Change of Policy on Tesla Ranger Service

[Krugerrand]

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.

Oh, please. You're being purposely obtuse now about the cost requirements to maintain the old Ranger policy. Not one OEM or dealership offers such a service. With the ever increasing cars around the world, customers getting more and more spread out, and the inability to open service centers in a number of states because of dealership laws, Tesla can't possibly hire enough people, fast enough and then pay them regular hours let alone over time hours. Tesla can't even keep up with all the other things on their plate like AP, launching vehicles, factory expansion, service center expansion, and on and on.

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?

I said nothing of the sort, nor did I suggest it. I clearly stated, sometimes policies have to change and people aren't always going to like it. Period, end of story.

...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?

It's not ridiculous for a company to change policy as it's required. Happens every single day with tens of thousands of companies.

Tesla isn't about selling six-figure cars. It's about accelerating the world to sustainable transport. As it stands now, they're selling more six-figure cars than they can make. And interestingly enough, despite a handful of vocally unhappy people, most people are quite content with the wheels their driving around and the service they are getting from Tesla.

 

[Doug_G]

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:

I'm aware of that... however, try enforcing a verbal contract in court. You have to prove it exists. If any paper contracts exist, they will override whatever verbal promises were made.

 

[Andyw2100]

Oh, please. You're being purposely obtuse now about the cost requirements to maintain the old Ranger policy. Not one OEM or dealership offers such a service. With the ever increasing cars around the world, customers getting more and more spread out, and the inability to open service centers in a number of states because of dealership laws, Tesla can't possibly hire enough people, fast enough and then pay them regular hours let alone over time hours. Tesla can't even keep up with all the other things on their plate like AP, launching vehicles, factory expansion, service center expansion, and on and on.

I'm not being purposely obtuse at all. You suggested that Tesla would go out of business if they had to provide the services they promised to existing customers, and I said that I did not agree, and that Tesla had serious problems if you were correct about that.

The fact that other car companies aren't offering these services is irrelevant. Other car companies are established, and thus offer many more options to their customers with respect to where service can be obtained. More importantly, other car companies --DID NOT PROMISE-- this service as a condition of purchase, before their cars were sold. Tesla did.

As for Tesla not being able to keep up with the things on their plate, dealership laws stacked against them, etc, none of this changed overnight. Tesla had the ability to recognize what was going on, and change their policy as needed, in time to make sense for their business, and for their business model. The fact that they may have recognized the problem too late should not be the customers' problem. I have said from the beginning that if Tesla feels the need to change their policy, that is their prerogative: they just can't change it for customers who have already purchased their vehicles.

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?

I said nothing of the sort, nor did I suggest it. I clearly stated, sometimes policies have to change and people aren't always going to like it. Period, end of story.

Well, that is what you said.

Now they've changed their Ranger policy so that they can survive <SNIP>Tesla doesn't have the resources to continue the old Ranger policy.

And this:

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.

The above absolutely support my writing:

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?

It's not ridiculous for a company to change policy as it's required. Happens every single day with tens of thousands of companies.

But it is ridiculous for them to change their policy and have it apply to previous customers who purchased when a completely different policy was in effect. It is completely unfair, completely unethical, and probably (though I am not an attorney) illegal. It is the kind of thing shady companies try to do, if they think they might be able to get away with it. It is definitely not the kind of thing any of us ever expected from Elon Musk and Tesla.

And interestingly enough, despite a handful of vocally unhappy people, most people are quite content with the wheels their driving around and the service they are getting from Tesla.

You can keep saying that as often as you like, and keep attacking the arguments made by those of us who have anything negative to say about the company that you love so much. But the reality of the situation is that your saying that doesn't make it true. And you know, from reading the forums over the last few months, that there are a lot more unhappy people over a lot more issues than, say, a year ago. We've had the console issue, the auto pilot software issue, the horsepower issue, the navigation system issue, the multiple buggy firmware release issues, the efficiency issues, the misleading marketing on the website issues, and I'm only naming a few of them. This can only go on so long before it really hurts Tesla. In fact, I'd argue that it already --IS-- hurting Tesla.

You can keep trying to shout us down, but if I were you, I'd think of us as canaries in the coal mine. We're letting Tesla know something is wrong in time for them to act on it, before there's a catastrophe. Tesla can keep ignoring the dying canaries, but how well does doing that usually work out for the coal miners?

 

[ProSkeptic]

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?

