Exclusive: Tesla escalates battle after tribunal order

News.com.au

26-05-2025

Exclusive
A NSW mum-of-three who won a tribunal hearing that ordered Tesla to replace her $93,000 Model S 'lemon' is still waiting for the vehicle after the electric car giant lodged a last-minute appeal.
Anne Bishop, who is a passionate electric vehicle (EV) supporter, took the car manufacturer to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in September 2024 alleging the 2015 model car she bought through their Tesla Certified Pre-Owned program in 2018 was riddled with faults.
The Tribunal instructed Tesla to refund $6649.79 in repair costs and to supply the customer with a replacement vehicle of similar value and type.
Tesla lodged a last-minute appeal against the ruling.
The appeal is set to be heard on the 14th August 2025.
'When I bought this car, it was intended to be a once in a lifetime extravagance, a purchase designed to safeguard our growing family on the roads at a time when this was most important, and with the intention to keep the car for at least 20 years,' Ms Bishop told news.com.au.
'In February of last year, when the car broke down so comprehensively and inconveniently, two months out of warranty, all I expected was for Tesla to honour their word and pay for the repairs,' the NSW mother said.
After experiencing more than a dozen major failures in the Model S, Ms Bishop escalated her complaints through to the Tesla Owners Club of Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and NSW Fair Trading.
But with no result, she turned to the NCAT.
At the hearing, Ms Bishop sought reimbursement for her $8,500 repair costs (from a total of $17,000), a partial refund, or ideally a replacement vehicle.
Over five and a half years of ownership, Ms Bishop said she experienced breakdowns of the car's media unit, battery failures, door handle malfunctions and, most recently, a rear drive motor failure.
In her complaint, Ms Bishop explained that comments made by Tesla chief executive officer Elon Musk 'regarding the longevity, durability and quality of engineering and manufacturing in Tesla cars' prompted her to purchase the car.
Ms Bishop sourced independent expert opinion as evidence for the NCAT.
In a comment made outside of court, two automotive experts advised Ms Bishop that the car sold to her by Tesla was a 'lemon'.
Both experts stated it was unreliable and unacceptable quality but most importantly unsafe to drive.
'It didn't seem unreasonable to expect a car I was paying close to six figures for, 'certified pre owned' from the manufacturer, that had originally sold for $165,000 and with the kind of promises made by Tesla's CEO, to comfortably exceed the durability of an entry-level car originally worth 1/10th of that price,' Ms Bishop said.
In its ruling, the tribunal found Ms Bishop's vehicle had suffered a 'succession of issues affecting essential components', concluding that a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the car had they known of its condition.
NCAT determined that the issues constituted a 'major failure' under Australia Consumer Law.
'The bottom line is that the applicant is left with a Vehicle which has, over the period of ownership, been unreliable and has suffered an ongoing series of faults to expensive components,' NCAT said in its ruling.
Ms Bishop said she initially felt 'tremendously relieved that this entire nightmare' was finally over.
'I also felt justified in seeing the matter through, not only due to financial necessity, but also by now as a matter of principle and to set a precedent for other Tesla owners dissatisfied with poor quality and poor service.' Ms Bishop said.
Tesla argued that repairs were conducted under warranty where possible and noted that some failures occurred after warranty expiration.
However, NCAT found that the list of issues justified a solution beyond warranty terms under consumer guarantee rights.
At the hearing, Ms Bishop, who has remained supportive of electric vehicles, indicated that she preferred a replacement vehicle rather than a full refund.
Tesla was ordered to replace the vehicle but the auto giant lodged a last-minute appeal.
'When several weeks had passed with no word from Tesla after receiving the order from NCAT, I emailed them, in the hopes of negotiating the details necessary to finalise the matter in accordance with the order,' Ms Bishop said.
'I never received the courtesy of a response, but a week later a law firm filed a Notice of Appeal with NCAT.'
The matter remains unresolved.