-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
10 Days out of warranty Model 3 heating failure...
- Thread starter 15mpg
- Start date
spooksman
Member
Obviously I was just a dude listening to a podcast, I’m not a ‘consumer champion’, but…
However, as I said, this really isn’t my strong area, @GlynG seems far better read than me. The Martin Lewis website might be helpful, but if I remember what he said correctly, the warrantee is a contractural right not a legal one, your statutory rights are legal.
I guess as the latter includes the former, then I’ll go for ‘any car’ if I have to choose one - can’t think of many new cars without heaters!
I think an expectation of a heater in a car heating the inside of a car would be agreed by most.
Not sure tbh, as the life of a car could be quite long, but more than 4 years I’d say. Tesla cover the batteries for 8 years I think, so they clearly think that the car should last that long.
As above, I’d be starting at 8 years, but I guess the mileage and amount of usage could be factors.
However, as I said, this really isn’t my strong area, @GlynG seems far better read than me. The Martin Lewis website might be helpful, but if I remember what he said correctly, the warrantee is a contractural right not a legal one, your statutory rights are legal.
Yes but, you spoke as you knew what you were on about.
Just consider that you were in court defending your claim and tesla (or any other manufacturer) ask you these questions. You would be ripped apart.
My take is this. I bought the car knowing of its warranties. Others manufacturers give more and others give less.
Would it be fair to say that is the car never had issues for over 4 years then you should pay a premium back to the manufacturer/dealer for the benefit every year there after?
My understanding is over time the shift moves to you to show the item was not fit for purpose at the time of purchase and not them to show it was. If the failure rate of that part is relatively low even after 4 or 5 years they’d just point to that and say it’s tough but stuff fails, and I can’t say many have said they have had the issue on a M3, and they’ve made a couple of million of them so they’d have plenty of data.
I know it’s annoying just outside warranty, but that’s the way it works.
I know it’s annoying just outside warranty, but that’s the way it works.
spooksman
Member
Just to be clear, I said I was listening to a podcast and passed on what was said, nothing more…
You could easily argue 8 years given that’s the battery/drive unit warranty. A heater is pretty important and a broken one could make the car dangerous to drive in winter, so it should last at least as long as the other components that are critical to the car actually being usable.
Billbrown1982
TM3 LR 2021 | Red | FSD
Well if you want to try your luck....the battery system is connected to the heater system is it not? To help manage the temperature via the heat pump? So.....
The onus is on you to argue the fault was present at manufacture and that it’s not lasted a reasonable amount of time.
The first point is fairly simple, the heater is not a service item, you’ve not touched it. There is few reasonable rebuttals to that and will be taken at face value unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
What’s a ‘reasonable’ amount of time very much depends on a range of things, this is not an exhaustive list but consider:
Milage of the car
Overall condition of the car
Service requirements and history
The nature of the component
How the component works
Expected life of the component
For example, if the car was in VGC and had only done 25k miles than you’d say it’s not reasonable for a part which is meant to last the lifetime of the car to fail after 4 years and 9 days.
If the car was ‘well used’ and had done 108k at 4 years and 9 days it may be considered reasonable that the part had have failed.
To note, the legislation has a time bar on it at 6 years so you can’t claim for any failures outside of this time.
The first point is fairly simple, the heater is not a service item, you’ve not touched it. There is few reasonable rebuttals to that and will be taken at face value unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
What’s a ‘reasonable’ amount of time very much depends on a range of things, this is not an exhaustive list but consider:
Milage of the car
Overall condition of the car
Service requirements and history
The nature of the component
How the component works
Expected life of the component
For example, if the car was in VGC and had only done 25k miles than you’d say it’s not reasonable for a part which is meant to last the lifetime of the car to fail after 4 years and 9 days.
If the car was ‘well used’ and had done 108k at 4 years and 9 days it may be considered reasonable that the part had have failed.
