[UK] Help with legal case against Tesla over USS

[RafP]

We are prepping detailed court proceedings against Tesla for misleading about USS and parking for assistance / aids.

Court papers filed and Tesla have filed defence.

As it’s a company purchase a bit more tricky as it relies on Sale and Supply of Goods rather than Consumer Law.

Our case is based around the contract was formed with the features present. We accepted the car with a material defect only on the basis of prompt resolution. Signed collection on basis that the lack of parking assist (material defect) would be resolved within the month (we stated that upon collection and videod just in case - Tesla don’t yet know we have audio / video which will be presented in court).

Surprise surprise 90 days later no park assist back and no ETA to resolve. They just wheel at same rubbish it’s coming at some point but no date or ETA and seem to think that’s enough to comply with contract law.

Parking aids was a key factor upon purchase decision (even £15k cars have it). Car being sold and replacing with a car with the missing features (first and last Tesla product ever!). Given their price cut in between left with a material loss so it’s a pretty hefty claim.

With that in mind all legal paperwork is lodged and waiting for a date allocation for our day in court. In advance we looking for anyone who collected their car in November / December 22 and ordered before May 2022 to write a statement to confirm they didn’t have a pop up displayed … and or they did and their initial pop up stated ‘temporarily unavailable’ or that features would be restored ‘in the near future’

Tesla defending the claim on basis they tell us initially we signed a pop up that said we accepted that the feature would be disabled until some time until 2023 (we 100% didn’t and have evidence to prove).

We have a contract law expert who is coming to present a case to state that 3 months plus is not temporary nor in the near future.

But as our claim is quite large with legal fees etc on top we didn’t want to leave anything to chance and he suggested as many statements we can get that aligns with our claimant case as we can get the better.

If so if you;

- Didn’t have a pop up-
- Had a pop up that said ‘temporarily unavailable’
- Had a pop up that said ‘in the near future’

And are willing to sign a statement to that please PM me and once available we will issue the document our solicitor is drafting.

Cheers in advance

PS they really are a scummy company to deal with their customer service point blank refuse to engage hence going legal!

 

[Zilla91]

Good on you and best of luck. I hope you get a positive result.

 

[LiamPope]

Well, good luck!

I can't provide a statement unfortunately as I thought feck that and bought a nearly new car instead with USS.

Dunno if it would count, but you can sure find plenty of forum posts here of people saying they never got the waiver to sign. Also you'll find the wording of it, too. Probably exactly the same for everyone.

 

[Js1977]

Have you thought about doing one of those online petitions and maybe share the link on here and on social media (twitter )

Im an not one of those affected but I dont think it detracts from supporting your case which regardless of any legal terms I believe its justified imho

 

[GeorgeSymonds]

Mod comment: if this descends into another thread about the car been drivable without parking sensors, the camera is fine, you bought teslavision, learn to drive etc etc, those posts will just be deleted. The topic is clear.

 

[UrbanSplash]

Hi. I just found this screenshot I took on 20th October 2022. I subsequently cancelled the order and had my deposit returned.

 

[UrbanSplash]

I also found this I had saved on 1st November 2022. I think it was posted on here by another member. Presumably from the link as shown in previous posts to ‘learn more’

 

[RafP]

Well, good luck!

I can't provide a statement unfortunately as I thought feck that and bought a nearly new car instead with USS.

Dunno if it would count, but you can sure find plenty of forum posts here of people saying they never got the waiver to sign. Also you'll find the wording of it, too. Probably exactly the same for everyone.

Thanks yes found lots but can’t rely on forum posts as such signed statements allot more powerful.

 

[Whyone]

See PM.

 

[GlynG]

@RafP , I really do wish you all the best and admire your guts for taking action regarding this. I did post some time ago that I thought Tesla were in breach of contract even if on the delivery day they made the customer aware prior to accepting the car because the contract is formed at the point the offer to purchase is accepted for an agreed consideration (price) and also viewed the action of getting a customer to sign for a car on taking delivery with changes from the agreed spec to be in breach of the unfair contract terms act as Tesla unilaterally deviated from fulfilling the agreed contract.

You will know you will be a classic David V Goliath case taking on a company that rakes in 83 billion a year and run by the worlds richest man who is battle hardened to law suits.

