CPO Model S FUSC REMOVED After Being Told It Would Not Be Included

[CapeOne]

I purchased a 2015 model s CPO directly from Tesla.
I was informed I would not receive FUSC. That it would be pay per use supercharging. issue here is when I took delivery of the vehicle I purchased it as is with all configurations displayed in my Tesla app.

Let's suppose someone sells a car as is and tells the buyer that the radio is SiriusXM capable but if they want the service, they need to pay for it. On the way home, the buyer discovers that they are able to get SiriusXM.

A couple of weeks go by and the seller realizes....ooops....they had forgotten to discontinue their SiriusXM subscription and immediately calls and cancels thereby turning off the service for the sold car.

Do you actually think the buyer in this case is being cheated by having SiriusXM turned off???

 

[whitex]

Like it says in my post I feel after I leave the lot with a signed agreement of AS IS I expect any person to honor it. No different than if I had left the lot and they forgot some floor mats I wasn’t supposed to get with it. Only because they have access to my car it doesn’t mean they should break into it to remove said features. My car was missing some trim pieces and I asked them about it and they told me car is sold as is. What’s next they go back into the car and reconfigure features in autopilot or remove heated seats from MCU Access. Digital content should be treated the same as physical. If it said FUSC in my configuration it should stay that way. Audits shouldn’t happen after a car has left their lot

Your vehicle is AS IS. Free supercharging is a service, separate from the vehicle. It's like if you bought an iphone AS IS is from someone, and that phone had the old owner's sim card in it which still worked and you made a bunch of free phone calls and used internet, then at the end of the month the sim card got deactivated because it was only paid for till the end of the month. You'd have no case against the person who sold it to you AS IS.

If you go to court, you will more than likely lose.

 

[ucmndd]

I understand if it wasn’t detailed in my configuration upon delivery of my purchase.
The fact is I purchased the car and it was configured that way and it stated it on image I uploaded. It’s not like it wasn’t posted and I was getting free supercharging. Look at my image it’s clearly labeled FUSC only because they have access to my car it doesn’t mean they should alter or reconfigure.

There's no ambiguity here though, because they told you explicitly you would not be receiving free supercharging. If you really want to fight this, you might want to stop spreading the word that they actively informed you the feature was NOT included with the car you were buying. Since this clearly isn't a matter of ethical consideration on your part, you'd best start lying and playing dumb, saying you were never told anything.

I'm still not sure why you think you're entitled to something because of a delay between taking possession and them discontinuing the service they told you they were going discontinue up-front.

 

[AMPd]

Like it says in my post I feel after I leave the lot with a signed agreement of AS IS I expect any person to honor it. No different than if I had left the lot and they forgot some floor mats I wasn’t supposed to get with it. Only because they have access to my car it doesn’t mean they should break into it to remove said features. My car was missing some trim pieces and I asked them about it and they told me car is sold as is. What’s next they go back into the car and reconfigure features in autopilot or remove heated seats from MCU Access. Digital content should be treated the same as physical. If it said FUSC in my configuration it should stay that way. Audits shouldn’t happen after a car has left their lot

Ok does your agreement list free supercharging as an option?
I’m sure it doesn’t, otherwise they wouldn’t have told you it doesn’t have free supercharging.

Ucmndd,
Your thought process!
I wouldn’t even trade Pokémon cards with you. Kids like you catch hands for ur “backsies” mentality.

How’s that considered “backsies”? It’s not an option that comes with the vehicle.
by your logic all the people who purchased a Tesla without autopilot but we’re given a 30 day trial are now entitled to the option for free because they drove off the lot with that option. Has common sense completely eluded you?

 

[cookie99]

can we have mod change the title to: CPO Model S FUSC REMOVED after being told it would not be included with the car

 

[OrbiterTI4]

I'm going to go against most of the responses here.