To note, the legislation has a time bar on it at 6 years so you can’t claim for any failures outside of this time.
Probably an unpopular viewpoint but I don’t really get why people seem to expect a warranty to effectively last however long they think it should last. So what if it is 10 days out of warranty? It’s out of warranty.
Extended warranty options are (were) available, and presumably disregarded because the OP (and others of the same mind) prefer to roll the dice and assume that either they won’t have a problem, or that they’ll get goodwill for “reasons”.
The point about reasonable expectation of longevity is valid, and an avenue that can be explored, but it’s not as simple as just assuming that a part should last for X years ipso facto “pay up Tesla”. Two cars of the same age with identical heaters could have used them completely differently and for considerably longer duty cycles, depending on mileage, climate preference, etc.
I am sympathetic, but at the same time people who just ignore extended warranty options because they believe the manufacturer will give them goodwill past the warranty expiry date are making a calculated bet. Sometimes it works, you don’t get the extended warranty and nothing goes wrong, so the money you would have spent is yours. Other times it doesn’t pan out. What you can’t do is have your cake and eat it.
Extended warranty options are (were) available, and presumably disregarded because the OP (and others of the same mind) prefer to roll the dice and assume that either they won’t have a problem, or that they’ll get goodwill for “reasons”.
The point about reasonable expectation of longevity is valid, and an avenue that can be explored, but it’s not as simple as just assuming that a part should last for X years ipso facto “pay up Tesla”. Two cars of the same age with identical heaters could have used them completely differently and for considerably longer duty cycles, depending on mileage, climate preference, etc.
I am sympathetic, but at the same time people who just ignore extended warranty options because they believe the manufacturer will give them goodwill past the warranty expiry date are making a calculated bet. Sometimes it works, you don’t get the extended warranty and nothing goes wrong, so the money you would have spent is yours. Other times it doesn’t pan out. What you can’t do is have your cake and eat it.
There is a saying "None are so blind as those that don't want to see" and another "You can lead a horse to water but cant make it drink"
These sayings came into my head as a result of comments by those that clearly have never used the consumer Act - or indeed the previous Sale of Goods Act to enforce their statutory rights and mock the very idea that a layman consumer (David) could ever triumph over a business (Goliath) without the help of a solicitor or legal professional when it comes to the premature failure of consumer goods.
Its a fact, business, most of the time, tries to resist claims outside of the warranty, and consumers, most of the time, accept that. In the UK, the population is not litigious, tends not to argue, and may not know that warranties are in addition to their statutory rights.
Its also a fact, If you dismiss or reject the idea the average "Joe" is capable of enforcing their statutory rights and are able to hold any business no matter how large or influential they are to account for the manufacture of goods that don't last a reasonable amount of time then perhaps those people have already accepted defeat - and will be proven correct.
I'm not a solicitor - just an average "Joe" I did enrol at night school many years ago to study criminal and civil law - enrolled on a whim rather than a purpose and found the whole thing intriguing and fascinating.
People here are debating what is a "reasonable amount of time" in the longevity of an item, but the truth is that isn't closely defined and only the judge can decide that, but, the law indicates "reasonable" as in "the eyes of a reasonable person" and that reasonableness is dependant on the cost and purpose and general expectation of the specific item of good(s)
The small claims court is specifically there for the average "Joe" to enforce their statutory rights which include premature failure of performance of goods or services, or for the TORTs of others - A Tort is negligence, Simplified, its making people and business accountable for their actions or omissions of the business or its employees (Business are responsible for the actions of employees in the term Vicarious liability)
When consumers contact a business regarding the failure of goods or services they are speaking to an employee, who usually interprets their obligations in line with their limited training and sadly many employees don't know consumer law - just the fact of when warranty applies and when its ended and solely on that basis will accept or reject a free repair.
If a claim is rejected the consumer has a right to know why but its impossible to know if that employee has the authority to reject a claim, or is acting Ultra Virus (exceeding their authority) so a rejection needs to come from a named employee that is speaking on behalf of the company, and confirmed in writing, this will provide the basis of the Vicarious liability.
