This is definitely a legitimate issue. It is in the contract language, so obviously it could easily happen.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
But it has not happened and there are many Model S now that are receiving service under the ESA. Nobody has yet been denied service under the ESA. Continuing to harp on a hypothetical like this and continuing to put this out there may just push Tesla to enforce the contract as written, which would clearly not be to the benefit of owners and would run counter to what Tesla has been telling many of us. I'm just saying, why cry so loudly about something that has not been an issue for anyone and why call attention to a term in the ESA that benefits nobody but Tesla when nobody, including Tesla, is even talking about it?
I'm unsure how this is helping anyone.
rxlawdude
Active Member
I'm unsure that your rant is helping anyone, and certainly seems to indicate you ignore these legal implications by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la."
I AM sure that the plain language of a contract is the ONLY enforceable interpretation.
Your hostility really is puzzling. As for "giving Tesla ideas how to screw their customers," you probably need to speak to the people that drafted the ESA. And, if you want to do the community some good, please contact Tesla HQ and ask for WRITTEN clarification from someone with the authority to waive the ESA explicit terms.
As to this not being an issue to anyone, please let us know how you know that for a fact. I'm providing advice to prospective purchasers of the ESA that is based on contract law and the four corners of the document. You? Just hoping unicorns will continue dancing around you. I don't believe in unicorns.
Further, we KNOW that interpretations of even the most basic aspects of Tesla's responsibilities (e.g., alignment, Rangers, tire rotations) are unevenly applied from Service Center to Service Center. I've begged, pleaded and cajoled Tesla to CLARIFY their corporate policies and disseminate them to all service centers with the expectation that all Service and Regional managers abide by those policies. And that includes whether the ESA terms mean that all scheduled maintenance services must be done in the recommended time or mileage intervals PRIOR to the ESA taking effect at 50K miles.
Last edited:
Larry
Member
I have to say before I plunk down $4000 this has to be clarified and written down for me. There is no way I will purchase the esa knowing I did not take my S in every 12 months or 12500 miles even though service in Fremont said that was fine for the car. No one was thinking about the esa at the time. I'm still waiting to hear from them. For me a contract is a contract. Even if Fremont is ok with it what if I move or sell the car to someone else? Right now I can't read the esa as it's still not available on the website. Not being a tech person how does a billion dollar company redo their website and put it up without it working?
Last edited:
Um, that would be yet another deal killer. I don't ever remember seeing that in the ESA agreement.
Justicepool
Member
It can be transferred, if you jump through some hoops. See my post unthread:
Out of warranty concerns about Tesla - Page 52
I find it absolutely ridiculous that if you are buying a car from a private party, you will not know if Tesla will "bless" the ESA transfer until some "inspection" is performed and the "service requirements" are checked AFTER the car has been bought by someone. Who comes up with this stuff? Why can't they give approval of transferring the ESA to the new owner before the sale is made so that you don't end up with a mess because the buyer was expecting ESA coverage and Tesla for whatever reason refuses to transfer it. Bad enough the ESA is $4000 and has a $200 per part deductible but it's a circus to then transfer that ESA to someone who buys the car.
I guess if you are buying private party, you should sign a document with the seller that states that the sale is contingent on a successful transfer of the ESA by Tesla. This could be a can of worms for someone wanting to sell private party with the ESA.
J. Transfer of this Vehicle ESA
Contact Tesla and submit the following:
1. A letter requesting that Tesla transfer this Vehicle ESA to the new owner.
2. $100 transfer fee.
3. This Vehicle ESA.
4. Written evidence verifying all maintenance requirements have been met.
5. A copy of documentation evidencing change of ownership and mileage at date of sale.
6. Documents verifying transference of the Vehicle ESA, if applicable.
Conditions:
1. This Vehicle ESA cannot be transferred to another vehicle. It can only be transferred to a different private owner of the same Vehicle.
