FOS Decision Upheld Electric Vehicle

acev88

Summary extract

I’ve thought about the complaint as a whole. Mr R is complaining the car isn’t achieving the range he was led to believe, or that it should be when taking into account the information he’s been given from various parties. Mr R is well aware he’d not achieve the range that is advertised which is carried out in laboratory conditions. But he’s also put forward compelling arguments that indicate there could be some sort of problem with the range he’s actually managing to achieve. He’s sought help from the supplying dealer; the manufacturer; and VWFS. He’s supplied driving statistics he downloaded from the car from February 2021 to September 2023. He’s given us various details of the range he managed to achieve on a substantial number of trips. I can’t clearly answer his concerns by saying electric car ranges vary, and that they can be impacted by things like temperature; other electrical items being used; and driving style for example. It’s also not clear I can answer the complaint by simply saying batteries degrade over time. After checking how to calculate the range, Mr R resets the trip computer and takes the actual figures for the journey to see how the car is performing. So, as far as I know, these figures aren’t affected by other things such as the weather and the other electrics used because the figures are the actual efficiency rating that’s been confirmed for the trip. And there consistently seems to be a deficit. While the deficit is generally around 10%, from what I’ve seen, combined with not being able to use the full capacity of the battery, the deficit in range begins to add up and become more substantial. Moreover, VWFS said the supplying dealer achieved a range of 170 miles, but I’ve not seen this anywhere in the inspections or documentations. It doesn’t seem correct.

When putting everything together, on balance, I don’t think Mr R was adequately informed about the real-life range he’d be able to achieve. He ought to have been clearly informed that the range is based on the usable battery, and that the battery would not perform the same if it was new (if that’s the cause of the reduction in range). He complained within a couple of days of being supplied the car. Had he been adequately informed I don’t think he’d have acquired the car. That in itself would be sufficient to uphold the complaint. But in addition to that, there’s also evidence there are faults with the car. There have been repairs carried out. And Mr R says there’s still fault codes present. He’s also supplied evidence that some of those faults may affect range and/or performance. I don’t think the reasonable person would have expected those sorts of faults within the first year or so of acquisition given the car [was around] two years old when it was supplied, it had only covered around 23,600 miles and it cost more than £41,000. So in addition to being misled prior to entering into the agreement, there could be grounds to say Mr R has a valid right to seek rejection as well. Once again, I appreciate some of these issues manifested after VWFS sent its initial final response letter, but it seems practicable to consider everything under this complaint, rather than direct Mr R to raise further complaints. And for the reasons I’ve given, I think there are grounds to uphold the complaint, even based on what happened leading up to the first final response because the events happened at the point of supply.

On balance, I think Mr R wasn’t adequately informed about the range he’d be able to achieve, there are unresolved faults with the car some of which might be impacting the range, or there could be a combination of both of those things.

ThorOdinson

2.3mi/kWh certainly sounds broken. It should be getting twice that. Even on motorways that's way too low.

Definitely some sort of fault. Maybe multiple faults.

acev88

Volt(e)-face! How motorist took on electric car giant… and won https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13383187/Volt-e-face-motorist-took-electric-car-giant-won.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

born_again

ThorOdinson said:

2.3mi/kWh certainly sounds broken. It should be getting twice that. Even on motorways that's way too low.

Definitely some sort of fault. Maybe multiple faults.

Depends on how you drive it...

WellKnownSid

born_again said:

ThorOdinson said:

2.3mi/kWh certainly sounds broken. It should be getting twice that. Even on motorways that's way too low.

Definitely some sort of fault. Maybe multiple faults.

Depends on how you drive it...

I think I would struggle to achieve that leaving the handbrake on!

born_again

WellKnownSid said:

born_again said:

ThorOdinson said:

2.3mi/kWh certainly sounds broken. It should be getting twice that. Even on motorways that's way too low.

Definitely some sort of fault. Maybe multiple faults.

Depends on how you drive it...

I think I would struggle to achieve that leaving the handbrake on!

Driving it like you stole it would have the same effect. Speeding on a M/Way would also be a killer. 

https://www.e-tronforum.com/threads/new-to-e-tron-whats-the-real-m-kwh.1850/

Seems E-Tron owners are getting the same or lower..

ThorOdinson

I take it back. The Etron has class leading inefficiency. It's unbelievably bad, actually impressive that Audi managed to make something that terrible.

For any other car that would be broken, for Audi... Well, try looking up what Etron means in French to see why they named it that.