Of course, any litigation issued will go to the firms legal department or legal advisor and the reply to that is most likely to be different from the initial employee that answered your call.
Its quite rare that when litigation is indicated that the business is happy to defend itself in court, at this point majority will simply accept liability and offer a "goodwill" gesture to rectify - they just want you gone.
Not a single case of my intended litigations have ever reached the court, two have got as far as serving the paperwork and every single complaint I've made I have been more than willing to see in court - and some were very big international businesses, ICI, Ford, Hotpoint.
The small claims court expect both parties to try and resolve their differences - usually with the alternative dispute resolution, although that's not an obligation - my claims have never even got that far, the serving of the court paperwork has always been enough for me to be able to correspond with someone from the company that has the authority to review the full circumstances of the complaint and make a decision.
In this specific case, a 4 yr old car with a defective heater In my view its -
1- Unreasonable for Tesla to reject a repair 9 days out of warranty
2- A heater is expected to last at least the design life of the car - 8 to 12 years
3- A reasonable person wouldn't consider 4 years as compliant with consumer law "last a reasonable amount of time"
4 - The fault is due to premature failure of a component or control system (Thermistor, relay, resistive element, control module)
5 - The heater is a non serviceable component - so nothing the owner could influence
6- The heater is a major component of the car, a safety issue (keeping screen defrosted) and the early failure indicates the fitted components that have failed were not of reasonable strength and composition or fit for purpose.
In my view this isn't something Tesla will consider fighting once they understand the potential to be tested in a court, its impossible to defend - on the balance of probabilities.
These sayings came into my head as a result of comments by those that clearly have never used the consumer Act - or indeed the previous Sale of Goods Act to enforce their statutory rights and mock the very idea that a layman consumer (David) could ever triumph over a business (Goliath) without the help of a solicitor or legal professional when it comes to the premature failure of consumer goods.
Its a fact, business, most of the time, tries to resist claims outside of the warranty, and consumers, most of the time, accept that. In the UK, the population is not litigious, tends not to argue, and may not know that warranties are in addition to their statutory rights.
Its also a fact, If you dismiss or reject the idea the average "Joe" is capable of enforcing their statutory rights and are able to hold any business no matter how large or influential they are to account for the manufacture of goods that don't last a reasonable amount of time then perhaps those people have already accepted defeat - and will be proven correct.
I'm not a solicitor - just an average "Joe" I did enrol at night school many years ago to study criminal and civil law - enrolled on a whim rather than a purpose and found the whole thing intriguing and fascinating.
People here are debating what is a "reasonable amount of time" in the longevity of an item, but the truth is that isn't closely defined and only the judge can decide that, but, the law indicates "reasonable" as in "the eyes of a reasonable person" and that reasonableness is dependant on the cost and purpose and general expectation of the specific item of good(s)
The small claims court is specifically there for the average "Joe" to enforce their statutory rights which include premature failure of performance of goods or services, or for the TORTs of others - A Tort is negligence, Simplified, its making people and business accountable for their actions or omissions of the business or its employees (Business are responsible for the actions of employees in the term Vicarious liability)
When consumers contact a business regarding the failure of goods or services they are speaking to an employee, who usually interprets their obligations in line with their limited training and sadly many employees don't know consumer law - just the fact of when warranty applies and when its ended and solely on that basis will accept or reject a free repair.
If a claim is rejected the consumer has a right to know why but its impossible to know if that employee has the authority to reject a claim, or is acting Ultra Virus (exceeding their authority) so a rejection needs to come from a named employee that is speaking on behalf of the company, and confirmed in writing, this will provide the basis of the Vicarious liability.
Of course, any litigation issued will go to the firms legal department or legal advisor and the reply to that is most likely to be different from the initial employee that answered your call.