2. The Vehicle is subject to inspection.
3. Transfer must take place within 30 days of change of ownership.
4. You may not transfer this Vehicle ESA to a vehicle dealer or to the customer of a vehicle dealer.
5. All remaining underlying warranties also must be transferred to the new owner.
rxlawdude
Active Member
All great points, MsElectric. The ESA transfer policy is further evidence that ALL MAINTENANCE MUST HAVE BEEN PERFORMED AS SCHEDULED, BEFORE THE ESA TAKES EFFECT AND FOR ITS DURATION.
These policies are onerous and totally out of the mainstream. I guess that's what we get with an out-of-the-mainstream Tesla. :-(
gizmoboy
Member
rxlawdude
Active Member
Which is odd, since Elon in a blog stated that maintenance per the owner's manual schedule isn't required.And "Written evidence verifying all maintenance requirements have been met."
And "Written evidence verifying all maintenance requirements have been met."
And an "inspection" by Tesla according to the requirements.
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
And of course online, I saw a report yesterday about an individual claiming (I had no way to verify if he was a troll) that Tesla refused to honor his ESA since he wasn't the original owner (he bought it from them afterwards) and they refused to refund the $4k on it because they already replaced a few parts. He complained that if they made a mistake in selling him the ESA, they should either refund the $4k (and eat the prior repair around $500) or honor it since they already decided before that it was valid. He claims they even denied to bill the repair and refund the $4k so he would get a $3,500 refund because that one repair made the ESA non-refundable.
I am not saying I believe his story at face value, but it is a sad story. I had a similar experience with Apple Computers back in the late 90s or early 2000s. I got sold an Extended Warranty on my PowerPC even though I was a resident of Florida (this was before Apple had a retail presence in Florida). Two or three years later, I needed to use the warranty and the lady noticed I should have never been sold the warranty in the first place. Florida had weird rules about that and unless they had a retail presence in the state, they were not allowed to sell warranties to personal users. Anyway, she authorized the repair to be billed to the warranty and said once I got my computer back, to send her a note, and she would cancel and fully refund the warranty. She felt it shouldn't be my burden that they made a mistake in selling me the warranty and that I bought it with the expectation that I had an extended warranty. That was great customer service.
Hopefully, if the individuals story is true, Tesla steps up to the plate like Apple did for me.
I am not saying I believe his story at face value, but it is a sad story. I had a similar experience with Apple Computers back in the late 90s or early 2000s. I got sold an Extended Warranty on my PowerPC even though I was a resident of Florida (this was before Apple had a retail presence in Florida). Two or three years later, I needed to use the warranty and the lady noticed I should have never been sold the warranty in the first place. Florida had weird rules about that and unless they had a retail presence in the state, they were not allowed to sell warranties to personal users. Anyway, she authorized the repair to be billed to the warranty and said once I got my computer back, to send her a note, and she would cancel and fully refund the warranty. She felt it shouldn't be my burden that they made a mistake in selling me the warranty and that I bought it with the expectation that I had an extended warranty. That was great customer service.
Hopefully, if the individuals story is true, Tesla steps up to the plate like Apple did for me.
I really hope the story you heard about a customer's ESA not being honored is not true. Where did you hear it?
Tesla IMHO really needs a VP Level position for a "customer advocate" so there is someone who can look at and address Tesla policies as it affects customers and do the right and fair thing.
It by no means will be a position to appease unreasonable customers but this whole ESA is an exorbitant mess the more I learn about it. As these cars age, a reasonable ESA will go a long way towards maintaining the resale value of vehicles with over 50K miles. As stories of $1,300 door handles spread no one will want to touch these cars out of warranty and resale values will plummet unless they implement and freely make available a reasonable extended warranty option. Anyone should be able to purchase an extended warranty before the car reaches 50,000 miles/4 years and Tesla can price the extended warranty to cover their repairs and still make a profit. Why is this so hard for them to do?
