In June, I purchased a new Tesla Model 3 for £42,791, which was advertised with an estimated range of 318 miles. However, after a full battery charge, I discovered the in-car display indicated a maximum range of only 248 miles. To address this discrepancy, I scheduled a service appointment, but Tesla determined that the battery was functioning as intended and closed my service request without resolving the issue.
Frustrated by the misleading advertisement, I requested to return the vehicle, and Tesla agreed. I subsequently found a pre-owned Tesla Model 3 with a more accurate range, priced at £32,200, and proceeded with the exchange. Tesla consented to refund the difference of £10,591.
According to the terms of the agreement, I was supposed to receive my refund within 14 days. However, nearly two months have passed since I returned the vehicle, and I am still awaiting my money. The last communication from Tesla was in August, where they expressed their apologies for the delay, but they did not provide a date for the refund. I am eager to resolve this matter and receive my refund.
Troubleshooter Insight
The range capability of an electric vehicle is a critical factor for potential buyers, making the significant difference between the advertised and actual range particularly disappointing.
This issue arises from the differing methods used to measure vehicle range. In the UK, manufacturers must adhere to lab-based tests known as the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) for advertising purposes. However, the range displayed in the vehicle utilizes the testing standards set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which generally results in lower range figures based on real driving conditions. While Tesla’s UK website provides the WLTP figure, the US site displays the EPA range.
According to Steve Huntingford of What Car? magazine, many electric vehicle owners are finding that their cars’ performance falls short of the WLTP figures, creating uncertainty and hesitation among potential buyers.
While I could not definitively determine which testing standard was more reliable, I offered assistance in securing your refund. My involvement revealed that an administrative error was responsible for the lengthy delay, and within a day, you received £10,391. Unfortunately, a £200 discrepancy remained, due to credit card processing fees that were not refundable.
Although Tesla declined to comment, they did propose a goodwill gesture of a £180 voucher redeemable at the Tesla Shop to compensate for the time taken with the refund process.
Miele’s Oven Door Replacement Delays Create Frustration
In May, I discovered that the door of my Miele steam oven had become detached. After removing it for safety, I noticed that the adhesive had failed. Given the oven’s 16-year age, this issue was alarming and posed a potential hazard.
Upon contacting Miele, I was advised to purchase a replacement door, leading me to spend £470 for what I received as only one glass section. After following up again, Miele assured me they would send a complete door, but once more I received only a section of glass.
After reviewing call recordings, Miele acknowledged the mistake and explained that the complete door would cost £780. Despite initially imposing an additional £310 charge, they ultimately agreed to uphold the original price.
Subsequently, over the next month, I received various packages containing different components of the door. When I sought assembly instructions, Miele informed me they could not provide any but offered to send an engineer for a £1,700 charge, which was later reduced to £50 following my complaints. By then, I had been without an oven for four months and reluctantly paid the fee.
Although Miele assured me that an engineer would bring the necessary parts to the appointment, the expected technician failed to show up, and during a follow-up visit, the engineer again did not have the required items and returned all components to the workshop.
By September, when the completed door finally arrived, it was scratched and poorly assembled, falling apart in my hands. I have yet to use my oven after five months, and Miele’s handling of the situation has been unacceptable.
Troubleshooter Commentary
The absurdity of your experience with Miele is hard to comprehend. It was bewildering to receive such a fragmented delivery schedule, almost as if you were unknowingly enrolled in a build-your-own oven program.
The poorly constructed door wasn’t collected until the end of September, and even after Miele rebuilt it, the photos revealed that the same damaged metal component had been utilized.
Once I intervened, Miele issued an apology and committed to rectifying the situation. It took a week for them to reconstruct the door and deliver it to your home. Thankfully, you were able to install it independently. However, this ordeal raises the question: why was the process so convoluted? Miele stated, “Unfortunately mistakes made at the outset, combined with the age of the appliance, availability of the parts, and problems with delivery resulted in an extended repair time, for which we apologise unreservedly.”
While Miele did not charge for the assembly and delivery of the door, I believe additional compensation is warranted for the considerable inconvenience and the five-month absence of your oven from daily use. Miele claimed to have done sufficient in addressing the issue, which may not satisfy you, and I can understand if you now choose to avoid Miele products in the future.
£1,442,777: The total amount saved for readers by Troubleshooter this year.
If you have any financial issues you’d like me to investigate, please reach out via email at [email protected]. Include a contact phone number.