The bigger issue would be Tesla's ability to move down-market. The perception, right or wrong, that the Model S and Model X are 'rich man's toys' will still exist, but when a potential buyer in 2019 is weighing a Model 3 against a Toyota Avalon Hybrid, the stories of unkept promises and shoddy communication will weigh much more heavily on the purchase decision than will the buyer's desire to see Tesla succeed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think I noted it before, but none of what Tesla has written and probably what the reps said specifies that it would be available forever (or life of the owner/car and whether it is transferable). This is quite different with the supercharger policy (which is explicitly for the life of the car). I remember there are those that tried to get it in writing, but failed.

And the bit about verbal contracts is that the onus is on the plaintiff to provide proof. If you don't have a recording, an independent witness, or something written, then it's going to be really tough to prove. Also, I'm not sure when something a Tesla store rep says is considered a contract or considered advertising (the lawsuit would be vastly different). I guess it will depend on if it was said as a condition of buying (like when you were signing your purchase contract) or if it was just off-hand while you were researching the car.

There's also called the Statute of Frauds that require certain contracts to be written (not oral) and also the statue of limitations for oral contracts is 2 years in and written is 4 years in California. Those also play a factor.

Also I'm pretty sure some did have a service contract that specified the $100 Ranger service (so it would be valid for the life of that contract). That could be used by Tesla as a counter example compared to contracts that leave that out.

 

[Andyw2100]

I think I noted it before, but none of what Tesla has written and probably what the reps said specifies that it would be available forever (or life of the owner/car and whether it is transferable). This is quite different with the supercharger policy (which is explicitly for the life of the car). I remember there are those that tried to get it in writing, but failed.

And the bit about verbal contracts is that the onus is on the plaintiff to provide proof. If you don't have a recording, an independent witness, or something written, then it's going to be really tough to prove. Also, I'm not sure when something a Tesla store rep says is considered a contract or considered advertising (the lawsuit would be vastly different). I guess it will depend on if it was said as a condition of buying (like when you were signing your purchase contract) or if it was just off-hand while you were researching the car.

There's also called the Statute of Frauds that require certain contracts to be written (not oral) and also the statue of limitations for oral contracts is 2 years in and written is 4 years in California. Those also play a factor.

Also I'm pretty sure some did have a service contract that specified the $100 Ranger service (so it would be valid for the life of that contract). That could be used by Tesla as a counter example compared to contracts that leave that out.

Unless you think Tesla employees would lie under oath, it's not going to be difficult to prove what the policy had been. Any number of customers could testify to what the policy was explained to them as, and then a few Tesla employees could be called as witnesses, and questioned as to how they were told, by Tesla, to explain the policy. There may even be some sort of training manual, with sample questions and answers.

The bottom line is I don't think Tesla would attempt to contest the fact that customers living at a distance from service centers were told what we were told.

The issue then becomes does Tesla have the right to change that policy after the fact.

And again--let's put the discussion of the legality or illegality of this aside for the moment. Do you think it's right? Do you think the general public will think it's right? Will the general public want to do business with a company that pulls stuff like this on customers that have just dropped six figures on a car?

 

[jerry33]

What I know is that I paid the extra $100 for unlimited Ranger service. I've only had to use it once, but it was a real lifesaver when it happened.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Unless you think Tesla employees would lie under oath, it's not going to be difficult to prove what the policy had been. Any number of customers could testify to what the policy was explained to them as, and then a few Tesla employees could be called as witnesses, and questioned as to how they were told, by Tesla, to explain the policy. There may even be some sort of training manual, with sample questions and answers.

The bottom line is I don't think Tesla would attempt to contest the fact that customers living at a distance from service centers were told what we were told.

The issue then becomes does Tesla have the right to change that policy after the fact.

And again--let's put the discussion of the legality or illegality of this aside for the moment. Do you think it's right? Do you think the general public will think it's right? Will the general public want to do business with a company that pulls stuff like this on customers that have just dropped six figures on a car?

They can plead the fifth or say they don't remember, they are not required to say self incriminating testimony as you imply. Having other owners would not help unless they were there while the contract was made to you. However, I think most likely what will happen is that they will say that at the time $100 Ranger was available, but they had to change the price. That would not be a violation of contact (even assuming it can be considered one) if it was not promised that the price would be the same forever.

 

[Andyw2100]

They can plead the fifth or say they don't remember, they are not required to say self incriminating testimony as you imply. Having other owners would not help unless they were there while the contract was made to you. However, I think most likely what will happen is that they will say that at the time $100 Ranger was available, but they had to change the price. That would not be a violation of contact (even assuming it can be considered one) if it was not promised that the price would be the same forever.

