Tesla 'No Problem Found' buybacks

A California lemon-law attorney said Tesla owners should not assume a service visit marked “No Problem Found” ends a potential buyback claim. In an interview published by Autonocion on May 21, the attorney said repeated warranty responses such as “No Problem Found” or “Operating as Designed” can still help establish a record if the underlying defect continues. California’s lemon-law framework turns on whether a manufacturer was given a reasonable number of repair attempts and failed to bring the vehicle into conformity with its warranty. The issue matters for Tesla owners because service records often become the central evidence in later disputes over whether a defect was real, recurring and substantial. ### How can “No Problem Found” still matter in a buyback case? Autonocion reported on May 21 that a California lemon-law attorney said those phrases can support a claim when they appear repeatedly and the customer keeps returning with the same unresolved problem. The point, as described in the interview, is not that the wording proves the vehicle was fixed, but that it documents the owner’s repeated efforts to obtain a repair. California Civil Code section 1793.2 requires manufacturers that issue express warranties to service or repair goods to conform to those warranties within a reasonable number of attempts. If the manufacturer cannot do so, the statute says it must promptly replace the product or make restitution. ### What does California law treat as a “reasonable number” of repair attempts? California Civil Code section 1793.22, known as the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, creates a presumption for new motor vehicles in certain circumstances. The statute says that within 18 months from delivery or 18,000 miles, whichever comes first, a reasonable number of attempts is presumed if a defect likely to cause death or serious bodily injury has been repaired two or more times, or if the same nonconformity has been repaired four or more times, or if the vehicle has been out of service for more than 30 cumulative days for warranty repairs. (casemine.com) The statute also says the buyer or lessee must directly notify the manufacturer at least once for the two-repair and four-repair presumptions. That means documentation beyond the service-center visit itself can matter, including written complaints and direct notices to the automaker. ### Does a service-center note have to admit a defect? The California statutes do not require a repair order to use any particular phrase admitting fault. (codes.findlaw.com) The legal question is whether the vehicle had a warranty-covered nonconformity that substantially impaired use, value or safety, and whether the manufacturer had a reasonable chance to repair it, according to summaries of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the text of section 1793.22. (california.public.law) That is why a notation such as “Operating as Designed” may still become part of the owner’s evidence file. If the same problem recurs and the owner keeps seeking repairs, each visit can help establish timing, frequency and Tesla’s opportunity to address the complaint, according to the legal framework described in the California code. ### What should Tesla owners keep if the problem continues? (legalclarity.org) Service invoices, dates, mileage, photos, videos and direct communications with Tesla are the records most likely to matter if a dispute later turns on repeated repair attempts. California’s presumption rules are tied to counts of repair visits, time out of service and the timing of the defect relative to delivery and mileage. Autonocion’s May 21 interview focused on the wording owners may see in Tesla service records. (california.public.law) The next step for any claim remains the same under California law: the file will turn on the repair history, the persistence of the defect and whether the manufacturer was given the opportunities required by Civil Code sections 1793.2 and 1793.22. (casemine.com)