Follow us today…
In today’s fast-changing EV landscape, it’s easy to forget that behind every sales pitch and flashy launches are individual owners who put their trust and savings into a promise of innovation and reliability. For Anne Bishop, that promise came wrapped in the Tesla name. A mother of three and a passionate advocate for sustainable technology in New South Wales, Australia, she believed she was making a smart and future-focused investment when she purchased a Certified Pre-Owned 2015 Tesla Model S in 2018. At nearly $93,000 AUD (or about $61,000 USD), the car was meant to be a once-in-a-lifetime purchase.
Instead, it has led her into a draining battle of breakdowns, mounting repair bills, and now a legal fight with one of the world’s most powerful automakers. Her story is not only about her own ordeal, but it may very well set a precedent for how EV owners pursue their rights against manufacturers unwilling to stand behind their promises.
The Car That Was Supposed to Last a Lifetime
Anne frames the Model S as more than just a car, which speaks to how much it truly hurts when it let her down:
“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. I’d happily kept my little Toyota Echo for almost 15 years, after all. 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.”
But as the years unfolded, the car began to reveal itself not as the flagship EV Tesla promised, but as what an independent expert report prepared for NCAT bluntly called a “lemon,” a sentiment with which two other experts also agreed. Over five and a half years of ownership, Anne endured a series of failures: the media control unit—which manages nearly every aspect of the vehicle including the speedometer—broke down, the battery failed only weeks after purchase and had to be replaced under warranty, door handles stopped working, and most recently, the rear drive motor failed. Up until the major breakdown, all repairs were carried out under warranty, but these were all expensive components that had repeatedly failed.
An Outrageous Repair Bill and Failed Resolutions
The tipping point came in February 2024 when the Model S broke down just two months out of warranty. “The repair bill was outrageous. The initial estimate was $17,000. Ultimately, I paid $8,500 and Tesla covered $10,000.” She also provided invoices and estimates to prove just how financially crushing it was.
Initially, Anne assumed Tesla would honor their word and cover the repairs, since these were parts she had already raised concerns about. But Tesla claimed they could not find the actual fault. For months she emailed and called service managers, asking for internal escalation before eventually involving TOCA and then consumer protection pathways. Like many owners, she tried to resolve the matter without legal escalation, but with no success. She then followed advice from the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and NSW Fair Trading to pursue a claim through NCAT.
At first, she said that she would have been satisfied if Tesla simply paid for the $8,500 in repairs. But once she was forced to take legal action, she sought a partial refund, increasing this to a full refund or replacement after receiving advice from three independent experts who all found the car to be of unacceptable quality and unsafe.
Taking Tesla to Tribunal
Anne commenced proceedings in NCAT on July 3, 2024, and the matter was not heard until September. Armed with expert evidence, she asked the tribunal for a partial refund or, ideally, a replacement vehicle of similar value and type.
“When NCAT ultimately found in my favor and ordered not only a refund of the repair costs but also a complete replacement, after asking the Tesla representative multiple times during the hearing whether they might see fit to provide a replacement vehicle as a suitable outcome to this dispute, I felt tremendously relieved that this entire nightmare would finally come to an end and great sadness that the beautiful luxury car that I’d bought was not in fact what it had been promised to be.”
NCAT’s ruling left little room for doubt. They found that Anne’s Model S had endured a series of major issues affecting critical components, and that any reasonable consumer would have avoided buying the car had they known its true condition. It determined that these problems amounted to a major failure under Australian Consumer Law (ACL), specifically breaching section 54 which requires goods sold in the Australian market to be of acceptable quality, safety, and durability. Under this law Tesla was required to provide a remedy in the form of repair, refund, or replacement.
“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.”
Tesla’s Appeal and “Bully Tactics”
Sadly though, what should have been the end of her ordeal turned into a new beginning. Weeks passed without word from Tesla after NCAT’s ruling, so Anne reached out to negotiate the replacement. Instead of receiving a reply, she was blindsided.
“I never received the courtesy of a response, but a week later a law firm filed a Notice of Appeal with NCAT.”
Tesla’s decision to appeal was crushing.
