EU Market Situation and Outlook

[Yggdrasill]

Could you post a link so that non-Norwegian speakers can use on-line translating?

Thanks.

Sorry, that's all I've been able to find. The answer has only been sent to the complaintants, who then posted it on a closed facebook group, and then someone reposted these images on the Norwegian EV forum.

Maybe someone can use text recognition software to get it back into text. Also, with some patience, I suspect it might pop up in the news within a few days.

Edit: Actually, it was posted in the other thread: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Yggdrasil,
Thanks for the update. But it appears, another Norwegian poster has a completely different understanding of this. This poster is saying, nothing is decided and it goes to the first legal court as Tesla is not willing to mediate.
Calling P85D owners world-wide for survey and complaint letter - Page 68

Interesting. I havent seen the actual decision, I was just relaying what some of the other posters over at the Norwegian EV forum who were on the closed facebook group were saying. Mindsweeper is probably correct in his assesment.

 

[Cobos]

I can add that the 2 phase process is correct and in phase 2 the consumer councils ruling has the power of law. So unless the company (or the customer) decides they want a regular trial to establish a precedent it usually stops there. After all no one has been injured or other major damage. The matter is about possible false advertising and product not delivering as promised. As was mentioned in the other thread most ar insurance has an amount around $10000-$15000 for any lawyers fees but that assumes the insurance company agrees this is appropriate usage. That depends on the specifics and details of your insurance coverage.

Cobos

 

[Auzie]

I can add that the 2 phase process is correct and in phase 2 the consumer councils ruling has the power of law. So unless the company (or the customer) decides they want a regular trial to establish a precedent it usually stops there. After all no one has been injured or other major damage. The matter is about possible false advertising and product not delivering as promised. As was mentioned in the other thread most ar insurance has an amount around $10000-$15000 for any lawyers fees but that assumes the insurance company agrees this is appropriate usage. That depends on the specifics and details of your insurance coverage.

Cobos

Yggdrasill and Cobos, thanks for keeping us informed.

Cobos, did you get the actual 1st step decision or are you just explaining the process without seeing the decision that was made?

 

[smac]

Sorry, that's all I've been able to find. The answer has only been sent to the complaintants, who then posted it on a closed facebook group, and then someone reposted these images on the Norwegian EV forum.

Maybe someone can use text recognition software to get it back into text. Also, with some patience, I suspect it might pop up in the news within a few days.

Edit: Actually, it was posted in the other thread: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. I havent seen the actual decision, I was just relaying what some of the other posters over at the Norwegian EV forum who were on the closed facebook group were saying. Mindsweeper is probably correct in his assesment.

You could skip the technology, and type the "Konclusion" into Google translate, even with my Norwegian being based purely on watching Lilyhammer I guessed that much

The last sentence is most pertinent:

"The plaintiff's claim is groundless and remains rejected"

(^ Google translation, with a bit of "de-literalistation")

 

[Auzie]

You could skip the technology, and type the "Konclusion" into Google translate, even with my Norwegian being based purely on watching Lilyhammer I guessed that much

The last sentence is most pertinent:

"The plaintiff's claim is groundless and remains rejected"

(^ Google translation, with a bit of "de-literalistation")

I reached the same conclusion as you about the conclusion. We could both be wrong.

Some people claim that the conclusion is part of Tesla letter, not the Council ruling.

 

[smac]

I reached the same conclusion as you about the conclusion. We could both be wrong.

Some people claim that the conclusion is part of Tesla letter, not the Council ruling.

I think we may be.

Looking more closely at the link, not the initial image (which for whatever reason the source decided to crop the Tesla letterhead and signature indicating it was from Tesla), I think yes it is simply Tesla's rebuttal, so obviously will be in their favour.

So we must continue to wait for the official outcome from the ombudsman.

 

[Auzie]

I think we may be.

Looking more closely at the link, not the initial image (which for whatever reason the source decided to crop the Tesla letterhead and signature indicating it was from Tesla), I think yes it is simply Tesla's rebuttal, so obviously will be in their favour.