My car is a 2020 model - so has the USS, but I am so incensed with how Tesla are treating its customers I absolutely salute your action to at least challenge them.
Do you, or have you started a crowdfunding page? I am so behind you that I am happy to make a donation towards financing your action even though there is absolutely nothing in it for me except the satisfaction that Goliath has been brought under some control

 

[Durzel]

A few random thoughts...

• It is my understanding that it was the entity that purchased the vehicle that got the popup (or at least was intended to). How was this purchased? If it was on lease then it's not your car and you don't own it, PCP is a bit more complicated but until it's paid off the finance company are still the legal owner. So, arguably the lease/finance company are the ones who have a say in whether the order proceeds or not. Obviously this should involve a conversation with the leasee - but this is a pretty unique situation.
  
  I think you could make a compelling argument that lease customers should have been advised - somehow - that a decision had been made on this question, even if you weren't privileged to answer it anyway, but I'm not so sure you can argue that legally you were the one who had the right to make that decision.
  
  
• If it's leased/PCP do you even have a contract with Tesla? Your contract is with the finance company, isn't it? Ignore if it was a direct purchase through the company.
  
  
• I would suggest claiming that a random Tesla employee has the authority or insight to be able to say one way or the other when functionality will be restored is pretty shaky. Do you have an explicit formal declaration that the replacement functionality would be "resolved within the month"?
  
  
• Judges take a very dim view of ambush tactics, and you're obliged to disclose any evidence you're intending to rely on in your Witness Statement. You can't just pitch up on the day and say "ha! listen to this recording!". That may not be what you meant, but it sounded like you were intending to surprise them.
  
  
• Have you already explored a formal rejection of the car on the basis of this missing feature? If not, why not?

For what it's worth I think how has all been handled has been poor, so I'm broadly supportive of people taking Tesla to task over this, but I also feel like there's several variables in your case - not least of which that it isn't a private purchase - that weaken it, I think.

 

[GlynG]

@Durzel But Tesla have vicarious liability for the actions or omissions of its employees and therefore has a relevance to the case, I'm guessing the term "Soon" needs to be quantified because that's exactly what Tesla keep saying - and on their website they still depict a car self parking - a function "temporarily" disabled through lack of a parking system. I'm sure 6 months isn't something a "reasonable person" (legal definition) would consider as "soon"

Agreed the waters get muddied if the car is a lease of any sort as the user isn't the legal owner, whilst there is a contract with the lease company its the lease company that have the contract with Tesla and you can only action a breach of a contract between the two relevant parties to the contract - a bit like having a barrister engaged - you have to engage a barrister via a solicitor, the solicitor has the contract with the barrister not the person who has the contract with the solicitor - so you cant sue a barrister for negligence in a case.

You are correct regarding the disclosure of evidence though - If its to be used in a court then the defence also need to have a copy to prepare for the case hearing.

The formal rejection part though - of course that could be an option but so is enforcing a contract to be discharged in accordance to the agreed terms, one party cant just opt out of a contract unless both parties agree to it, however, only a court can decide if a breach has taken place and likewise the remedy if one party is found in breach.
Complicated and expensive to pursue though.

 

[RafP]

A few random thoughts...

• It is my understanding that it was the entity that purchased the vehicle that got the popup (or at least was intended to). How was this purchased? If it was on lease then it's not your car and you don't own it, PCP is a bit more complicated but until it's paid off the finance company are still the legal owner. So, arguably the lease/finance company are the ones who have a say in whether the order proceeds or not. Obviously this should involve a conversation with the leasee - but this is a pretty unique situation.
  
  I think you could make a compelling argument that lease customers should have been advised - somehow - that a decision had been made on this question, even if you weren't privileged to answer it anyway, but I'm not so sure you can argue that legally you were the one who had the right to make that decision.
  
  
• If it's leased/PCP do you even have a contract with Tesla? Your contract is with the finance company, isn't it? Ignore if it was a direct purchase through the company.
  
  
• I would suggest claiming that a random Tesla employee has the authority or insight to be able to say one way or the other when functionality will be restored is pretty shaky. Do you have an explicit formal declaration that the replacement functionality would be "resolved within the month"?
  
