it all, that can be therapeutic as long as you realize is doesn't change anything but your blood pressure.

I can't imagine that the difference between sticking to the old policy for existing customers, and going back on their promises is the difference between making it or not for Tesla. If it is, they've got some serious problems.

You really seem to be saying that it's OK for the company to screw over its customers because the company made mistakes. That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

As for venting and not changing anything, I don't believe I am venting. And I do believe that something will change. Because if enough people understand this issue and recognize how ridiculous it is, Tesla will have to honor the commitments they made to the existing customers. If Tesla becomes known as the company that is so close to going under that no one can trust them to do what they say they will do, how many six-figure cars do you think they will sell?