Hey Guys, thanks for the feedback. According to the their email they indicated that there was a minor accident and the bumper was replaced. Yes, I've driven the car and yeah I love it. Its more the ethical part of it where they knew from the get go ( they did the work ), but didn't disclose it. I'll talk to a manager there and see what we can resolve. Once again thanks for the feedback, its nice to vent and get some other thoughts.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
[RESOLVED] Tesla Owner Delivery - False Advertisment - Advice?
- Thread starter Kevin Yeung
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
How would you verify in this instance?
I wouldn't take carfax as gospel, but I'd trust Tesla to know and share if they provided a bumper for this VIN. It appears they did not and not only that, they're now holding it against him in a trade.
Don't blame Tesla for Carfax being unreliable. I think Carfax isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I suggest the thread title be changed to "False Carfax Report".
I suggest the thread title be changed to "False Carfax Report".
green1
Active Member
Except that Tesla won't sell parts without a VIN, so how on earth could a repair be done without Tesla knowing about it?
Of course if the repair job is indistinguishable from a new car, why would the value be any less?
green1
Active Member
That's great advice... Too bad Tesla doesn't allow independent 3rd party repair shops....
Hardly true verification, but in fact, a good practice.
I'd think Tesla would be able to better identify that it sold a part for a specific VIN with greater accuracy than a body shop would be able to look at the car and tell it's been repaired due to an accident.
Racerx22b
@unplggdd on Instagram
As some have mentioned.... Tesla had to know a repair had be done. The track everything on their cars via the VIN. A 5sec search within their own database should have revealed this. The Car Fax report is almost a waste with Tesla since Tesla should know everything about their cars. I know you should do your due diligence but I would have trusted Tesla on their word without even getting a Car Fax. Especially since I was buying it as a CPO directly from them. That is the reputation I think they are striving for. If it was a Ford. NO WAY!!!! I would go with Car Fax and an independent 3rd party to confirm.
islandbayy
Active Member
And so many people ask me why I will never buy used. This is it. I don't want to deal with someone elses problem. Same reason, when I had my cycle shop, I wouldn't purchase or take for trade used scooters or motorcycles. The couple years I did, almost every one had "hidden" damage, or mechanical issues that were well "hidden" and only brought to light after a major tear-down or actual failure. Stuff you wouldn't see with a normal reasonable inspection.
What's not immediately clear to me is if the carfax didn't show the accident at the time of purchase but does show it now.
The wording of the OP suggests that Tesla used the carfax to determine and advertise the car as having a clean history but are using their own database when investigating the car's history before they buy it (via trade in). If that's the case, I'd say the thread title is completely accurate.
mobe
Member
cgiGuy
Active Member
Tesla did the work? Didn't know they did paint work. But, if that's true.. then they totally should have disclosed it in the service history.
Should they give you a "free upgrade" (buy back your car for what you paid/let you pick another) for this? No, but they should compensate you for the diminished value of the accident, which is what the $2000 sounds like to me.
I bet Tesla will make it right if you can show them that the accident damage was reported before you took ownership of the car.
This is why when you buy a used car, any used car, you should ALWAYS take it to a high end body shop for a pre purchase inspection. It will cost you $200 and 45 minutes of your time but when you buy a car costing tens of thousands of dollars you should always do this for peace of mind and knowing what it is that you are buying.
This is why when you buy a used car, any used car, you should ALWAYS take it to a high end body shop for a pre purchase inspection. It will cost you $200 and 45 minutes of your time but when you buy a car costing tens of thousands of dollars you should always do this for peace of mind and knowing what it is that you are buying.
Carfax is only reliable if the repair shop reports to Carfax. We recently had frame work done on our Highlander due to a front end collision. Neither the body shop nor our insurance carrier reported to Carfax, so if we sell the car, it will show a clean Carfax report. Of course we would disclose the frame work if we sell the car, but don't consider Carfax to be 100% reliable and the last word on this subject.
Justicepool
Member
Exactly. I had this happen on a Honda minivan years ago. Clean car fax, then when I went to sale an accident was reported. The dealer didn't hide the fact, it just had not been reported to carfax yet. Misleading thread title, needs to be changed. If they are offering you 2K more for a replaced bumper that was not reported when you purchased the car, then in my opinion they are going above and beyond what they "should" do.
As with so many things in life, risk can be averted by asking the right questions. On a used Model S, for instance, if you ask for a list of parts the car has rec'd before closing on a sale, you learn a lot. Drive units to washer fluid to wiper blades to brake pads. If you just ask that one question, problem solved and risk mitigated.
Gizmotoy
Active Member
Is Tesla providing this now? In the past they've outright refused to offer service history of any of their vehicles, CPO or otherwise.
They very specifically told me that I could not get service history on a car that I purchased PP. I then asked for a list of parts the car has rec'd. I got that no problem. It was an interesting end-around. It is bizarre how tight-fisted they are with information on these cars.
Gizmotoy
Active Member
That's a baffling distinction, but good to know. There's a pretty big collection of parts installed on a used vehicle that I'd find alarming, though that may be substantially reduced if I had the context (service history). Essentially they're giving you a list of everything and expecting you to be able to parse through the list to determine what's important. Seems a lot more risky than just providing the service history in the first place.
Similar threads