OK, I'm not an attorney, but I'm 99% certain the fifth amendment has absolutely no relevance here. The Tesla employees being asked "What did you tell people the policy was?", or "What were you instructed to tell people the policy was?" would not be incriminating themselves by answering truthfully.

And to suggest that they would say they don't remember is suggesting that they would lie. Perhaps you think that little of Tesla employees, but I don't. I think most would answer truthfully, and explain what they were instructed to tell customers.

As for talking to other Tesla owners, the point would be to establish what Tesla policy was. And again, I don't see Tesla trying to deny that what their policy was. It is widely known.

Your argument that there was no guarantee that the policy would continue is the only issue that could be reasonably discussed. I'd argue, if I were arguing the case, that when a company says "this is our policy" when a customer asks how they will get service for the car they are considering purchasing, the answer given is understood to reasonably apply at least for the expected life of the car.

Let's take another approach, since you seem so anxious to point out the lack of having things in writing, lack of contracts, etc.

What would your position be if Tesla announced tomorrow that because their service centers were losing money, they were closing all of them, and consolidating all service for all Teslas in Fremont, California. The warrantys on all cars are still valid, of course, but it's the owner's responsibility, as it is now, to bring the car to Fremont for service. But don't worry. If you can't easily bring the car to Fremont yourself, Tesla will valet it there for you, at $3 per one-way mile.

Did you have a guarantee that Tesla wouldn't do that? Do you have a contract that says Tesla has to maintain a certain number of service centers, with a certain geographic distribution? Do any of us?

Does this seem like a ridiculous situation?

Perhaps it does, but for those of us who live hundreds of miles from the nearest service center, it's not all that different from the situation we now find ourselves in.

 

[Doug_G]

What I know is that I paid the extra $100 for unlimited Ranger service. I've only had to use it once, but it was a real lifesaver when it happened.

I've used it many times; I was smarter than I realized grabbing the full 8 years right away.

My car is in Montreal right now, and I have a base 60 in my garage. Okay not sexy but it does have the autopilot stuff, so it was fun to try out the adaptive cruise.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Your argument that there was no guarantee that the policy would continue is the only issue that could be reasonably discussed.

That's one of the big points. I'm willing to forgo the rest since I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not qualified to speculate too much on the other matters.

Let's take another approach, since you seem so anxious to point out the lack of having things in writing, lack of contracts, etc.

What would your position be if Tesla announced tomorrow that because their service centers were losing money, they were closing all of them, and consolidating all service for all Teslas in Fremont, California. The warrantys on all cars are still valid, of course, but it's the owner's responsibility, as it is now, to bring the car to Fremont for service. But don't worry. If you can't easily bring the car to Fremont yourself, Tesla will valet it there for you, at $3 per one-way mile.

Did you have a guarantee that Tesla wouldn't do that? Do you have a contract that says Tesla has to maintain a certain number of service centers, with a certain geographic distribution? Do any of us?

Does this seem like a ridiculous situation?

Perhaps it does, but for those of us who live hundreds of miles from the nearest service center, it's not all that different from the situation we now find ourselves in.

Ironically, that is exactly what a lot of people in the stock market say Tesla will be doing if Tesla keeps burning money at the rate they are doing right now (which this new policy is supposed to address). Tesla was supposed to break even on service and charging a flat rate of $100 regardless of distance obviously doesn't do that. There's a lot of goodwill gestures that does help Tesla's reputation, but may not be financially sustainable as the Tesla owner fleet goes in size.

Personally, unless I had it in writing that the $100 Ranger service would be available for the life of the car (some people say warranty), I would not automatically assume the rate will stay the same. A reasonable person would assume they would have to adjust the price even if for inflation, natural increase in wages and fuel prices. That's why in a similar thread where people suggest that a person without home charging and intend to depend on supercharging for all their charging to go ahead and do that, I also suggested them to get it in writing and to have a plan B if they couldn't.

 

[Andyw2100]

Personally, unless I had it in writing that the $100 Ranger service would be available for the life of the car (some people say warranty), I would not automatically assume the rate will stay the same.

So this doesn't count, in your mind:

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.
--

 

[stopcrazypp]

So this doesn't count, in your mind:

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.
--

That does not say how long that is valid for, just that they are announcing that policy. I don't believe that policy (which is about valet) is what this thread is discussing, but someone who tried to push to get in writing a guarantee that the valet service would be valid for the life of the car, got a response that it was an internal policy that was subject to change:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/valet-service-not-guaranteed

Thus I think the default assumption when something is not in writing explicitly should be that it is always subject to change. People who assume otherwise seem to be those that are burned.