No rant. I'm just wondering if by pushing Tesla to clarify the policy in writing, when they may have decided to quietly not enforce that term, that they will be forced to reiterate the written policy? And when that's done, do we not run the risk of Tesla putting a stop to their quiet non-enforcement? I understand that folks want and need clarification, especially those who are still considering purchasing the ESA. I'm just wondering if something like this wouldn't backfire on us.
Obviously I'm not an attorney and you are, so I'm out of my element. I just know that if my seller has a contract with a buyer that allows for a 10 day inspection period and the buyer comes to us on day 15 asking to make certain repairs, my seller would probably say yes and even though that goes against what's written in the contract. However, if that buyer asks us to clarify our stance in writing prior to the expiration of the 10 days, we would of course reiterate the contractual term and state that we expect the buyer to follow those terms.
If Tesla is doing us a favor here and looking the other way, forcing the issue may backfire. That's all I'm saying.
- - - Updated - - -
We used to have this in Jerome Guillen who always made things right and was always fair to owners. Elon removed him from the VP of Sales & Service position and moved him into a customer advocacy position, but at that point Guillen took a leave of absence and eventually left the company. Unfortunately, the major role he played in helping owners has not been filled since. Jerome stepped up in a big way after George B retired.
A widely-reported verbal promise by Elon isn't worth the paper it's written on. But good PR can turn into bad PR pretty quickly...
A good example is the claim that EVs require such less maintenance that the annual "service" is optional and you don't need to be bothered with it. If a someone followed that advice and still brought the car in every 2 years for the fluid flushes, which amounts to the only service items of real consequence, they could find themselves screwed out of the $4,000 Extended Warranty ESA that they paid for. Worst yet, they will find that out when they take the car in out of warranty for possibly a major repair bill.
These warranty policies are all the more horrible when you consider the fact that until recently Tesla refused to disclose the service history of the car. Cyclone has been asking for the service history of the car he owns for over a year and it seems they have yet to provide that to him. As much as I like Tesla I feel they sometimes operate in a complete vacuum on realizing how unreasonable some of their policies are as they affect their customers. So even if you were about to buy a Tesla or sell a Tesla you could have a hard time just proving to someone else the car was maintained as required so as not to invalidate the ESA.
And the ESA contract calls for some "inspection" before the ESA can be transferred but nowhere does it say what they are "inspecting." With any other car manufacturer you fill out a simple form, fax it, and the warranty is transferred and you are done. Why does anything to do with the ESA have to be so convoluted?
+ Oh you bought a CPO car. No ESA for you.
+ Oh you missed one of the required services by 2 months. No ESA for you.
+ Your car failed the "inspection." No ESA for you.
+ You are not the original owner. No ESA for you and we are still going to keep that $4,000 that was paid for the ESA.
+ Congratulations on buying a Tesla from a private party and we could not confirm in advance if the ESA would transfer but now that the car is yours, we did some checking and No ESA for you.
None of the above are fair or reasonable by any stretch of the definition but yet this is the state of the ESA as it is presently offered.
Policies should be fair, reasonable and clearly documented on paper. I'm not a believer of "Oh we just put all the draconian policies on the contract just because we think the contract looks nicer with these policies in there but oh don't worry we don't plan to implement some of the unreasonable or ambiguous policies we put in there." Just come out with a reasonable policy, put it on paper, and implement it. This can't be that hard.
Last edited:
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
Posted to Tesla Owners Worldwide Facebook group by Omer Ahmed at 7 pm Eastern on February 3rd, 2016.
And they have not. I asked in January and I was explicitly told that my only options to get the records would be:
1 - On my own, find the original owner, contact them, and have them contact Tesla asking for the records to be sent to them, then they could be sent to me from the prior owner.
2 - Find a Service Center that "is not following policy" that would print them out, black out the customer info, photocopy that so I couldn't try to "see" through the blackout, and hand those photocopies to me.
3 - If HQ ever updates the system so that they could PDF the history without inclusion of the customer info on page 1, then I can request the info since they would not be disclosing any prior customer privileged info.
