Parking brake errors, car often immobile, service WILL NOT COVER under warranty

[ChadS]

You are correct that example doesn't exactly cover the OP's situation - but the intention of the act clearly does.

Basically the act says that if a manufacturer offers a warranty, they have to stand behind it unless the consumer uses the product unreasonably or damages it. A third-party add-on is obviously not covered, nor is damage caused by said add-on. That makes sense. But an add-on (at least most of them) is not unreasonable use, and the manufacturer can't deny claims simply because an add-on is there - that kind of shenanigans is exactly why the act was passed. The add-on has to have caused the damage.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

You are correct that example doesn't exactly cover the OP's situation - but the intention of the act clearly does.

Basically the act says that if a manufacturer offers a warranty, they have to stand behind it unless the consumer uses the product unreasonably or damages it. A third-party add-on is obviously not covered, nor is damage caused by said add-on. That makes sense. But an add-on (at least most of them) is not unreasonable use, and the manufacturer can't deny claims simply because an add-on is there - that kind of shenanigans is exactly why the act was passed. The add-on has to have caused the damage.

My point is that I don't see any portion of the Act saying what you are saying above. The only reference to parts is to aftermarket replacement parts. I understand the intent, but in order to compel Tesla to do anything according to the intent of any particular law would require taking Tesla to court. If the Act has clear language regarding add-ons that could be shown to Tesla, then the resolution is much simpler and far less costly.

 

[ChadS]

Perhaps this doesn't matter to the OP, but I am not sure I understand the distinction. Tesla is in clear violation of the act already (unless you are saying they are not? I sure think they are), even if you have to read the whole act to get the sense of it rather than just reading a short excerpt. If that's willful (rather than just a misunderstanding or low-level employee not knowing the whole policy), I don't see how even more particular wording would matter. Many automakers/dealers force customers to go to court (or at least creditably threaten to do so) before they conform with the act, because they know a lot of customers don't know about the act, or will give up even if they do. I hope Tesla is not going that way. They have not generally been like that in the past.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I really don't understand Tesla's repeated resistance to fix clear warranty problems like this by using a cop-out. If stories like this become more frequent and broadcast to a wider audience, it's just the thing that the automobile dealership associations would eat up and propagandize to support their case. And they'd be right.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Folks, remember that we only know half the story. Let's not jump all over Tesla when we don't know their side. I think we are sometimes too quick to judge when we don't have all of the pieces.

 

[m6bigdog]

You need a friend with a big HAMMER...

I would File a claim with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair:
https://www.bar.ca.gov/

I did it for a car that had problems while the car was under warranty and the problem occurred again after the warrantee period ended.
The dealer was required to covered the out-of-warrantee repair 100%.

In the Tesla Model S "New Vehicle Limited Warranty" is the opportunity for a third party settlement:
Tesla will explore all possibilities for an amicable settlement. In case an amicable settlement is not
reached, Tesla offers a dispute settlement program through:

NATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (“NCDS”) P.O. Box 526 Mt. Clemens, MI 48046 1-866-629-3204
Tesla requires that you submit your dispute to our dispute settlement program and wait for a decision to be issued
prior to pursuing any remedy under federal or state laws (including 15 U.S.C. Section 2310 or California Civil Code
Section 1793.22(b)), although you may be entitled to pursue a remedy without submitting under certain state laws
or if you pursue any rights or remedies not created by these laws. This dispute settlement program administered by
NCDS is free of charge to you and is conducted by local NCDS professionals who are trained and experienced in
mediation and arbitration.

Also, the Better Business Bureau is another good support group for vehicle warrantee and automotive repair issues.

 

[supratachophobia]

Folks, remember that we only know half the story. Let's not jump all over Tesla when we don't know their side. I think we are sometimes too quick to judge when we don't have all of the pieces.

This. I and others are not qualified to know to what extent an additional device on the CAN bus / wiring harness will do.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Modern vehicle are designed as a complete package, and much less compatible with aftermarket modifications.

Used to be you could slap on an aftermarket carburator, intake manifold, extra audio amplifiers, wire in some extra lights, jack up the suspension, install a K-mart stereo, and put a reverb on the rear speakers.

Not so much anymore. Sometimes just putting an after market air filter can throw a code.

Saying a car should be fine with switching out or adding components will not make it so.

Not only with Tesla, but most other high end vehicles as well.

It used to be, if you wanted to tow a trailer, you could slap on any accessory brake controller, but no more. Not you need a manufacturer specific accessory controller if you want the electronics to work together.