Its quite rare that when litigation is indicated that the business is happy to defend itself in court, at this point majority will simply accept liability and offer a "goodwill" gesture to rectify - they just want you gone.
Not a single case of my intended litigations have ever reached the court, two have got as far as serving the paperwork and every single complaint I've made I have been more than willing to see in court - and some were very big international businesses, ICI, Ford, Hotpoint.
The small claims court expect both parties to try and resolve their differences - usually with the alternative dispute resolution, although that's not an obligation - my claims have never even got that far, the serving of the court paperwork has always been enough for me to be able to correspond with someone from the company that has the authority to review the full circumstances of the complaint and make a decision.
In this specific case, a 4 yr old car with a defective heater In my view its -
1- Unreasonable for Tesla to reject a repair 9 days out of warranty
2- A heater is expected to last at least the design life of the car - 8 to 12 years
3- A reasonable person wouldn't consider 4 years as compliant with consumer law "last a reasonable amount of time"
4 - The fault is due to premature failure of a component or control system (Thermistor, relay, resistive element, control module)
5 - The heater is a non serviceable component - so nothing the owner could influence
6- The heater is a major component of the car, a safety issue (keeping screen defrosted) and the early failure indicates the fitted components that have failed were not of reasonable strength and composition or fit for purpose.
In my view this isn't something Tesla will consider fighting once they understand the potential to be tested in a court, its impossible to defend - on the balance of probabilities.
There's a big difference between people who have to fight because their TV fails after 13 months with only a 12 month warranty and a car that fails over 4 years after delivery.
Tesla have been sharks on consumer law - they talk about 7 days to notify them of delivery issues is simply nonsense in the UK as we have much more protection than that, but if a 4 year general warranty wasn't fit for purpose you can imagine the lawyers would be all over this for any make of car to help get your money back. They're simply not because a 4 year, 50k warranty is not unreasonable, at least not in my opinion. I also think the 8 year battery warranty is as much about giving people extra confidence to buy as it is about a statutory right. ICE manufacturers don't warrant engines beyond 3 years or so,
If it was a Model S door handle with widespread reports of high failures then there's a claim that the part has a design defect, or even a Model X heater matrix that lots get failures with, or water ingress into lights etc. they're materially different to a Model 3 heaterwhere very few fail. Demonstrate a design defect and you've effectively proven it wasn't fit for purpose at the time of delivery. Can the OP do that here? I think not., If it's not a design defect because very few in reality fail, then you have to demonstrate that the heater matrix fitted to your car 4 years ago had a manufacturing defect. Thats going to be hard to do as you've had 4 years use which is not an inconsiderable amount of time..
The OP can try and claim but personally I don't fancy their chances.
You raise a valid point, this is not a clear cut case (unlike FDS delivery), but you are confusing the warranty with your consumer rights.
Your consumer rights last up to 6 years regardless. Any warranty is in addition to this, it does not replace it. The fact the warranty is for 4 years is irrelevant for the purposes of your consumer rights.
Where the key difference lies between your consumer rights and a comprehensive warranty is that after 6 months, under your consumer rights the onus moves from the supplier to the consumer to prove the fault was present at purchase.
Under a comprehensive warranty, the supplier should just fix it no questions asked.
Fortunately I’ve not had to excise my consumer rights that regularly and never to court but someone’s to you do need to stand your ground.
What you are correct about is that it’s not clear cut.
For the reasons I get out in my post above, what’s ‘reasonable’ is based on a wide range of factors which a judge would need to take into account.
For example, you could set your cars heating to full tilt with the doors open and leave it for a week. It’s going to fail eventually but it wouldn’t be reasonable in that case for the supplier to replace the heater under your consumer rights.
Yes, that is a straw man argument but it is there to demonstrate that what’s reasonable isn’t something which is clear cut. You have to look at all of the particulars of each case individually and decide.