Usually these posts come up as "the salesman told me I'd have XYZ, but now that I have the car, I don't!" and the crowd answer is "you can't trust the salesman, only what the purchase agreement says." Now that we have the opposite case of unexpectedly gaining something but then having it taken away, the crowd answer is "the salesman told you despite what was on the car's listing at time of purchase, why are you surprised?"

OP, you mention that Tesla told you it would be pay-per-use...how was that communicated? Email, verbally in-person, verbally by phone, txt, purchase agreement? I am not familiar with Tesla's used purchase process - you posted an image, was that the car's listing? How about the actual purchase order, what is listed there? What's the verbiage of your purchase agreement?

That said, let's suppose you DID have a legal argument for FUSC...how much value would you gain vs the time and fees to go through the court (or arbitration) process?

Good luck.

 

[ucmndd]

Usually these posts come up as "the salesman told me I'd have XYZ, but now that I have the car, I don't!" and the crowd answer is "you can't trust the salesman, only what the purchase agreement says." Now that we have the opposite case of unexpectedly gaining something but then having it taken away, the crowd answer is "the salesman told you despite what was on the car's listing at time of purchase, why are you surprised?"
.

Let me be clear that if the vehicle listing or purchase agreement mentioned free supercharging in any way, my answer changes.

That doesn’t seem to be the case though. If I’m interpreting OP’s argument correctly, he’s showing a screen cap of the details page of the car’s configuration in his Tesla account at some point after he took possession of it, and saying that because it said free supercharging at that point in time, he’s entitled to keep it forever. DESPITE there being no mention of free charging in the listing or sales contract, and the sales person verbally confirming as much.

But yeah, if OP produces evidence that shows the listing said free supercharging, I’ve misinterpreted the situation and my answer changes.

 

[CapeOne]

I would assume if the OP had documentation that the car was supposed to have FUSC, he would've mentioned that from the beginning as that would completely change the matter at hand. Instead, his argument clearly focused on the fact that he purchased the car "AS IS" which to him means that everything that the car came with (whether it was supposed to or not) should remain with the car exactly as it was when he took possession and nothing should ever be able to be removed. His argument re: removal of FUSC has no merit IMO.

 

[featheryJam2]

I’m in a similar position, but have the opposite stance. I bought my CPO in November of 2019, and FUSC was not expected not showing up on my vehicle.

Sometime in Feb 2020, I was pleasantly surprised with FUSC on my vehicle. They took it away sometime in mid May, and while I was annoyed and upset, I had no right to it to begin with as it was never promised to me. I’m thankful to Tesla for the free few months, but realistically I didn’t purchase it.

It does however show me that in terms of questions and decision making, Tesla is willing to err on their side, and not their customers—not a good taste from a consumer point of view, especially the way customer service has disappeared (so I’ve read).

 

[croman]

I’m in a similar position, but have the opposite stance. I bought my CPO in November of 2019, and FUSC was not expected not showing up on my vehicle.

Sometime in Feb 2020, I was pleasantly surprised with FUSC on my vehicle. They took it away sometime in mid May, and while I was annoyed and upset, I had no right to it to begin with as it was never promised to me. I’m thankful to Tesla for the free few months, but realistically I didn’t purchase it.

It does however show me that in terms of questions and decision making, Tesla is willing to err on their side, and not their customers—not a good taste from a consumer point of view, especially the way customer service has disappeared (so I’ve read).

Tesla is very poorly run. No one will fairly argue that. You'll win some and lose some with them because it's all so chaotic.

They'll sometimes go out of their way to help and give free repairs and other times you'll be on your own banging a head against the wall.

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Let's suppose someone sells a car as is and tells the buyer that the radio is SiriusXM capable but if they want the service, they need to pay for it. On the way home, the buyer discovers that they are able to get SiriusXM.

A couple of weeks go by and the seller realizes....ooops....they had forgotten to discontinue their SiriusXM subscription and immediately calls and cancels thereby turning off the service for the sold car.

Do you actually think the buyer in this case is being cheated by having SiriusXM turned off???

