Class action filed Sept 25 against Porsche

[Ian M]

In same boat here in Scotland. 22kw just failed, they've installed an 11kw downgrade without even consulting me! I've been offered I think £1200 compensation, but haven't accepted this yet as I think they're in breach of contract with this downgrade with no imminent solution.
I went to the expense and hassle of getting three phase into my house so it's rather frustrating having to double my charge time. I've asked when the 22kw will be available again and will keep you posted. Cheers

Sponsored

 

[Redbaron73]

In same boat here in Scotland. 22kw just failed, they've installed an 11kw downgrade without even consulting me! I've been offered I think £1200 compensation, but haven't accepted this yet as I think they're in breach of contract with this downgrade with no imminent solution.
I went to the expense and hassle of getting three phase into my house so it's rather frustrating having to double my charge time. I've asked when the 22kw will be available again and will keep you posted. Cheers

Not looking for an argument as I would if it was an option have 3 phase at home too for non ev reasons - but in terms of car charging do you have a specific requirement to charge that fast? Or is it "because you can"?

 

[Ian M]

Basically got it as I've got a wife and two kids at home who will soon be driving. Figured it would save us all fighting for the charger so much when we're all needing to charge cars. I'm also planning to switch my diesel van to the new Kia PV5, so there's another EV on the driveway!

 

[69Mach390]

I've asked when the 22kw will be available again and will keep you posted. Cheers

From what I’ve read, it won’t be available. Because of all the failures, they stopped using it.

Maybe you could ask for more money?

 

[D00notD00d]

Is consumer legislation rejection an option?
If yours is a j1.1, would upgrading to a j1.2 give faster charging?

 

[Ian M]

I'm sure they will argue otherwise but the 22kw charger was an essential element of my purchase so if they are unable to fulfil that, it's a breach of contract. I bought the car through my company so hopefully if they can't replace the 22kw charger then they'll have to reimburse or pay more damages. I'll see what they say, the parts might appear eventually or maybe I'll get a decent trade in deal. Quite fancy a Cayenne Hybrid.

 

[69Mach390]

I'm sure they will argue otherwise but the 22kw charger was an essential element of my purchase so if they are unable to fulfil that, it's a breach of contract. I bought the car through my company so hopefully if they can't replace the 22kw charger then they'll have to reimburse or pay more damages. I'll see what they say, the parts might appear eventually or maybe I'll get a decent trade in deal. Quite fancy a Cayenne Hybrid.

You say “breach of contract,” but this is hardly the first time a part has changed or no longer become available for various reasons.

I would bet there is plenty of fine print in the warranty contract that protects the manufacturer in these situations. They’re offering compensation because it’s the right thing to do for client satisfaction.

The dealer would gladly trade your car in on a new one, but you won’t get full price or anything.

You can ask for money. I think it would be reasonable to ask for the full price of the option back.

 

[whitex]

You say “breach of contract,” but this is hardly the first time a part has changed or no longer become available for various reasons.

I would bet there is plenty of fine print in the warranty contract that protects the manufacturer in these situations. They’re offering compensation because it’s the right thing to do for client satisfaction.

The dealer would gladly trade your car in on a new one, but you won’t get full price or anything.

You can ask for money. I think it would be reasonable to ask for the full price of the option back.

I respectfully disagree. Imagine if someone bought a 911 Turbo and during a warranty repair they fitted the car with a 4 cylinder engine producing half the horsepower because they discontinued that particular V6. What if Porsche offered the difference in price between the two engines as compensation, would you think that is fair? What if they Porsche disabled PDCC for example because they don't want to service it anymore, are they just on the hook for the price of the option (and what if that option was part of a package)? Are those examples any different than offering an OBC with half the original specification performance?

Different people have different use cases. Some may not care about higher charging performance, just like some don't care about higher engine power, or better handling. You could even argue that a lot of 911 Turbo owners don't even use the full power of their engines - does that justify Porsche taking it away just because they don't want to continue to support it?

