Nissan Leaf Electrical problems by year

identify the exact fault. The dealer refuses to perform the 20-25 mile drive cycle and code check that Nissan's own recall remedy requires, citing vibration from a failed motor mount, and instead demands $1,100 from me for a teardown to determine whether the failure is recall-related. The dealer also withholds the diagnostic trouble code unless I pay a $350 diagnostic fee, although the DTC check is part of the free recall remedy. The dealer requires pickup by Tuesday [redacted] or a $250 storage fee applies. I am asking NHTSA to record a failure to provide the recall remedy: direct the dealer to complete the drive cycle / DTC check, or authorize and pay for the teardown, and release the DTC. The car is drivable - dealer staff drove it on the lot Nov 6. Buyback floor: I will accept a repurchase only at $6,500 or more. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

created a serious rear-end collision risk. This is my [[redacted]] daughter's daily driver, and I am concerned about a novice driver experiencing the same failure. An immediate independent diagnostic scan showed P33ED-00 (HV Battery Parallel Diagnosis), P3180-97 and P317E-97. Battery telemetry showed SOH 88.51% and Hx 57.24%. I request investigation into whether a battery defect and/or the recall software caused this highway propulsion loss. These readings have not yet been evaluated by a Nissan dealer. On [redacted], Nissan Consumer Affairs/Roadside Assistance agents and supervisors refused complimentary towing from our residence, stating they would not accept third-party diagnostics and required dealer evaluation first. We were told to pay for towing or arrange transport ourselves. The vehicle remains at home with unresolved battery safety concerns. My daughter has lost her transportation; rental/loaner age restrictions prevent her from using a replacement. We still owe $12,158.09 on a vehicle that can not be driven because of a safety recall. I request NHTSA investigate the propulsion failure, adequacy of the R24B2 remedy and Nissan's refusal of towing assistance. I request Nissan provide safe flatbed transport, a permanent remedy and a vehicle buyback resolving the outstanding financing. Diagnostic records and recall service documentation are available. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

service consultant dismissed the warning as a scare tactic from that specific location, said they couldn't consider taking the car back unless we tried the recall repairs, and sent us to a different "partnered" Nissan dealer. On 10/21/2026, that dealership location recommended the LBC/VCM recall reprogramming, kept the vehicle eight hours, and released it as repaired and drivable. Less than 24 hours later, on 10/22/2026, while driving on the highway in heavy rain in moving traffic, the battery failed with [Warning, Service EV System, Power Reduced]. The vehicle was towed to the dealership on 10/23/2026, where the dealer confirmed the EV battery failed, the vehicle cannot be operated without a battery replacement, and batteries are unavailable nationwide. The vehicle has remained at Nissan since. Safety risk: sudden, complete loss of propulsion on a highway in rain creates an immediate crash and injury risk to occupants and surrounding drivers. The failure occurred one day after the recall remedy was completed and the vehicle was released as repaired, indicating the remedy process can leave affected vehicles in an unsafe state on the road. The recall at issue concerns battery cells prone to rapid heating and fire during Level 3 charging, so this vehicle carried an active fire risk as well. The manufacturer has since initiated a vehicle repurchase. The recall bulletin promises a complimentary rental during the remedy process. No rental was ever provided.

then as I had been napping in my vehicle with my dog. At the dealership, service dept said my battery failed the post update test; sent me home in (ice) loaner car; said Nissan will reach out within a few days. Finally receive call [redacted] from [[redacted]] on behalf of Nissan North America; received 1st buyback email "offer" Sept 4, 2026 nearly a month after my car was deemed inoperable (this was a Friday at 4:59pm at the start of a major holiday weekend). They requested I pay them $9,411.11 so they can recover title from lender; same unchanged offer [redacted] after "escalation" review. A down payment + over 4 yrs of never missed consecutive payments - $33,000 later - and they are requesting I pay them because of a manufacturing defect which I didn't cause and had no control over. I was planning to drive it another 115K miles +. I want a FAIR resolution - on an inflated asset with Extreme depreciation due to a manufacturing defect and mandated recall. Nissan has not provided a warranty covered battery replacement to get my car running in a 'timely manor'. This [[redacted]]/old consumer is being treated UNfairly. ALL supporting documentation is organized, verifiable and securely filed. Any attorneys out there want to help ? INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

research, there is a recall out for 2019-2022 Nissan leafs with possible fire related issues because of the batteries and the P33ED code that i am getting is directly related to this recall. I believe I have a recalled battery in my vehicle but Nissan won't offer any assistance because my VIN isn't necessarily recalled. I feel unsafe to charge or operate this car, especially under any type of speed or load and Nissan is offering no assistance in repairing the vehicle or even verifying the battery manufacturer date.

