San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

[pete8314]

Guy buys Salvaged Model S...

...but won't sign Tesla's release form, so they (quoting the news guy) "won't switch on the cars brain". It seems the real issue here is with the wording on the release form, but without seeing that, it's impossible to draw an accurate conclusion.

San Diego man's $58,000 nightmare with Tesla Model S | San Diego 6 | Local News

 

[HankLloydRight]

I think the difference here between TM and any other manufacturer is that Tesla can disable any car at the home office (which they've done here).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's legal -- to disable a car (even a salvage) that they do not OWN. Just because they're concerned about a PR issue -- which they can help mitigate by actually HELPING this guy, not shunning him off and providing headline fodder for the NADA to snatch up.

I understand that these types of one-off requests can burn a TON of resources at TM that have zero ROI. But still, it's something that TM should do. At a minimum, just enable the car to work. If they want to restrict selling parts until the car is inspected as road worthy, sure. But to deny enabling the car altogether? Not cool.

 

[ElSupreme]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's legal -- to disable a car (even a salvage) that they do not OWN. Just because they're concerned about a PR issue -- which they can help mitigate by actually HELPING this guy, not shunning him off and providing headline fodder for the NADA to snatch up.

I thought the Model S disabled the battery upon airbag deployment. And Tesla can turn it back on, but the car itself disables all battery function for safety.

A big difference. Think of it as a broken part that Tesla is unable to fix for the user.

I don't see not selling people parts. That is messed up. But not 'fixing' something they deem to be unfixable is perfectly understandable.

 

[ggr]

I agree, it doesn't seem to state anywhere in it that they can confiscate the car, etc...

I would like to know if, "if Tesla determines that sufficient repairs cannot be made to the Salvage Vehicle, Tesla will not service the Salvage Vehicle" includes refusing to allow it to Supercharge or even enable operation via the 3G connection.

I would also like to see the issue of refusing to sell parts relaxed.

But it doesn't seem to be what that story above in the media makes it out to be (I am Jack's complete lack of surprise)...

When I read the original article, I thought the quote from the new owner "They can keep the car..." was more an exclamation, in line with the later "just want my money back". I didn't read it as something that was in the release form.

 

[Cal1]

Wow can't believe the "Telsa has a right to inspect/judge" anything stance. Sure they have concerns about bad publicity etc but to inspect for road worthiness? Why? A salvage decision by the insurance company means it was deemed both worth spending the necessary capital to repair. NOT that it can't be repaired and be as good as new. There is a huge multibillion $ industry dedicated to bringing back rusted hulls of old vehicles with the help of both OEM and aftermarket support.

Lets put it this way, suppose my MS85 was extensively cosmetically damaged and really looked like a POS but only needed the front radiators replaced to get back on the road. I'm out of warranty and can only afford to fix the radiators. Obviously I can't drive it without these. Could Tesla say you can't repair it because it will be an eye sore? Not sure I'd agree to let them inspect anything. None of their business. Oh yea I am the original owner and if they decided to stop letting me charge because I wouldn't let them inspect.... wrong answer. After all they did promise lifetime free charging. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this case I feel Tesla is overstepping their bounds. Where do you stop? Are salvaged vehicles still entitled to the same software support as the rest of us? This changes dramatically when it is you getting denied support. Perhaps Tesla has realized that they underestimated how salvaged vehicles would impact their business model. Tesla will probably need to make some changes, just not sure what or how.

 

[swaltner]

Already being discussed at San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

 

[qwk]

I'd like to see what the liability release says. Seems rather important to the story. It totally makes sense that Tesla wants to cover its butt. But does the release have any unreasonable conditions? Who knows?

This pretty much sums it up. Knowing both sides of the story is key.

- - - Updated - - -

If found a link to a May 2014 Tesla salvage waiver:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1305093/tesla-salvage-release.txt

Doesn't look onerous to me, as long as you can pay Tesla to examine the vehicle before you buy it.

The only thing that I don't agree with is the part where Tesla will not sell you parts for the salvage vehicle. There are many shops that even without Tesla training would put the Tesla approved shops to shame. If this monopolistic behavior isn't changed soon, NADA will have a field day.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow a fairly tame thread given the stupidity here. You guys flame people harder for asking a question that has been asked before.