In my case a half performance OBC does not meet my usecase. Even though I need the higher charging only 1-3 times a year, because the can cannot handle back-to-back drives to the airport during holidays, the faster AC charging solves the problem. As a matter of fact it also came in handy on a recent road trip where I encountered 80A charger - it halved my charging time, so I didn't have to wait up till 3am to unplug the car, so that others could use it. Half performance Taycan simply does not meet the needs I bought it for. Sure, there may be some compromise I would be willing to make, like Porsche installing a triple 20kW DC charger in my garage (to replace the triple 19.2kW EVSEs there now - all our EV's can charge at 19.2kW, it was one of the purchase choice criteria) and give me a J1.2 battery with unlocked higher capacity to offset most of my home and on-the-road usecases, but just the cost of the upgrade doesn't come close. Since all of my EV's since 2013 have had 19.2kW 80A charging, I could argue I would not have purchased the Taycan had it not that that option - does that mean Porsche owes me the full price I paid for the car, since to me the entire car was the option I chose? It was a custom build, for which I waited 20 months, one reason being I couldn't find one matching my spec in inventory, so I chose to not buy a car with lower performance OBC for example.

Bottom line is that the warranty they sold me says they will repair the car back to the original specification, and if they cannot do that, they are in fact in breach of said warranty. A sob story of "we decided to discontinue the part to optimize our costs" would like the customer who told Porsche Financing that they will be paying monthly payments in Taiwan dollars instead of US dollars, same amount though, to optimize customer's costs.

All that said, all owners are free to accept whatever deal they are comfortable with for Porsche taking away any part of the original car's capabilities.

 

[Redbaron73]

I suspect they would argue your use case is niche. But good luck with it anyway. If you want a less stressful approach to life would using the credit offered to fit a second 7.4 charger on one phase at home help you mitigate multiple ev’s needing charge?

Given there are so few that do 22 anyway - unless you have multiple Tesla. I manage with 2 ev’s and a single charger - though these days it’s more of a “cheap slots” issue than a physical lack of charge speed….

Or I spend a lot on upgrading inverter and battery storage…. But that’s a dark dark path

 

[whitex]

I suspect they would argue your use case is niche.

I think every Porsche's owner's usecase is niche. NOBODY needs a Porsche, because they couldn't manage to get places with another car.

But good luck with it anyway. If you want a less stressful approach to life would using the credit offered to fit a second 7.4 charger on one phase at home help you mitigate multiple ev’s needing charge?

Given there are so few that do 22 anyway - unless you have multiple Tesla. I manage with 2 ev’s and a single charger - though these days it’s more of a “cheap slots” issue than a physical lack of charge speed….

Or I spend a lot on upgrading inverter and battery storage…. But that’s a dark dark path

I already have three 19.2kW EVSEs in my garage, though only 2 EV's which regularly use them (each capable of 19.2kW charging, as was my previous car). The conversation cannot be about what one could manage with, I could manage (and it would be cheaper too) with a single Toyota Corolla, so what? It wouldn't excuse Porsche swapping Corollas for Porsches as part of warranty repair. Porsche could also manage to give me a free brand new, fully loaded Cayenne EV Turbo or a 911 GT3 RS as compensation, again, so what? What one party can mange with is irrelevant. People pay Porsche premium prices, they expect premium products, not a bare minimum that the customer can manage to get to work in. They are on the hook to deliver what they sold, just like customers are on the hook to pay what they agreed to pay, regardless if they lose their jobs or the car depreciates too fast. As soon as you accept "oh, you can manage with less", Porsche needs to accept that when people start paying partial payments for the leases, because you know, Porsche can manage with less money.

 

[Redbaron73]

I think every Porsche's owner's usecase is niche. NOBODY needs a Porsche, because they couldn't manage to get places with another car.