That cropping and different sizes got me on the wrong track as well.

Quite easy to get anything wrong :smile:

So we must continue to wait for the official outcome from the ombudsman.

Maybe no one will post the Council reply.

If the reply is not public, Tesla is unlikely to post it. Customers are unlikely to post it if the decision is not in their favour.

There was a mention of discussions about the decision on a Facebook group. Perhaps we will learn from that source.

 

[Matias]

Sorry, that's all I've been able to find. The answer has only been sent to the complaintants, who then posted it on a closed facebook group, and then someone reposted these images on the Norwegian EV forum.

Maybe someone can use text recognition software to get it back into text. Also, with some patience, I suspect it might pop up in the news within a few days.

Edit: Actually, it was posted in the other thread: https://infotomb.com/i15ta.pdf

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting. I havent seen the actual decision, I was just relaying what some of the other posters over at the Norwegian EV forum who were on the closed facebook group were saying. Mindsweeper is probably correct in his assesment.

The first page of that document shows that it is Tesla's responce. Not a ruling.

 

[SebastianR]

Germany for November is 136 - which is not bad, but then again not great either.

 

[mindsweeper]

Maybe no one will post the Council reply.

If the reply is not public, Tesla is unlikely to post it. Customers are unlikely to post it if the decision is not in their favour.

There was a mention of discussions about the decision on a Facebook group. Perhaps we will learn from that source.

The cover letter from Forbrukerrådet is not a ruling, decision or anything like that. It is a basic explanation to all the 193 complaintifs that as Tesla is not willing to meet at the table, the way forward is a phase 2 where a ruling will be made in either direction. It is also a recommendation to gather more evidence to have a stronger case as Tesla obviously can provide more technical details and background than what we as a group have done so far.

The reason I am not putting this cover letter out in the public is that it is styled personally to one of the 193 - with some personal information to it.

The last two paragraphs in the cover letter states:

"Vi kan ikke se at Tesla sitt tilsvar viser særlig meglingsvilje, og finner det derfor lite hensiktsmessig å fortsette meglingen ved vårt kontor.
Vi imøteser en snarlig tilbakemelding på kommentarer fra tilsvaret og om du ønsker å oversende saken til Forbrukertvistutvalget, senest innen 15.12.2015."

 

[Yggdrasill]

The cover letter from Forbrukerrådet is not a ruling, decision or anything like that. It is a basic explanation to all the 193 complaintifs that as Tesla is not willing to meet at the table, the way forward is a phase 2 where a ruling will be made in either direction. It is also a recommendation to gather more evidence to have a stronger case as Tesla obviously can provide more technical details and background than what we as a group have done so far.

The reason I am not putting this cover letter out in the public is that it is styled personally to one of the 193 - with some personal information to it.

The last two paragraphs in the cover letter states:

"Vi kan ikke se at Tesla sitt tilsvar viser særlig meglingsvilje, og finner det derfor lite hensiktsmessig å fortsette meglingen ved vårt kontor.
Vi imøteser en snarlig tilbakemelding på kommentarer fra tilsvaret og om du ønsker å oversende saken til Forbrukertvistutvalget, senest innen 15.12.2015."

That makes more sense. Rough translation:

"We can not see that Tesla's response shows much promise for meaningful mediation, and therefore find it is not fitting to continue the mediation at our office.
We look forward to a prompt response with comments on Tesla's response, and whether you want to transfer the case over to the Consumer Disputes Commission, at the latest by 12.15.2015"

Now the newspapers have also picked up on the story: Google Oversetter

 

[Auzie]

The cover letter from Forbrukerrådet is not a ruling, decision or anything like that. It is a basic explanation to all the 193 complaintifs that as Tesla is not willing to meet at the table, the way forward is a phase 2 where a ruling will be made in either direction. It is also a recommendation to gather more evidence to have a stronger case as Tesla obviously can provide more technical details and background than what we as a group have done so far.

The reason I am not putting this cover letter out in the public is that it is styled personally to one of the 193 - with some personal information to it.

