[Resolved]Tesla won't let me keep charger, claiming restricted

[cartwright]

You may wish to read the statement below again:

59.1-207.4. Offer to return replaced parts required; customer's right to inspect parts.

An automobile repair facility shall offer at the time the repair work is authorized to return to the customer any parts which are removed from the motor vehicle and replaced during the process of repair; provided that any part which is required to be returned to a manufacturer or distributor under a warranty agreement, trade-in agreement or core charge agreement for a reconditioned part need not be returned to the customer. If the customer wishes the return of replaced parts subject to core charge or other trade-in agreements, customer agrees to pay the facility the additional core charge or other trade-in fee. The customer retains the right to inspect requested returned parts even if custody is refused.​

A manufacturer or distributor of automotive parts can require the repair facility to return the original failed part to them as part of a warranty agreement, trade-in agreement or core charge agreement. This is a deal between the part maker or distributor and the repair facility independent of any agreement between car maker and the customer. As long as the part newly installed in the car can be considered a "reconditioned part" then the return is not required.

In this case, Tesla as the distributor of the repair parts can require the service center (also owned by Tesla) to return the parts to Tesla.

His car is not under warranty and he said there is no core charge. Therefore the provision you highlighted in red does not apply. The next line also states the customer has the right to pay the core charge and receive the part. It appears Tesla isn't even offering that as an option.

 

[islandchick]

Sounds like Tesla is the automotive Federal Reserve. They may be wonderful cars to drive, but I just can't take the chance that I will be one of the magical "small percentage" that get totally screwed with no lube. Dirty dirty business

 

[Max*]

You may wish to read the statement below again:

59.1-207.4. Offer to return replaced parts required; customer's right to inspect parts.

An automobile repair facility shall offer at the time the repair work is authorized to return to the customer any parts which are removed from the motor vehicle and replaced during the process of repair; provided that any part which is required to be returned to a manufacturer or distributor under a warranty agreement, trade-in agreement or core charge agreement for a reconditioned part need not be returned to the customer. If the customer wishes the return of replaced parts subject to core charge or other trade-in agreements, customer agrees to pay the facility the additional core charge or other trade-in fee. The customer retains the right to inspect requested returned parts even if custody is refused.​

A manufacturer or distributor of automotive parts can require the repair facility to return the original failed part to them as part of a warranty agreement, trade-in agreement or core charge agreement. This is a deal between the part maker or distributor and the repair facility independent of any agreement between car maker and the customer. As long as the part newly installed in the car can be considered a "reconditioned part" then the return is not required.

In this case, Tesla as the distributor of the repair parts can require the service center (also owned by Tesla) to return the parts to Tesla.

I'm out of warranty. I highlighted the part you missed.

 

[Max*]

Good! You shouldn't let it go. I'm thinking what options you have if they insist they won't give you the part back. Surely getting lawyers involved may be too expensive for a repair like this but I wonder if you can find out how to get to the broken part, remove it yourself and then take the car to Tesla to replace the now missing part.

I would think a small claims court suit would be cheap enough and you could set the claim at anything reasonable. I think Tesla charges ~$2,500 for a working gen 1 charger, so that could cover his entire repair bill.

I'm typically not litigious, and I would hate to have to take this to court. I'm hoping the service manager does the right thing, and later adjusts the policies of this service center.

They already sold the car and all its parts to you, it is too late for them to claim that they have any rights to retain any parts, or modify any parts without your permission before returning them to you...

If they are that bothered by it I don't know why they don't simply use the 'trade-in' route to establish a value for the old part so the 'repair' becomes $4,000 less $1,500 trade-in...

I was thinking about that too. If they told me the core charge on a charger is $1k, I wouldn't go through the hassle of paying them $1k and risking/trying to turn a small profit on it. And this would be a good way of doing it, adding a core charge. In the future.

 

[islandchick]

I bet there is a clause hidden in the paperwork they shove in your face and try to make you sign in 3 minutes after you have paid for the car and before you take possession.

 

[Cheburashka]

I bet there is a clause hidden in the paperwork they shove in your face and try to make you sign in 3 minutes after you have paid for the car and before you take possession.

And most of the time they can wipe their asses with the paper that clause is written on.

Having somebody sign something does not somehow shield them from obeying the law.

 

[islandchick]

As mentioned by others, the laws are intentionally vague so as to insulate those with power, money, and influence, to indeed break, nay flout it. I agree that it's dirty business, but in the end you can't fight City Hall.
I fought the law, and the law won. I think I heard that somewhere

 

[buzescu]

The sad part is that in 99% of the cases the problem is one of the high voltage fuse inside the charging module which is a $30 part. It takes some average skills to get there...under the back seat. There is a great writing in the forum about this with step by step instructions. But Tesla rips you off and just replaces the module. Then they send it back and have Soares for service. They do that to offload service, I get it but the 99% of the work to get the module out is already done...

 

[ucmndd]

You may wish to read the statement below again:
...
In this case, Tesla as the distributor of the repair parts can require the service center (also owned by Tesla) to return the parts to Tesla.

Lol, no.

“Sorry I can’t give you that part because I have an agreement with myself to not give it to you” is not a defensible position.

There is no applicable warranty, trade-in, or core charge in this instance. The law is clear, the parts are yours, and they must be returned.