THIS GUY IS A CERTIFIED IDIOT. Are you kidding me?? He got what he deserved IMO! This is brain-damaged on so many levels and then typical of the no-responsibility era that he cries to the media after wetting his bed.

That 50k was a MORON TAX...

I wouldn't go as far as calling this guy a moron, but buying a $58k salvage Tesla isn't the wisest decision one could make.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow can't believe the "Telsa has a right to inspect/judge" anything stance. Sure they have concerns about bad publicity etc but to inspect for road worthiness? Why? A salvage decision by the insurance company means it was deemed both worth spending the necessary capital to repair. NOT that it can't be repaired and be as good as new. There is a huge multibillion $ industry dedicated to bringing back rusted hulls of old vehicles with the help of both OEM and aftermarket support.

Lets put it this way, suppose my MS85 was extensively cosmetically damaged and really looked like a POS but only needed the front radiators replaced to get back on the road. I'm out of warranty and can only afford to fix the radiators. Obviously I can't drive it without these. Could Tesla say you can't repair it because it will be an eye sore? Not sure I'd agree to let them inspect anything. None of their business. Oh yea I am the original owner and if they decided to stop letting me charge because I wouldn't let them inspect.... wrong answer. After all they did promise lifetime free charging. Everyone has a right to their opinion and in this case I feel Tesla is overstepping their bounds. Where do you stop? Are salvaged vehicles still entitled to the same software support as the rest of us? This changes dramatically when it is you getting denied support. Perhaps Tesla has realized that they underestimated how salvaged vehicles would impact their business model. Tesla will probably need to make some changes, just not sure what or how.

To take this one step further, what if the car in question was $1k in parts away from being driveable, but looked like sin. The Tesla approved body shop might be influenced by $$$$ signs in their eyes, and not deem it roadworthy. It's called conflict of interest, and happens all of the time.

 

[alexucf]

It's in all of our interests for him to be able to pull this off. If my car gets totaled, I'd hate to think it's remaining worth is limited to me parsing out parts on the forums.

Supporting the 2nd or 3rd life of a vehicle is the cost of doing business, and its a cost easily reduced by opening things up a little.

 

[Garn]

Has anyone seen other automotive manufactures’ “AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE FOR INSPECTION OF SALVAGE VEHICLE” documents? I’m guessing here, but I bet they look VERY similar to Tesla’s.
If someone knows where to find one please share, I would love to see the comparison. I did a quick search but I couldn’t find any.

 

[Smitty769]

I think that believing that this is simply a PR issue is incorrect. As was said before, Tesla doesn't want an accident caused by a failure on an incorrectly repaired "salvaged" vehicle. I think they want to inspect it to ensure this fact, not make sure it's not an "eyesore".

If you sell the parts directly to this person, and they don't repair it correctly, Tesla could then be held liable if things go wrong.

This has happened before with Roadsters...

 

[tga]

Has anyone seen other automotive manufactures’ “AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE FOR INSPECTION OF SALVAGE VEHICLE” documents? I’m guessing here, but I bet they look VERY similar to Tesla’s.
If someone knows where to find one please share, I would love to see the comparison. I did a quick search but I couldn’t find any.

I doubt you'll find such a thing from other manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are not in the business of inspecting cars for road worthiness. That is the job of the state before they issue the first registration after the car is repaired.

 

[ElSupreme]

I doubt you'll find such a thing from other manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are not in the business of inspecting cars for road worthiness. That is the job of the state before they issue the first registration after the car is repaired.

Exactly. The battery stopped it's ability to charge during the accident. Why should Tesla re-enable the pack. Make the guy buy a new non-damaged one.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I doubt you'll find such a thing from other manufacturers. Auto manufacturers are not in the business of inspecting cars for road worthiness. That is the job of the state before they issue the first registration after the car is repaired.

And, further, not only are dealerships not owned by the manufacturers, they're not typically involved with crash repairs. They'll sell you or a collision shop any part you want. Tesla has more leverage here, because if corporate decides they don't want your car on the road, there's no middleman who will sell you the parts. Your property is now worthless.

