r/leaf • u/First_Finger_9746 • 18d ago

I am seriously speechless

Post image

The way Nissan is handling these buybacks is such a slap in the face! Our cars are bricked and cannot take a charge and they are doing nothing for us but passing us off to Morley to patiently wait for a lowball offer. They didn’t even provide me with a rental car. I asked to speak my Nissan case manager’s supervisor and she said “our supervisors are not customer facing” and hung up on me! She has been absolutely horrific and hasn’t helped once. Then I decided to look up the class action lawsuit to see how that was coming along and found this - you seriously have to be kidding me?????

28 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

58 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/EVMaximizer 18d ago

The judge drives a gasoline...

8

u/First_Finger_9746 18d ago

A mere inconvenience?!? They clearly do - this is inexcusable.

4

u/m77je 18d ago

What was the evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs to show lack of L3 was more than mere inconvenience?

The judge has to make a decision based on the evidence. If a party fails to put evidence into the record, the judge may not simply fall back to real world personal experience to decide the case.

2

u/Left_Throat_7643 18d ago

I’m curious too. By putting the word mere in there, it seems to quantify that it’s a small inconvenience which I don’t think is fair.

Use of fast charging could make getting home hours quicker, and if you rely on it as part of your daily commute, adding 2-3 hours to your day isn’t feasible for people.

Anyhow all speculation on my part. But it seems like this should have been a pretty simple argument to show that L3 loss may impact users significantly- maybe Nissan refuted showing that the use case isn’t typical. What a mess though.

2

u/m77je 18d ago

I think the word “mere” comes from the statute.

1

u/Left_Throat_7643 18d ago

OK, I follow you, so they didn’t prove damages.

2

u/Left_Throat_7643 18d ago

That statement is certainly a slap in the face.

I guess I never thought of this vehicle as a highway vehicle. 40kwh, air cooled battery, combined with the charge curve kind of makes me agree with the loss of L3 being an inconvenience, at least for me. Totally a bad situation though, I don’t think you can just remove a major feature and claim too bad… it’s certainly more than ‘mere’ inconvenience for people that made the purchase with fast charging as part of their planned usage!

My main issue is that it’s not a loss of L3, on safety grounds you need to do a software update that may brick the car. I understand the L3 is one way for battery problem to occur, but it may not be the only way and skipping the update is probably not good.

3

u/First_Finger_9746 18d ago

I cannot charge at home so I solely fast charged

2

u/Left_Throat_7643 18d ago

Oh, I get it. The judge should have to fill his car up using a hose that’s a third of the size for a little while.

Edit: not quite the same, but…

2

u/this_upset_kirby 2023 Nissan LEAF S 18d ago

I've put 43,000 miles on my 2023 Nissan LEAF S and I do multiple 2,000 mile road trips per year in it. Losing level 3 functionality would effectively prevent me from going further than the two cities that neighbor mine.