Tesla has made six attempts to fix damaged paint on the new Model 3 and has failed.
Tesla has made six attempts to fix damaged paint on the new Model 3 and has failed.
A woman who spent $79,000 on a new Tesla has demanded a refund after the electric car giant failed in its sixth attempt to fix the car.
The Auckland woman has formally asked for her money back after giving the electric car giant five months and six attempts to fix scratches to the paint on five panels of the car.
The car has gone between a panelbeater and car detailer since its purchase in December and the woman has had to drive a loan car.
In the latest incident, the paint peeled off when the car detailer prepped the car to be painted.
The woman had given Tesla the right to repair the car under the Consumers Guarantee Act but said the company has failed to do so.
“What we think they have done is when they have cut and polished the car it has left scratches all over the car on every panel.
“I went from five panels with damage to every single part of the car with scratches.”
In an email to the woman a manager from Tesla NZ, asked the Auckland woman for some time to consult higher management to look into the matter.
Small bubbles can be seen in the Tesla's paint after the sixth attempt to remove scratches.
The woman said if she is not refunded she will take Tesla to court.
If that happens it will be the second time a New Zealand Tesla customer has taken a company to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) in the past year.
Last year, Auckland man Reza took Tesla NZ ULC to the MVDT after they refused to replace his new Model 3 despite more than eight areas of significant damage.
The car was ordered online and collected from the same Mt Wellington showroom as the Auckland woman.
Photos provided to the Herald show coffee stains and marks to the driver’s side footwell carpet, deep scratches on the front bumper and undertray assembly, a scratched wheel cover, a black mark on the ceiling liner, a scrape on the boot lining, creased leather on the driver’s seat, and scratches on the wing mirrors.
The car also came with a battery range of 439km compared with the advertised 491km range, which the man said was a clear sign the car was used.
The driver's floor of Reza's new Tesla showing coffee stains and dirt.
The tribunal said Reza was entitled to reject the vehicle “because its defects are a failure of a substantial character”.
It said he was entitled to a new car but because of stock availability, Reza said the decision was made for him that the car would be repaired.
He said he should have been supplied a loan car until a new car was available.
Reza said despite the win with the MVDT he still felt as if he had lost because he should have got a new car.
“I was repeatedly advised by Tesla that the MVDT process will not resolve anything and I will only receive the repairs offer which is already being offered,” Reza said.
Deep scratches on the bumper of Reza's new Tesla.
“They were proved absolutely right because despite a ruling of ‘Failure of Substantial Character’ against Tesla they did not have to provide a replacement car even though it was legally proved that I was fully entitled to it.”
Reza said he was not even awarded the $50 court fee let alone costs for the time spent and the stress of paying for a new car and never receiving one.
Unlike Reza, the woman said she is now not interested in having a new Tesla and just wants her money back.
“I have been without my car since February when it went in for repair and since then I have had the loan car,” she said.
The driver's seat and passenger seat of the new Tesla showed creases and marks from use.
“I have not had the full experience I would have with my own brand-new car like keyless entry, car access and location.”
“I just want my money back and to move on,” she said.
Scratches to the wheel cap were just one of at least eight areas of damage to Reza's new Tesla.
Jessica Walker, from Consumer NZ, believed Tesla may have failed to meet its obligations under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
“Under the act, goods have to be of acceptable quality. This includes being free from minor defects – which the Tesla clearly wasn’t. Given this, the consumer was entitled to ask Tesla to fix the issue,” Walker said.