I have seen few complaints about Tesla not honoring their warranties. Then seem to be going the extra mile to keep their customers happy, however the more we tweak these cars with aftermarket installations, the more it becomes on us to handle these issues.

 

[donv]

True. However, given that I had the exact same problem on my completely unmodified Model S, it seems like it might not be his fault.

Tesla was never able to really find the problem on my car, either. At least that's what they told me.

Folks, remember that we only know half the story. Let's not jump all over Tesla when we don't know their side. I think we are sometimes too quick to judge when we don't have all of the pieces.

 

[Mayhemm]

More and more of these service stories are coming to light where Tesla draws from a used car dealership's playbook. Combine that with their recent behind-the-scenes policy changes to things like Ranger service and annual service coverage and it adds up to nothing good. Is Tesla trying to sh*t all over their brand? This is precisely the kind of thing they mock traditional car dealerships for pulling.

 

[mibaro2]

Folks, remember that we only know half the story. Let's not jump all over Tesla when we don't know their side. I think we are sometimes too quick to judge when we don't have all of the pieces.

Agree. It would be nice to hear Tesla's side of the story.
My initial reaction is to side with the OP.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I don't think anyone should be taking sides here. We only know half the story. I'm sure that if Tesla declined warranty coverage, it did so for a reason that would stand up under scrutiny. Such decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and very likely would have required a manager's approval. I know what my local service center goes through with these types of owner add-ons, and let me just say that Tesla would not decline warranty repair if it didn't have good reason.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I don't think anyone should be taking sides here. We only know half the story. I'm sure that if Tesla declined warranty coverage, it did so for a reason that would stand up under scrutiny.

You'll never get Tesla's side of the story. It's not a good business decision for them to do so. We have to judge based on what we've been told, and at least part of that is Tesla's accounting of the issue (bent and creased wiring due to aftermarket modification). The fact that this was provided and unflattering to OP's case provides some legitimacy to his assertions.

The disconnect is likely that you fully believe the part I bolded there. Automakers decline warranty coverage in ways that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny CONSTANTLY because they know they only way to contest it is an expensive and time-consuming court battle. Tesla is better than most, but not immune. I was informally warned by the service manager at my SC that if I installed artsci's front camera modification Tesla would consider the vehicle's warranty void and that a note to that effect was already attached to my VIN. Clearly customer threats are different than actions, but I'm nowhere near as certain as you appear to be that they wouldn't go through with such a thing.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

You'll never get Tesla's side of the story. It's not a good business decision for them to do so. We have to judge based on what we've been told, and at least part of that is Tesla's accounting of the issue (bent and creased wiring due to aftermarket modification). The fact that this was provided and unflattering to OP's case provides some legitimacy to his assertions.

The disconnect is likely that you fully believe the part I bolded there. Automakers decline warranty coverage in ways that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny CONSTANTLY because they know they only way to contest it is an expensive and time-consuming court battle. Tesla is better than most, but not immune. I was informally warned by the service manager at my SC that if I installed artsci's front camera modification Tesla would consider the vehicle's warranty void and that a note to that effect was already attached to my VIN. Clearly customer threats are different than actions, but I'm nowhere near as certain as you appear to be that they wouldn't go through with such a thing.

I discussed this specific issue with my service manager - manager, not advisor - and he informed me that it is NOT Tesla's policy to deny warranty coverage simply because of an aftermarket add-on. He said that there would have to be a really good reason in order for Tesla to deny warranty coverage. He mentioned all of the things his service center has done to keep owners happy, above and beyond what is required by the warranty, and I agree. Of course, my service center is not the one that is at the center of this issue, but I would think they all follow the same, general guidelines.

 

[swegman]

Tesla really does not want ANY mods made to the car. I was originally involved with Artsci in the development of the lighted rear applique. I dropped out of the project after discussions with Tesla's HQ and being told that installing this proposed mod on a car, which involves connecting to several wires in the wiring harness (such as brake lights, turn signal indicators, power, etc.), would invalid the warranty of the car. Having experienced what Tesla told me was a wiring harness problem with my first Tesla (starting at day 1 of ownership and with less than 100 miles on the car) I deemed it to be foolish to continue with the project merely to illuminate the word "TESLA" on the rear applique. Tesla may be wrong to deny warranty coverage, but do you really want to go to court to force them to honor the warranty, especially when they are the only people that can currently work on the car?