I already have three 19.2kW EVSEs in my garage, though only 2 EV's which regularly use them (each capable of 19.2kW charging, as was my previous car). The conversation cannot be about what one could manage with, I could manage (and it would be cheaper too) with a single Toyota Corolla, so what? It wouldn't excuse Porsche swapping Corollas for Porsches as part of warranty repair. Porsche could also manage to give me a free brand new, fully loaded Cayenne EV Turbo or a 911 GR3 RS as compensation, again, so what? What one party can mange with is irrelevant. People pay Porsche premium prices, they expect premium products, not a bare minimum that the customer can manage to get to work in. They are on the hook to deliver what they sold, just like customers are on the hook to pay what they agreed to pay, regardless if they lose their jobs or the car depreciates too fast. As soon as you accept "oh, you can manage with less", Porsche needs to accept that when people start paying partial payments for the leases, because you know, Porsche can manage with less money.

But this is the UK. Not the US. Less than 1% of residential has 3 phase. I would love to have 2 x 3 phase chargers but the UK grid is a nightmare - to get what you have is near impossible here.

 

[Dee]

It's pretty simple.
Three choices:
1. You'll get the same faulty part again with all the stress and trouble again cuz you want a 22kW OBC.
2. You won't get a replacement and can't charge the car anymore.
3. You'll get a reliable 11 kW OBC so you can charge your car without any stress or trouble any longer like I've been doing for 6 years.

What's so difficult here?

 

[69Mach390]

I respectfully disagree. Imagine if someone bought a 911 Turbo and during a warranty repair they fitted the car with a 4 cylinder engine producing half the horsepower because they discontinued that particular V6. What if Porsche offered the difference in price between the two engines as compensation, would you think that is fair? What if they Porsche disabled PDCC for example because they don't want to service it anymore, are they just on the hook for the price of the option (and what if that option was part of a package)? Are those examples any different than offering an OBC with half the original specification performance?

Different people have different use cases. Some may not care about higher charging performance, just like some don't care about higher engine power, or better handling. You could even argue that a lot of 911 Turbo owners don't even use the full power of their engines - does that justify Porsche taking it away just because they don't want to continue to support it?

In my case a half performance OBC does not meet my usecase. Even though I need the higher charging only 1-3 times a year, because the can cannot handle back-to-back drives to the airport during holidays, the faster AC charging solves the problem. As a matter of fact it also came in handy on a recent road trip where I encountered 80A charger - it halved my charging time, so I didn't have to wait up till 3am to unplug the car, so that others could use it. Half performance Taycan simply does not meet the needs I bought it for. Sure, there may be some compromise I would be willing to make, like Porsche installing a triple 20kW DC charger in my garage (to replace the triple 19.2kW EVSEs there now - all our EV's can charge at 19.2kW, it was one of the purchase choice criteria) and give me a J1.2 battery with unlocked higher capacity to offset most of my home and on-the-road usecases, but just the cost of the upgrade doesn't come close. Since all of my EV's since 2013 have had 19.2kW 80A charging, I could argue I would not have purchased the Taycan had it not that that option - does that mean Porsche owes me the full price I paid for the car, since to me the entire car was the option I chose? It was a custom build, for which I waited 20 months, one reason being I couldn't find one matching my spec in inventory, so I chose to not buy a car with lower performance OBC for example.

Bottom line is that the warranty they sold me says they will repair the car back to the original specification, and if they cannot do that, they are in fact in breach of said warranty. A sob story of "we decided to discontinue the part to optimize our costs" would like the customer who told Porsche Financing that they will be paying monthly payments in Taiwan dollars instead of US dollars, same amount though, to optimize customer's costs.

All that said, all owners are free to accept whatever deal they are comfortable with for Porsche taking away any part of the original car's capabilities.

Where does the warranty state they will repair the car “back to original specifications?”

I’ve read through a lot of warranty contracts and haven’t seen that language for this exact reason.

Those contracts are written by the manufacturers to protect the manufacturer.

Other laws (like lemon law and Magnuson-moss act) are written to protect the consumer. But I don’t think those apply here and not in the UK.