If Tesla doesn’t want to return the part they need to apply a core charge or goodwill the replacement. End of story.

 

[Max*]

The sad part is that in 99% of the cases the problem is one of the high voltage fuse inside the charging module which is a $30 part. It takes some average skills to get there...under the back seat. There is a great writing in the forum about this with step by step instructions. But Tesla rips you off and just replaces the module. Then they send it back and have Soares for service. They do that to offload service, I get it but the 99% of the work to get the module out is already done...

I saw that on the forums, the job didn't seem horrible. But from my reading, that the fuse was only for the regular AC charger, not the HVJB/DC charging capability. Hence I went to Tesla isn't of DIY.

 

[demundus]

This is why the price of an MCU (back in the day) went from 3K to 5K... people started asking for them back to hack/learn/resell them. Tesla got wise and concocted a "core charge" for it. Caught enough flak that I believe they dropped it eventually.

 

[KG M3]

I'm out of warranty. I highlighted the part you missed.

The "warranty" in question is not the one Tesla offered to you, but rather the internal "warranty" that the part manufacturer offered to Tesla as the OEM. If Tesla so chooses, they can use this language to try and deny you the return of the part.

The sentence previously highlighted can be parsed multiple ways, but the plain language of the legal requirement does not specify that the

• warranty agreement
• trade in agreement, or the
• core charge agreement for a reconditioned part

must be between the OEM and the customer. So Tesla can certainly argue that, and the customer can sue if they disagree.

 

[KG M3]

Lol, no.

“Sorry I can’t give you that part because I have an agreement with myself to not give it to you” is not a defensible position.

There is no applicable warranty, trade-in, or core charge in this instance.

I appreciate the certainty with which you declare the terms of the supply agreement between Tesla and the charge module manufacturer. Those agreements are not public.

Once again, the plain language of the legal requirement does not state that only the agreements between the OEM and the customer are relevant.

We may not like the legal requirement as written, but this has been interpreted in this fashion previously.

 

[Max*]

The "warranty" in question is not the one Tesla offered to you, but rather the internal "warranty" that the part manufacturer offered to Tesla as the OEM. If Tesla so chooses, they can use this language to try and deny you the return of the part.

The sentence previously highlighted can be parsed multiple ways, but the plain language of the legal requirement does not specify that the

• warranty agreement
• trade in agreement, or the
• core charge agreement for a reconditioned part

must be between the OEM and the customer. So Tesla can certainly argue that, and the customer can sue if they disagree.

That's an interesting take, one that may or may not work. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

 

[ucmndd]

I appreciate the certainty with which you declare the terms of the supply agreement between Tesla and the charge module manufacturer. Those agreements are not public.

Nor are they relevant. The parts are mine, I own them. End of story.

If Tesla has a behind the scenes warranty with an OEM and they want the part back so they can cash in, they need to charge you a core charge or discount the repair in an obvious way.

Again, “we have a 10,000 year warranty with all of our suppliers therefore can’t return anything to you under any circumstances” is not a defensible position and it will not stand up to any scrutiny when they are charging me full price out of warranty for replacement.

 

[sandpiper]

Well the charger in the car doesn't do the charging but it is involved in Supercharging. Both in controlling the Supercharger and that the DC bus is bridged to the inlet port/AC input of the charger. So if something in the AC side of the charger fails isolation testing when exposed to ~400v DC then you can no longer Supercharge.

Yes, that's more or less what I said... the contactor or something in the electronics that pilots the Supercharger current.

 

[sandpiper]

The sad part is that in 99% of the cases the problem is one of the high voltage fuse inside the charging module which is a $30 part. It takes some average skills to get there...under the back seat. There is a great writing in the forum about this with step by step instructions. But Tesla rips you off and just replaces the module. Then they send it back and have Soares for service. They do that to offload service, I get it but the 99% of the work to get the module out is already done...

This makes sense. Thanks.

 

[ucmndd]

Yes, that's more or less what I said... the contactor or something in the electronics that pilots the Supercharger current.

You said “There's no ‘charger’ for enabling supercharging in the car”, implying the repair suggested by Tesla was incorrect. Yet the charger is exactly the part that performs the signaling task you describe above, which is why it’s being replaced.

 

[sandpiper]

You said “There's no ‘charger’ for enabling supercharging in the car”, implying the repair suggested by Tesla was incorrect. Yet the charger is exactly the part that performs the signaling task you describe above, which is why it’s being replaced.

Uh... no. I know we're arguing definitions but a charger, to me, is the device that's doing the rectification & voltage conversions if required. An isolation contactor is not a charger. Nor is a pilot signal generator.

Maybe they call it a charger because it's easier to rationalize charging $2600 for it, than if they just told you that the high voltage fuse blew.

 

[demundus]

I appreciate the certainty with which you declare the terms of the supply agreement between Tesla and the charge module manufacturer. Those agreements are not public.

Once again, the plain language of the legal requirement does not state that only the agreements between the OEM and the customer are relevant.

We may not like the legal requirement as written, but this has been interpreted in this fashion previously.

Whats the precedent and case law regarding warranty between OEM and Supplier and its cascading effects on the end user/consumer who has a warranty claim with the OEM ?