Advertising
“This was devastating to me as I had also discovered that I was very unexpectedly pregnant. The mental load of having the matter remaining unresolved in a tribunal designed for laypeople to achieve a quick, just, and fair resolution to their disputes, plus having to deal with Tesla’s team of five solicitors including a barrister and an enormously unfamiliar legal process was tremendous.”
This combined with the added burden of having to attend to large amounts of legal correspondence herself and produce even more submissions and responses, while already suffering burnout as the mother of three young children with special needs, was really more than she could bear.
Anne believes Tesla is determined to challenge her not just to avoid this specific outcome, but to block the establishment of wider legal precedents. She points out that the company has assembled a formidable legal team, likely spending more on fees than the amount originally in dispute.
She didn’t mince words about how she views the automaker’s tactics.
“Bully tactics from the world’s largest vehicle manufacturer by market cap are just so wrong. Just because Elon is the richest person in the world presently doesn’t give him the right to behave like this.”
The Hardest Part
When reflecting on the most difficult part of the battle, Anne doesn’t point to the money, but to the mental strain that has been immense. What weighs most heavily on her is the psychological toll of Tesla refusing to acknowledge what was already confirmed—that the car was a lemon. She stresses that under section 54 of Australian Consumer Law, a product with repeated major failures must be remedied through repair, replacement, or refund at the consumer’s choice, yet Tesla continues to resist taking that step.
“The appeal has resulted in a stay of the order, leaving me with no choice but to continue to drive my young family around in a car deemed unsafe by impartial automotive experts and accruing interest on the thousands of dollars I had to borrow to pay the exorbitant repair bill, tribunal filing costs, legal expenses and the independent expert opinion report.”
Standing Up for Principle and Precedent
For Anne, the fight has grown into something larger than her own car. She sees her biggest impact as raising awareness about Tesla’s commercial practices, poor customer service, and breaches of Australian Consumer Law noted by the tribunal. Tesla could have resolved this entire matter by simply covering $8,500 in repairs, yet it has snowballed into a drawn-out legal battle. To her, the issue is no longer about a single faulty vehicle, but about accountability and whether automakers will truly live up to the standards they advertise.
Still Waiting for Resolution
From my perspective, Anne’s story illustrates the collision between consumer trust and corporate power. Tesla has built its reputation on being the vanguard of sustainable mobility, but stories like Anne’s reveal cracks in the narrative, particularly around after-sales support and accountability. What stands out here is not just the technical failures of her Model S, but Tesla’s response of delay, deny, and escalate. Instead of protecting their reputation by swiftly resolving the issue, Tesla risks amplifying doubt among prospective buyers, especially in markets like Australia.
The case also highlights how different consumer protections play out around the world. In the United States, Lemon Laws vary state by state and many EV owners struggle to meet the thresholds for arbitration. In Australia, the ACL provides a clearer pathway for consumers like Anne, but the appeal shows how automakers can still exploit legal complexity to delay outcomes. Anne’s story is not only about her own ordeal, as it may set a precedent for how EV owners in Australia pursue their rights against manufacturers unwilling to stand behind their promises.
Stay Tuned for More Updates
As this case remains unresolved, I plan to stay connected with Anne and follow the outcome closely so readers will know whether Tesla ultimately complies with the tribunal’s ruling and whether justice is finally served.
Key Takeaways
- Tribunal victory: NCAT ruled in Anne Bishop’s favor, ordering Tesla to refund repair costs and replace her Model S.
- Appeal delay: Tesla filed a last-minute appeal, leaving her driving an unsafe car while battling in court.
- Emotional impact: Burnout and caring for three children with special needs have amplified the stress.
- Legal precedent: Her case could set an important benchmark for EV owners under Australian Consumer Law.
Questions for You
Have you ever had to escalate a car dispute beyond the dealership? And would cases like Anne Bishop’s make you hesitate before buying a Tesla?
We’d love to hear your thoughts in our comments below.
Aram Krajekian is a young automotive journalist bringing a fresh perspective to his coverage of the evolving automotive landscape. Follow Aram on X and LinkedIn for daily news coverage about cars.
Image Sources: Aram Krajekian via Anne Bishop.
Follow us today…
Source: torquenews.com