Plus, technically Tesla-certified shops are the only places you can get your car repaired and retain warranty status, especially if you need certain parts (like the larger body panels), which they'll only sell to certified shops. They have top-to-bottom control of the entire repair process. They've been relatively benevolent about it so far, but it could have serious implications for owners down the road once these things start requiring more out-of-warranty maintenance (especially given Tesla's sky-high labor rates and even higher authorized repair costs).

Certainly the situation merits a close eye, especially since it has a direct impact on our insurance rates.

I think most people who have purchased parts from Tesla to this point have some experience with this. Even if you have the part number, there's a pretty unusual amount of grilling regarding WHY you're buying a part. You have to justify your purchase before they'll sell it to you. I've been working on cars for a long time, and it's an extremely awkward way to handle things, IMO.

 

[dsm363]

So best case scenario, this guy broke even with buying a brand-new 60 kWh Tesla Model S with the federal tax credit.

 

[rogbmw]

OK - some questions.
1. Would any one here on this forum want to purchase a rebuilt title Model S, which would mean that (in most cases from most other manufacturers) it will have NO factory warranty
2. Is anyone implying that Tesla "has" to update the car's operating system, say from 5.whatever to 6 or 7.whatever? Remember, most manufacturers will not warranty a car that has been reported to them as a salvage title.
I would think that Tesla has no obligation whatsoever to support a vehicle with a Salvage title, or subsiquent rebuilt title.

food for thought..........

 

[Gizmotoy]

OK - some questions.
1. Would any one here on this forum want to purchase a rebuilt title Model S, which would mean that (in most cases from most other manufacturers) it will have NO factory warranty
2. Is anyone implying that Tesla "has" to update the car's operating system, say from 5.whatever to 6 or 7.whatever? Remember, most manufacturers will not warranty a car that has been reported to them as a salvage title.
I would think that Tesla has no obligation whatsoever to support a vehicle with a Salvage title, or subsiquent rebuilt title.

food for thought..........

1) People buy cars with salvage/rebuilt titles all the time. I suspect the answer is a pretty firm yes.
2) That's a completely different issue, though. I didn't see any claims that the intention was to force Tesla to honor the warranty, but simply to sell the parts (or flick the software switch) necessary to re-enable charging. That said, I'd be pretty surprised if there was valid reason to hold back new software updates, beyond simply being vindictive about putting a salvage vehicle back on the road. I've not seen it claimed anywhere that software updates require valid in-warranty status. Either way, future software upgrades are not the main issue.

 

[David_Cary]

OK - some questions.
1. Would any one here on this forum want to purchase a rebuilt title Model S, which would mean that (in most cases from most other manufacturers) it will have NO factory warranty
2. Is anyone implying that Tesla "has" to update the car's operating system, say from 5.whatever to 6 or 7.whatever? Remember, most manufacturers will not warranty a car that has been reported to them as a salvage title.
I would think that Tesla has no obligation whatsoever to support a vehicle with a Salvage title, or subsiquent rebuilt title.

food for thought..........

I'll buy a salvage title car with an appropriate discount. Sure some risk is there, but as a general rule in capitalism - risk is rewarded.

 

[markb1]

OK - some questions.
1. Would any one here on this forum want to purchase a rebuilt title Model S, which would mean that (in most cases from most other manufacturers) it will have NO factory warranty

I'd buy one if it were cheap enough.

 

[richkae]

but as a general rule in capitalism - risk is rewarded.

I disagree. Some risks are not rewarded.
It is a zero sum game in the end.

What is rewarded is using superior knowledge to calculate that the risk is different from the consensus.
If you don't have superior knowledge of the risk, then its just gambling.

 

[ckessel]

I'll admit it really disturbs me that even though I own every bit of my car as I've paid for it in full, that I still have to essentially have Tesla's permission to operate it. Now, my car is in good condition, so Tesla continues to allow it to function.

But let's say it was damaged sufficient to total it for primarily cosmetic reasons, which happens all the time as cars get on in years. I own it. The State of Oregon is willing to license it as road legal. Why should Tesla have any say over whether it's still a car I should be able to use?

Say someone refused to update their software to v6, ever. What stops Tesla from deciding that vehicle can be turned off?

I don't want Tesla to have that kind of authority. The best case is they never use that authority, but unfortunately we're already seeing that they are exercising that authority and that it's a subjective decision on Tesla's part.