really cold days, but not nearly as bad so i lived with it. At about 100k miles, it started doing a very similar issue, but way worse, and at any temperature. It got so bad i couldn't drive without the battery always being fully charged. Took it to the first dealer who said nothing is wrong with it even though i had videos of it happening. I then called nissan corporate and opened up a case and asked them directly "before i take it to another dealer for a second opinion, is this something that you can offer financial assistance with" and that lady said "yes, we can offer assistance for sure". I took it to another dealer who did some tests and confirmed it needed a battery. Shortly after that, the car now shuts down under even a slight load. A small backroad hill will shut it down and I get an error code P33ED now. This code is related to a battery recall on 2019- 2022 models that can cause a battery fire! After almost 2 months of nissan saying they didn't have the part available, they just informed me they won't offer any assistance because im out of warranty! Not only did i have the battery replaced once, but it has already failed a second time, and they installed a battery that is now recalled but wont honor the recall because my vin is a 2018. I am beyond frustrated with their lack of care about my families safety since this could catch fire! I am hoping to reach out to you for some additional guidance on this situation. Thank you.

replace the defective battery. A few weeks after this safety incident, a national safety recall was officially issued regarding Nissan Leaf high-voltage battery defects and fire risks during fast charging. Approximately two years later, I received an official letter from Nissan offering a vehicle buyback due to the recall and lack of replacement parts. I spent three months actively working with a Nissan corporate representative to finalize the buyback paperwork. However, with the claim nearly complete, Nissan abruptly closed the case without resolution and transferred it to a third-party administrator, [[redacted]], forcing me to restart the entire process from the beginning. [[redacted]] has completely ignored all communications and has failed to respond or advance the claim for over a month. Safety Risk & Request for Action: The vehicle experienced a severe thermal event (overheating and physical expansion) during normal operation at an authorized charging station, presenting an immediate fire and explosion hazard. To date, the vehicle has been disabled and unrepairable for over two years. Nissan has failed to provide a timely remedy under the federal safety recall, and their administrative handling has unreasonably delayed removing this hazardous vehicle/component from circulation. I am requesting NHTSA intervention to hold Nissan accountable for executing their recall remedy and resolving this safety claim immediately. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

time. A representative of Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake also advised me that I could ignore the safety warnings, not have the recall remedy performed, and drive the vehicle through the desert anyway. This was particularly concerning because the recall restricted the vehicle's use of Level 3/CHAdeMO quick charging pending completion of the remedy, affecting my ability to safely use the vehicle for a planned interstate relocation. After I escalated the matter to Nissan Consumer Affairs, Nissan told me that Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake had said it declined to perform the remedy because of a time constraint. That account conflicts with what the dealer told me directly. I asked the dealer to perform the remedy before I mentioned my move or any timeline, and the dealer instead explained that it did not want to perform the remedy because it could leave the vehicle in reduced-power mode or non-drivable while replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. I then obtained an appointment at [[redacted]] Nissan of Murray on [redacted], for the R24B2 recall remedy. I will provide the final repair order, diagnostic codes, and outcome when available. My safety concern is not solely that an open recall exists. An authorized dealer declined to perform the prescribed recall remedy because it said the procedure could immobilize the vehicle, while Nissan later relayed a materially different explanation for the dealer's refusal. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

rental coverage while the vehicle is grounded for this safety recall. Nissan verbally denied the request on [redacted] and refused to put the denial in writing. I have no transportation. Nissan provided rental cars to owners in its [redacted] Leaf battery recall until repairs were complete, but refuses the same here. I ask NHTSA to intervene: (1) compel completion of the recall remedy, and (2) require Nissan to provide alternate transportation while the vehicle is grounded for a safety recall its own procedure failed to remedy. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

defective release letter, stalling the process for over a month. Separately, Nissan's own repurchase letter promised a courtesy rental vehicle for up to 30 days during the process, which was never provided despite requesting. They are also refusing to lock in their repurchase price so every day of their delay is benefiting them while costing me. I am raising this because the recall remedy process itself - not just the underlying defect - has been mishandled, leaving an affected consumer without a resolution or a functioning vehicle for an extended period.

environmental cost (mining, manufacturing, disposal) for a risk tied specifically to Level 3 charging, not to driving the car. I'd ask the agency to consider whether the remedy framework (repair/replace/refund-less-depreciation under 49 U.S.C. §30120, or Canada's equivalent) should allow a fourth, owner-consented option: permanent, verifiable disabling of DC fast-charging (physical connector removal, tamper-evident hardware, disclosed on the vehicle's title/history) in exchange for a smaller cash settlement - no battery replacement, no buyback, for owners who accept this in writing. There's precedent for this working in the used-vehicle market already: lemon-law and flood-damage titles both flag a documented condition change so future buyers can price it in, without requiring the vehicle be destroyed. This would function the same way - a documented manufacturer-owner agreement at a middle ground, rather than a binary full-remedy-or-buyback choice. This would let owners with healthy batteries keep driving, reduce prematurely retired EV packs, and likely cost manufacturers less than replacement or repurchase, while still eliminating the defect condition. I'd ask this be considered for Nissan's remedy program here, and as a standing option for future mode-specific recalls.