There isn’t really enough information in the OP to decide either way. For all we know, the OPs car could have had a very hard life over the last 4 years, it may be immaculate and only have 1k on the clock. All these things matter, it’s not just a case of ‘the heater should last longer therefore tesla are liable’.
The other thing you also need to consider is if all the effort is worth your time. You also need to carefully consider that you may not win and in that case you’ll be further out of pocket.
Your consumer rights last up to 6 years regardless. Any warranty is in addition to this, it does not replace it. The fact the warranty is for 4 years is irrelevant for the purposes of your consumer rights.
Where the key difference lies between your consumer rights and a comprehensive warranty is that after 6 months, under your consumer rights the onus moves from the supplier to the consumer to prove the fault was present at purchase.
Under a comprehensive warranty, the supplier should just fix it no questions asked.
Fortunately I’ve not had to excise my consumer rights that regularly and never to court but someone’s to you do need to stand your ground.
What you are correct about is that it’s not clear cut.
For the reasons I get out in my post above, what’s ‘reasonable’ is based on a wide range of factors which a judge would need to take into account.
For example, you could set your cars heating to full tilt with the doors open and leave it for a week. It’s going to fail eventually but it wouldn’t be reasonable in that case for the supplier to replace the heater under your consumer rights.
Yes, that is a straw man argument but it is there to demonstrate that what’s reasonable isn’t something which is clear cut. You have to look at all of the particulars of each case individually and decide.
There isn’t really enough information in the OP to decide either way. For all we know, the OPs car could have had a very hard life over the last 4 years, it may be immaculate and only have 1k on the clock. All these things matter, it’s not just a case of ‘the heater should last longer therefore tesla are liable’.
The other thing you also need to consider is if all the effort is worth your time. You also need to carefully consider that you may not win and in that case you’ll be further out of pocket.
George, you have in fact made my point better than I did, I agree there is a big difference in a 13 month old TV and a 4 year old car because the car has a much longer design life than the TV. TV is usually around 5 years and indeed in consumer law a claim could be made within 6 years and will most likely win in the small claims court. Manufacturers have to comply to the consumer Act in order to retail their products, the fact many of the UK population are unaware of just how comprehensive the consumer Act is is only to the advantage of the manufacturers.
Tesla try it on just like every other manufacturer, they simply operate on a percentage basis - If 75% of claimants outside of warranty accept a fob off then why not continue that practice, no incentive to improve the components in what they produce until the percentages taking action increases - its all about the money.
Just because a manufacturer provides a three year warranty on a major component in a car doesn't mean you cant get the manufacturer to replace the engine or gearbox at 8 years old completely free of charge to the customer. Its as I said before, Warranty is in Addition to statutory law, statutory law is the consumer Act but its up to the customer to present their case to the manufacturer - or retailer and cite consumer Act. The business can read the Act themselves, but only when challenged do they pass the claim onto their legal departments who simply advise them on the probabilities of winning the case.
The lawyers are indeed all over this - or would be if consumers sought their advice, but understandably they don't as in the small claims court you cannot get reimbursement for legal fees - its the method to prevent the David and Goliath syndrome - big business cant engage a barrister to defeat on technicalities the claim being made, everything has to be presented by the claimant and a representative can only respond in non legal jargon to keep everything fair - that's the job of the Judge to ensure fairness and reasonableness.
You are right also with the 8 year battery warranty - its there to provide confidence to purchase, but its not cut and dried that over the age of 8 the consumer has to pay for a new battery if it fails - far from it. When Tesla themselves quote 12 year old Model S batteries (18650s) are mainly retaining over 90% of their new capacity Its hard to dispute a model 3 battery (2170) failing after 8 years is reasonable providing the mileage, charging procedures etc have been complied with. The case can be argued and the Judge decides. Now in respect of the battery - If you were to be presented with a £12K bill for replacement and have the prospect of getting one for free for just the cost of a small claims court £100 - what would you do? It has to be worth a punt.