The last two paragraphs in the cover letter states:

"Vi kan ikke se at Tesla sitt tilsvar viser særlig meglingsvilje, og finner det derfor lite hensiktsmessig å fortsette meglingen ved vårt kontor.
Vi imøteser en snarlig tilbakemelding på kommentarer fra tilsvaret og om du ønsker å oversende saken til Forbrukertvistutvalget, senest innen 15.12.2015."

Thank you for providing information.

There seem to be many contradictions in the attached media reports, most likely due to difficulties in translations.

There is a statement like below:

which seems to be in contradiction with your statement, bold part, that Tesla is not willing to meet at the table.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Thank you for providing information.

There seem to be many contradictions in the attached media reports, most likely due to difficulties in translations.

There is a statement like below:

View attachment 103273

which seems to be in contradiction with your statement, bold part, that Tesla is not willing to meet at the table.

That is the least accurate google translate I've ever seen.

The original quote is: "Siden Tesla ifølge Forbrukerrådet ikke viste vilje til megling, finner de det «lite hensiktsmessig» å fortsette meglingen."
Which translates to: "Because Tesla according to the Consumer Council did not display a willingness to compromise, they find it "not very fitting" to continue the mediation."
(Or maybe this would be a better translation: "Because Tesla according to the Consumer Council did not display a willingness to participate in mediation, they find it "not very fitting" to continue the mediation.")

Translation is mostly about trying to capture the essence of what's being said than to try to translate word by word. Machines are pretty good at the latter, but not so good at the former, so sometimes Google translate fails spectacularly.

 

[Lessmog]

Nuance is hard for hardware! :wink:
I guess much of the confusion stems from missing the mark on the difference between, in simile, "of little use", which is essentially a negation, and "a little useful", which is not. Google cares only about big words even though the small ones can be crucial for the meaning. Small words like negations, mind!

 

[FredTMC]

In the US, tesla is emptying their inventory cars (e.g, showroom and loaner cars). These cars are sold as new (never been titled). If you live outside U.S. (EU, Asia etc) and have any info on the amount of inventory cars available for sale by tesla, let us know!

I'm curious if tesla has been selling out on their inventory cars outside the U.S. Every inventory car sold contributes to Tesla's delivery 50k-52k target for 2015.

 

[maoing]

Netherlands November 2015

 

[ecarfan]

From that article, quote: "The Tesla Model S (157 units) was #2 in its class, only behind the Audi A6 (176 units). "
That seems like a strong performance by Tesla, especially considering that the A6 really isn't in the same class, it's smaller and cheaper. In my opinion the Audi A7 and A8 are the Tesla competitors, along with the MB S-Class and a few others.

 

[maoing]

Yes. In Netherland we still see moderate growth QoQ growth (22%) as for Oct/Nov. compared to July/Aug. But for all other major EU markets Norway, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and Austria, it's negative Q4oQ3 as of now. I'm not saying Q4 vs. Q3 won't be positive, but just not a strong indicator Tesla will achieve 50% QoQ growth in EU market to meet it's Q4 global delivery goal. Of course we are still waiting for Denmark number.

 

[schonelucht]

That seems like a strong performance by Tesla, especially considering that the A6 really isn't in the same class, it's smaller and cheaper. In my opinion the Audi A7 and A8 are the Tesla competitors, along with the MB S-Class and a few others.

Due to fiscal incentives, for 99% of the buyers of these cars in the Netherlands, a Tesla is actually the cheaper car. Next year, a Tesla will also be cheaper than many upscale plugin hybrids (which will loose their incentives), so I expect growing sales in the Netherlands for 2016.

 

[Auzie]

Due to fiscal incentives, for 99% of the buyers of these cars in the Netherlands, a Tesla is actually the cheaper car. Next year, a Tesla will also be cheaper than many upscale plugin hybrids (which will loose their incentives), so I expect growing sales in the Netherlands for 2016.

Thanks for the clarification. I am curious about the fiscal incentives, what are they?