From a Google search:


If a car manufacturer discontinues a part needed for a warranty claim,
they will typically source aftermarket, refurbished, or used parts to complete the repair. If the part is unavailable and the vehicle cannot be fixed, the warranty provider may offer a cash settlement for the market value of the repair or, in extreme cases, declare the vehicle totaled.
Key Outcomes for Discontinued Parts:

• Alternative Parts: The warranty company often uses aftermarket or "junkyard" parts to fulfill the repair obligation.
• Cash Settlement: If the part cannot be sourced, the company may pay the fair market value of the repair.
• Repair Delays: A lack of parts can lead to long repair times. If the car is out of service for an extended period, you might explore state "lemon laws" for potential buybacks.
• Policy Terms: Always check your specific warranty contract, as it will outline the manufacturer's obligations when original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts are no longer available.

 

[Fish Fingers]

I respectfully disagree. Imagine if someone bought a 911 Turbo and during a warranty repair they fitted the car with a 4 cylinder engine producing half the horsepower because they discontinued that particular V6. What if Porsche offered the difference in price between the two engines as compensation, would you think that is fair? What if they Porsche disabled PDCC for example because they don't want to service it anymore, are they just on the hook for the price of the option (and what if that option was part of a package)? Are those examples any different than offering an OBC with half the original specification performance?

Different people have different use cases. Some may not care about higher charging performance, just like some don't care about higher engine power, or better handling. You could even argue that a lot of 911 Turbo owners don't even use the full power of their engines - does that justify Porsche taking it away just because they don't want to continue to support it?

In my case a half performance OBC does not meet my usecase. Even though I need the higher charging only 1-3 times a year, because the can cannot handle back-to-back drives to the airport during holidays, the faster AC charging solves the problem. As a matter of fact it also came in handy on a recent road trip where I encountered 80A charger - it halved my charging time, so I didn't have to wait up till 3am to unplug the car, so that others could use it. Half performance Taycan simply does not meet the needs I bought it for. Sure, there may be some compromise I would be willing to make, like Porsche installing a triple 20kW DC charger in my garage (to replace the triple 19.2kW EVSEs there now - all our EV's can charge at 19.2kW, it was one of the purchase choice criteria) and give me a J1.2 battery with unlocked higher capacity to offset most of my home and on-the-road usecases, but just the cost of the upgrade doesn't come close. Since all of my EV's since 2013 have had 19.2kW 80A charging, I could argue I would not have purchased the Taycan had it not that that option - does that mean Porsche owes me the full price I paid for the car, since to me the entire car was the option I chose? It was a custom build, for which I waited 20 months, one reason being I couldn't find one matching my spec in inventory, so I chose to not buy a car with lower performance OBC for example.

Bottom line is that the warranty they sold me says they will repair the car back to the original specification, and if they cannot do that, they are in fact in breach of said warranty. A sob story of "we decided to discontinue the part to optimize our costs" would like the customer who told Porsche Financing that they will be paying monthly payments in Taiwan dollars instead of US dollars, same amount though, to optimize customer's costs.

All that said, all owners are free to accept whatever deal they are comfortable with for Porsche taking away any part of the original car's capabilities.

I agree with you completely.

However, if they don't play ball, its ultimately if you decide to pursue things through the courts.

Which often means, who has the deepest pockets / blinks first (unfortunately).

 

[whitex]

Where does the warranty state they will repair the car “back to original specifications?”

I’ve read through a lot of warranty contracts and haven’t seen that language for this exact reason.

Try to claim Porsche warranty after repairing your car not to manufacturer specifications, they will tell you that they don't honor warranty if the car was not repaired to manufacturer's specifications. In other words, in order to keep warranty you have to repair the car back to at least manufacturer specifications. They use this reasoning whenever justifying why insurance should be paying for Porsche certified repair shops. Do you think they would be willing to say in court that Porsche don't need to be repaired back to Porsche specifications, i.e. they will not void any warranties, even if you pay some backwoods shop to repair your Porsche to half the specs (say suspension to half the rated strength, or battery wiring with half the ampacity)? Insurance companies would love such an official declaration from Porsche.

Sponsored