Re the OPs Heater, I'm 95% sure Tesla will sort it out if the alternative is a small claims court
I agree with you in the main but:
Warranty is irrelevant as you would be claiming against fit for purpose consumer law, but there shouldn't be leeway in the warranty period which is a contract - 1 second past expiry and there shouldn't any expectation on making a successful claim.
Usage needs to be considered. Just because it is 4 years old isn't enough if it has been used for 20 hours a day and racked up 200,000 miles. I would certainly agree that at 4 years the average car shouldn't expect a heater failure, but the average car would only have covered 40,000 miles.
Krugerrand
Meow
While it’s fascinating to hear about all the ways to avoid ever paying for parts and service of a vehicle ones been using for years with no issues -
OP when was the last time the air filter was changed? If the car isn’t heating this is the first thing to check. You can buy an appropriate filter and change yourself; YouTube is your friend. Ask me how I know? Also car out of warranty. Also car stopped heating. YouTube very friendly and very helpful. Car heating now like its on
. GL
OP when was the last time the air filter was changed? If the car isn’t heating this is the first thing to check. You can buy an appropriate filter and change yourself; YouTube is your friend. Ask me how I know? Also car out of warranty. Also car stopped heating. YouTube very friendly and very helpful. Car heating now like its on
. GL
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is why when I read about the act being brought up, the main question I had was if it was ever successfully applied to get a car fixed out of warranty and under what circumstances if so? Otherwise the OP is being pointed to a road that may be a huge waste of time, especially given the cost of the fix is relatively low (less than what it might cost for normal maintenance of a traditional ICE car of similar age). Also the context of the burden of proof being on the owner after 6 months is a fairly significant point.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
I built a kit car (Lotus-7 / Caterham thingie). To get through the "roadworthiness" test it had to have a heater (to demist the screen, no requirement to warm that car).
This was achieved, back then, with a 12V electric hairdryer (or two if it was difficult to get enough "oomph" onto the screen, for the tester to feel on the back of his hand).
After testing was successful the hairdryers were removed and passed on to the next person about to attempt the test
So I am pretty sure that all cars have to have to have heaters
I'm surprised you are raising that. Loads of armchair experts on forums ...
"I am certain that cameras will never be able to detect rain on windscreen"
"I am certain that cameras will never be able to detect rain on windscreen - I am an AI expert"
I have different weighting for those two. First person has no idea what they are talking about (but they might be right)
I've had one. Bought some goods that never arrived (small trader, not big company). I googled small claims and was very surprised to find (back then, this was 15 years ago) that there was an online process. I filled in the form and, reluctantly, paid the fee. The form had a question for me to include Interest, it had only been a couple of months but I added a bit for that.
Vendor never showed up in court (me neither, I left the court to decide based on my submission), so court found in my favour. Next thing was an option to fill in a form to send the bailiffs round - another fee, but I thought "what the hell" (along with "Good money after bad") and the principle was important.
Within a week I got a cheque from bailiffs, including all my costs, fees and the interest. Imagine my surprise!
I suspect the Vendor had treated it as an occupational hazard that anyone, who bothered to take him to court, would actually bother with "follow up". I'm not much good with a baseball bat, and I rather suspect that the Vendor might have been ...
I'm surprised at that. I have owned all my TVs for way longer than that, and I can't remember a failure. Replacing after a few year for "new features" I can understand ... but my old ones get shuffled round the house so the "Primary one" has the features we want, and the TV where we have exercise equipment just needs to be good enough to enable me to work through the backlog of "Recorded and never got around to watching" stuff
MrBadger
Badger out
I've successfully applied an earlier version of it to get a car fault resolved to my satisfaction that was not covered by warranty. In fact, the vehicle inspection highlighted a setup issue that resulted in the manufacturer changing their setup recommendations. So as well as being a win for me, it was also a win for the manufacturer who were able to mitigate the issue in other customer vehicles.
Similar threads