Several years ago, I bought an open-box TV that had free Netflix. No, it wasn't a limited-time offer but the person who had originally bought the TV and then returned it had failed to remove their Netflix credentials. We enjoyed the free Netflix for a few weeks but eventually returned the TV because of a clouding issue on dark scenes. Unfortunately, the TV we got in exchange did not have free Netflix.

BTW, I didn't complain online about losing the free Netflix...until today!

 

[OrbiterTI4]

Let me be clear that if the vehicle listing or purchase agreement mentioned free supercharging in any way, my answer changes.

That doesn’t seem to be the case though. If I’m interpreting OP’s argument correctly, he’s showing a screen cap of the details page of the car’s configuration in his Tesla account at some point after he took possession of it, and saying that because it said free supercharging at that point in time, he’s entitled to keep it forever. DESPITE there being no mention of free charging in the listing or sales contract, and the sales person verbally confirming as much.

But yeah, if OP produces evidence that shows the listing said free supercharging, I’ve misinterpreted the situation and my answer changes.

I'm not sure what the image from the first post is - I assumed it was the listing at time of purchase. If I log in to look at my car's configuration, the layout is different (everything is lumped together under Specs), but you are correct, he could have taken a screenshot prior to a Tesla site redesign. I do know my MVPA makes no mention of FUSC, only to say the vehicle is Supercharger Enabled.

 

[cookie99]

yea i would go based on the purchase argreement. Mine broke down all the features I had (used)

 

[thegruf]

What a lot of angst over supercharging twice a month.
A car that cost you tens of thousands of dollars and a feature (that was stated as not included anyway) costing maybe $10-20 per month?
Enjoy the car. There's bigger things to worry about in life.

 

[demundus]

Two words:

Purchase Agreement

What was in it? What wasn't in it? We don't operate on handshakes and word of mouth these days. You want to go to court, be prepared where it shows that you entered into a legally binding agreement for a car, with features, for your money.

 

[Battpower]

What a lot of angst over supercharging twice a month.
A car that cost you tens of thousands of dollars and a feature (that was stated as not included anyway) costing maybe $10-20 per month?
Enjoy the car. There's bigger things to worry about in life.

Have to agree. Taking the view that free supercharging is actually much less of a benefit than you might think (do it too often might break your battery. Charge at home = longer battery life) then you could argue either way - no loss if Tesla take it away but also no big benefit to have it. I think it is a psychological benefit that probably gives a higher value than its financial cost / benefit, but in this case it seems really clear that it was never sold as an included service attached to the car. The service isn't part of the car, and (I assume) Tesla are not asking you to pay for the few uses the OP had.

As always, Tesla could play it so much better - like "Our mistake, has to be turned off, but we appreciate you may have come to think otherwise and we will give you 12 months free." Cost to Tesla = very little. Message to customer = we care about you.

It is often the smallest things that make the biggest difference, but in this case if you are taking the absolute black and white view, Tesla are correct in fixing a mistake and quite entitled to do so by the sounds of it. No big loss to owner.

Looking from the hypothetical other side of the coin, would it have made any difference if not sold 'As-Is'? IE: Would the OP have contacted Tesla and said 'The spec said no FUSC but you have left it on by mistake and I have no grounds to keep the service because the car was not sold As-Is and it was clearly sold without it.' So in reality in this case 'As-Is or Not As-Is' doesn't actually make any difference.

 

[SilverString]

Free Supercharging sounds great, but when you calculate its value versus how often you use it and the consequences of too much supercharging, it is a better sales hook than actual value.

On another point, I understand the OP feels since he bought the car with SC turned on he should be able to retain it and maybe so if his car was sold with FUSC and it was attached to the car and not the car ownership. But at some point Tesla changed the terms of the FUSC benefit to include only the original purchaser. Mine is this way - it clearly states in all descriptions that free supercharging is limited to the original owner and will not transfer.

Look at it another way - if you move into a new house and the cable company did not cut off the old service until after you moved in, do you feel you have the right to free cable TV as long as you live there?