  
• Judges take a very dim view of ambush tactics, and you're obliged to disclose any evidence you're intending to rely on in your Witness Statement. You can't just pitch up on the day and say "ha! listen to this recording!". That may not be what you meant, but it sounded like you were intending to surprise them.
  
  
• Have you already explored a formal rejection of the car on the basis of this missing feature? If not, why not?

For what it's worth I think how has all been handled has been poor, so I'm broadly supportive of people taking Tesla to task over this, but I also feel like there's several variables in your case - not least of which that it isn't a private purchase - that weaken it, I think.

It was a cash purchase. Contract with Tesla Motors.

All evidence will be disclosed to prior to case. It has to be legally as you say you can’t just rock up on day and say ta da!

At this stage in proceedings they do not know all our evidence as we only have to file an outline case. Moreover you are limited to a brief statement of facts.

Just as we don’t know their full defence!

Key factor is SOG 1994 / contract law rather than consumer as you say makes it more tricky but still there is a legal framework and definitions.

Key areas of contention and open for most debate will be definition of temporarily unavailable and near future.

They accept the car was delivered with missing features and defect. Just that we haven’t given them ample opportunity to resolve. Over 100 days have passed and Tesla still refuse to / unwilling to give a date to resolve the defect.

As per this thread we are starting on the process of building the full and proper evidence pack to back up the claim. This is one of a many strands the others I will share once the case is heard (if it is).

 

[RafP]

@Durzel But Tesla have vicarious liability for the actions or omissions of its employees and therefore has a relevance to the case, I'm guessing the term "Soon" needs to be quantified because that's exactly what Tesla keep saying - and on their website they still depict a car self parking - a function "temporarily" disabled through lack of a parking system. I'm sure 6 months isn't something a "reasonable person" (legal definition) would consider as "soon"

Agreed the waters get muddied if the car is a lease of any sort as the user isn't the legal owner, whilst there is a contract with the lease company its the lease company that have the contract with Tesla and you can only action a breach of a contract between the two relevant parties to the contract - a bit like having a barrister engaged - you have to engage a barrister via a solicitor, the solicitor has the contract with the barrister not the person who has the contract with the solicitor - so you cant sue a barrister for negligence in a case.

You are correct regarding the disclosure of evidence though - If its to be used in a court then the defence also need to have a copy to prepare for the case hearing.

The formal rejection part though - of course that could be an option but so is enforcing a contract to be discharged in accordance to the agreed terms, one party cant just opt out of a contract unless both parties agree to it, however, only a court can decide if a breach has taken place and likewise the remedy if one party is found in breach.
Complicated and expensive to pursue though.

Rejected prior to 30 days Tesla refused on basis of we hadn’t given ample opportunity to effect the repair in-line with SOG.

We also logged service request on day of collection stating missing features / defect etc.

As you say complicated and expensive to pursue. I suspect Tesla therefore hope people / companies won’t pursue with that in mind. I am and will be seeing it through until the bitter end. Likely to take another 6 - 9 months to even reach court.

If anyone wants to PM as per post 1 please do

Wont respond to any more posts.

Cheers in advance for any help (and cheers to the many that already have!!!)

 

[RafP]

@RafP , I really do wish you all the best and admire your guts for taking action regarding this. I did post some time ago that I thought Tesla were in breach of contract even if on the delivery day they made the customer aware prior to accepting the car because the contract is formed at the point the offer to purchase is accepted for an agreed consideration (price) and also viewed the action of getting a customer to sign for a car on taking delivery with changes from the agreed spec to be in breach of the unfair contract terms act as Tesla unilaterally deviated from fulfilling the agreed contract.

You will know you will be a classic David V Goliath case taking on a company that rakes in 83 billion a year and run by the worlds richest man who is battle hardened to law suits.

My car is a 2020 model - so has the USS, but I am so incensed with how Tesla are treating its customers I absolutely salute your action to at least challenge them.
Do you, or have you started a crowdfunding page? I am so behind you that I am happy to make a donation towards financing your action even though there is absolutely nothing in it for me except the satisfaction that Goliath has been brought under some control

Thanks very much for the support and no I haven’t but that’s a good shout I will do that!

Hopefully it makes them think about their actions (it won’t!)

But felt had to make a stand and not just roll over as like you I feel they are 100% in breach of contract!