 

[bonnie]

I discussed this specific issue with my service manager - manager, not advisor - and he informed me that it is NOT Tesla's policy to deny warranty coverage simply because of an aftermarket add-on. He said that there would have to be a really good reason in order for Tesla to deny warranty coverage. He mentioned all of the things his service center has done to keep owners happy, above and beyond what is required by the warranty, and I agree. Of course, my service center is not the one that is at the center of this issue, but I would think they all follow the same, general guidelines.

I agree 100%. I just picked up my out-of-warranty Roadster this morning from my local service center and the bill was $0, because they felt the issues being worked on were ones I'd had before under warranty & it would be wrong to charge me.

I find Tesla Service to be unbelievably ethical. My personal experience. Wish I could say the same of other service orgs I've dealt with, but I can't.

 

[sorka]

Tesla really does not want ANY mods made to the car. I was originally involved with Artsci in the development of the lighted rear applique. I dropped out of the project after discussions with Tesla's HQ and being told that installing this proposed mod on a car, which involves connecting to several wires in the wiring harness (such as brake lights, turn signal indicators, power, etc.), would invalid the warranty of the car. Having experienced what Tesla told me was a wiring harness problem with my first Tesla (starting at day 1 of ownership and with less than 100 miles on the car) I deemed it to be foolish to continue with the project merely to illuminate the word "TESLA" on the rear applique. Tesla may be wrong to deny warranty coverage, but do you really want to go to court to force them to honor the warranty, especially when they are the only people that can currently work on the car?

There is no such thing as voiding a warranty on an entire car. Vehicle warranties can only be voided for specific components deemed to be defective due to actions that violated required specified maintenance or a modification that specifically damaged a component. Declaring a vehicle as a total loss is the only circumstance I know of that would void the entire warranty before the normal warranty terms expire.

 

[swegman]

There is no such thing as voiding a warranty on an entire car. Vehicle warranties can only be voided for specific components deemed to be defective due to actions that violated required specified maintenance or a modification that specifically damaged a component. Declaring a vehicle as a total loss is the only circumstance I know of that would void the entire warranty before the normal warranty terms expire.

To be a bit more specific, their position was that any component of the vehicle that is interfaced to the wiring harness (i.e., lights, touchscreen, control electronics, etc) could be damaged as the result of attaching a non-Tesla device to the wiring harness. As a result, they said that if one brought the car in for a problem, they would initially deny warranty coverage unless the vehicle owner agreed to pay for complete diagnostic testing (which they indicated would take approximately 2 hours, if I recall from my conversation, which was months ago). If the diagnostic testing indicated the problem was not related to the non-Tesla device, the car would be fixed under warranty. But the vehicle owner would still incur the cost of the diagnostic testing at Tesla's normal labor rate. They made it very clear to me that they do not want owners "modding" their vehicles, no matter how minor it may be.

 

[Liz G]

I have not had the same issue as the OP, but I did have a case where Tesla was pushing back on fixing an issue with my TPS sensors because I put after market rims on, even though I'd had the issue on and off since I'd gotten the car. My solution was to keep requesting that they look into it, but always nicely. Eventually, in my case the issue was found and it turned out I had not had a bulliten applied to my car. They applied the appropriate fix and I have had no more issues and it was covered under warranty.

It helps that I kept a good relationship with the service center, and reported every instance that happened so they could check the logs. I actually started taking pictures of the error everytime it happened and texting it to the service guys. This helped them identify where in the logs to look since the pictures included the date/time.

It took almost 2 1/2 years to get my fix but my perseverance and the fact that I always remained polite and understanding when a fix that they tried didn't work helped. Mine was also a bit of trial and error because they couldn't reliably replicate the issue.

Good luck. I hope you get this resolved.

 

[MsElectric]

To be a bit more specific, their position was that any component of the vehicle that is interfaced to the wiring harness (i.e., lights, touchscreen, control electronics, etc) could be damaged as the result of attaching a non-Tesla device to the wiring harness. As a result, they said that if one brought the car in for a problem, they would initially deny warranty coverage unless the vehicle owner agreed to pay for complete diagnostic testing (which they indicated would take approximately 2 hours, if I recall from my conversation, which was months ago). If the diagnostic testing indicated the problem was not related to the non-Tesla device, the car would be fixed under warranty. But the vehicle owner would still incur the cost of the diagnostic testing at Tesla's normal labor rate. They made it very clear to me that they do not want owners "modding" their vehicles, no matter how minor it may be.

So could they use this argument to deny warranty coverage just because you have a dash cam or a radar detector/laser jammer installed?