 

[Andyw2100]

That does not say how long that is valid for, just that they are announcing that policy. I don't believe that policy (which is about valet) is what this thread is discussing, but someone who tried to push to get in writing a guarantee that the valet service would be valid for the life of the car, got a response that it was an internal policy that was subject to change:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/valet-service-not-guaranteed

Thus I think the default assumption when something is not in writing explicitly should be that it is always subject to change. People who assume otherwise seem to be those that are burned.

The way the ranger and the valet service were explained to me they are definitely related. Of course since it's not in writing, I guess you won't view it as relevant. But what I was told was that the Ranger service was ($100 per visit / later someone else, upon learning I lived further than 200 miles from a service center, told me the $100 did not apply, and it was actually free) and that if the Ranger Service could not deal with the particular problem on site, the car would be valeted to the nearest service center instead. Additionally, just before I was to receive my car, a regional delivery manager explained that they actually preferred to valet the cars to and from the service centers, instead of sending rangers out, because if they sent a ranger out to me that would be a tech out of service and unable to service cars the entire time he was driving. Instead the service center had much lower level people, with less training, who could drive the cars around. So that was the option that was preferable to them: valet over ranger.

 

[Doug_G]

That is certainly true. Over the last five years I have gone from 100% Ranger service to 95% Valet service. The switchover started last year.

 

[Doug_G]

LOL I just had a random thought chatting about this over dinner. I could sell my car to someone in Newfoundland, and Tesla would be thereafter be obliged to provide the new owner with "anywhere" service for the next 5+ years.

 

[Andyw2100]

LOL I just had a random thought chatting about this over dinner. I could sell my car to someone in Newfoundland, and Tesla would be thereafter be obliged to provide the new owner with "anywhere" service for the next 5+ years.

Of course that doesn't mean they'd actually do it...

 

[Mayhemm]

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.

As much as I love my Model S and the company in general, if they can't do business without cutting and running on their customers and hire executives that aren't capable of making smart decisions (ie: coming up with programs and policies that have a hope in hell of actually working) then they, sadly, don't deserve to exist. This is precisely the argument I've used against the dealership model. I wouldn't take this crap from GM and I won't take it from Tesla either. If they can't stand on their own two feet and succeed without special pleading and protections, they shouldn't be in business. I'm not going to make a special exception for Tesla Motors (nor should I be expected to) just because they talk a good game and make a great car.

That does not say how long that is valid for, just that they are announcing that policy. I don't believe that policy (which is about valet) is what this thread is discussing, but someone who tried to push to get in writing a guarantee that the valet service would be valid for the life of the car, got a response that it was an internal policy that was subject to change:
http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/valet-service-not-guaranteed

Thus I think the default assumption when something is not in writing explicitly should be that it is always subject to change. People who assume otherwise seem to be those that are burned.

At the time of my purchase (2014 Q2) I was led to believe that Valet and Ranger services were two sides of the same coin. If you lived close to a service center (~50 miles), you would get Valet service. If you were further away, Ranger service was for you.

LOL I just had a random thought chatting about this over dinner. I could sell my car to someone in Newfoundland, and Tesla would be thereafter be obliged to provide the new owner with "anywhere" service for the next 5+ years.

Not really, since part of this discussion is dealing with whether or not Tesla can actually be held to past policies or statements. Who's to say they couldn't just retcon the transferablility of the warranty out like they did with the Ranger service?

 

[stopcrazypp]

At the time of my purchase (2014 Q2) I was led to believe that Valet and Ranger services were two sides of the same coin. If you lived close to a service center (~50 miles), you would get Valet service. If you were further away, Ranger service was for you.

My impression was the Valet was free (when available and within a certain radius), but Ranger always cost money ($100 minimum). Of course, the Service Center may have used the two interchangeably (substitute one for the other as convenient).

Not really, since part of this discussion is dealing with whether or not Tesla can actually be held to past policies or statements. Who's to say they couldn't just retcon the transferablility of the warranty out like they did with the Ranger service?

I think the difference is that they have a written service contract that specified the service. The people with those service contracts are still having those honored AFAIK. There is very clear-cut contract law preventing Tesla from backing out of those without penalty. Whereas in the case of people getting verbal promises from certain Tesla employees, contract law does not necessarily cover.

 

[Doug_G]

Of course that doesn't mean they'd actually do it...

They would have to - I have a contract. It says that the service plan transfers with the car. The service plan was paid for in full, and they can't just take my money and not honor it. They'd get sued.