 

[Whyone]

• It is my understanding that it was the entity that purchased the vehicle that got the popup

As I may have mentioned once or twice (!) this purchasing entity, along with a good few others, didn't receive a pop-up or any other notice re. removal of USS and associated functionality from Tesla prior to, during or after delivery.

 

[Durzel]

It was a cash purchase. Contract with Tesla Motors.

All evidence will be disclosed to prior to case. It has to be legally as you say you can’t just rock up on day and say ta da!

At this stage in proceedings they do not know all our evidence as we only have to file an outline case. Moreover you are limited to a brief statement of facts.

Just as we don’t know their full defence!

Key factor is SOG 1994 / contract law rather than consumer as you say makes it more tricky but still there is a legal framework and definitions.

Key areas of contention and open for most debate will be definition of temporarily unavailable and near future.

They accept the car was delivered with missing features and defect. Just that we haven’t given them ample opportunity to resolve. Over 100 days have passed and Tesla still refuse to / unwilling to give a date to resolve the defect.

As per this thread we are starting on the process of building the full and proper evidence pack to back up the claim. This is one of a many strands the others I will share once the case is heard (if it is).

Rejected prior to 30 days Tesla refused on basis of we hadn’t given ample opportunity to effect the repair in-line with SOG.

We also logged service request on day of collection stating missing features / defect etc.

As you say complicated and expensive to pursue. I suspect Tesla therefore hope people / companies won’t pursue with that in mind. I am and will be seeing it through until the bitter end. Likely to take another 6 - 9 months to even reach court.

If anyone wants to PM as per post 1 please do

Wont respond to any more posts.

Cheers in advance for any help (and cheers to the many that already have!!!)

On the basis of these two posts I think you're in a better position than I had originally thought.

Only thing I would be a bit wary of is that if the claim value is the value of the car + interest (assuming so given you tried to reject) then that's easily on multi-track claim wise, and you run the risk of having to pay Tesla's legal costs. I'm guessing you already know that though.

Since any decision on this wouldn't set any kind of legal precedent I think it's probably 50/50 whether Tesla will just settle "without prejudice", possibly with an NDA attached, or try their luck in court.

Good luck either way

 

[RafP]

On the basis of these two posts I think you're in a better position than I had originally thought.

Only thing I would be a bit wary of is that if the claim value is the value of the car + interest (assuming so given you tried to reject) then that's easily on multi-track claim wise, and you run the risk of having to pay Tesla's legal costs. I'm guessing you already know that though.

Since any decision on this wouldn't set any kind of legal precedent I think it's probably 50/50 whether Tesla will just settle "without prejudice", possibly with an NDA attached, or try their luck in court.

Good luck either way

Cheers and agreed and agreed.

The claim is actually purchase price of car minus sale price of car, minus pence per mile used. So very very close to 5 figures, a not insignificant amount to most.

Tesla were offered opportunity to buy back to mitigate the costs / losses
on both sides but refused then refused further correspondence on the matter.

We chose not to add interest to keep us below track threshold.

In reality we will end up out of pocket either way. We are going to cover costs of some legal sense checking / support costs etc to keep it along right track value wise but also build a solid case. I may take the crowd fund suggestion to help as whilst as you say won’t set a precedent a strong case / framework and a win may help others (I hope it does!)

Their reluctance to engage also ruled out mediation which is a shame.

Cheers again to all PMs with details. I welcome any more and will post a thread once this plays out in the coming months.

 

[Ashdeman]

Here's what pop up I got. Order placed March 22, pop up occurred end of October and collected car in November.

 

[LiamPope]

On this anyone who ordered post April 2022 wouldn’t as Tesla removed reference to USS (apparently) so only anyone who ordered before April 2022 were meant to get the pop up (again apparently as it seems many didn’t).

I don't think that is right. Many people who ordered long after April 2022, up to pretty recently, have gotten the waiver/pop-up, if I'm not mistaken. That's because although explicit references to USS were removed, they still advertised (to this day) Park Assist, Autopark and the two Summons, so the waiver/pop-up is still required to cover the lack of those features.

The user manual section for Park Assist makes for amusing reading currently, because although they added '(if equipped)' and 'or cameras' after every instance of 'sensors', it still clearly describes the old USS based system, so makes little to no sense when you wonder how this works in cases when the sensors are not equipped!