2019 Nissan Leaf

My vehicle is subject to open NHTSA Recall 24V-700 (Nissan internal R24B2), for excessive lithium deposits in HV battery cells causing rapid heating during Level 3 DC fast charging, with a stated fire risk. At approximately 112,000 miles, my vehicle displayed the warning "Service EV System. Unable to restart after power off." I brought the vehicle to Dublin Nissan Service Department on July 2, 2026, where the dealer diagnosed a leak in the HV battery cells consistent with the defect described in Recall 24V-700. On July 20, 2026, I received a diagnostic estimate quoting me $5,162.23 for battery and $2,999.99 for the accessory/parts — charged to me as a customer-pay repair — along with a stated wait of 3-4 months for battery availability. This directly contradicts Nissan's own published remedy for Recall 24V-700, which states: "If a particular DTC for the EV battery is generated, the vehicle cannot be operated without a battery replacement... this repair will be performed free of charge for parts and labor... Nissan will provide a complimentary rental vehicle." The recall further states that if the dealer cannot obtain a battery, Nissan will contact the customer within 3 business days to offer repurchase above Kelley Blue Book private-party value. I contacted Nissan Consumer Affairs, who refused to authorize a free battery replacement and refused to consider repurchase, stating I did not qualify because I purchased the vehicle from a third-party dealer rather than a Nissan dealer. Nothing in the official recall remedy language conditions the free replacement or repurchase offer on where the vehicle was purchased. I am requesting NHTSA's assistance in ensuring Nissan honors the free-of-charge battery replacement and/or repurchase remedy as stated in its own recall documentation for Recall 24V-700.

The vehicle failed on XXX ("Service EV System / Unable to restart") and was towed to ABC Nissan, [XXX], where it has remained since (18 days as of this filing). On XXX dealer confirmed HV battery requires warranty replacement, stated that replacement batteries are backordered approx six months, with no loaner was available, and directed us to Nissan's repurchase process. Nissan's filed recall remedy promises a free replacement battery or, where unavailable, a repurchase offer above KBB private-party value initiated within three business days plus complimentary rental vehicle in either situation. No rental has been provided. Dealer confirmed non-availability in writing on 8/8, and we have self-funded a rental ($712 so far as of XXX) after Nissan's own representative recommended on XXX that we keep it. On XXX, Nissan verbally indicated the repurchase was declined because the dealership is "repairing" the vehicle. On XXX, dealership's service dept confirmed that the replacement battery has no arrival estimate and that it has discontinued providing rentals entirely and advised that the resolution must come from Nissan. Nissan's position appears to be that it will not repair on any known schedule, will not repurchase, and will not provide the rental its own filed remedy promises. We have requested reimbursement for incurred rental expenses and a "make whole" buyback at $18,000 which covers the full cost of an equivalent replacement vehicle including tax and licenses. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

My 2019 Nissan Leaf is currently grounded at Dublin Nissan with leaking battery cells caused by thermal distress from open Safety Recall R24B2. Nissan Consumer Affairs has refused to buy back or repair the vehicle because it has past the 100,000-mile mark, leaving me with an unresolvable, hazardous vehicle that has no available manufacturer remedy.

The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notifications of NHTSA Campaign Numbers: 24V700000 (Electrical System), 24V071000 (Back Over Prevention), and 23V494000 (Vehicle Speed Control); however, the parts to do the recall repairs were not yet available. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that while her husband was driving at an undisclosed speed, the battery level dropped from 100% to zero, causing the vehicle to lose motive power. There were several unknown warning lights illuminated. The vehicle was towed to the residence, where the battery was replaced; however, the failure recurred, and the vehicle was towed back to the residence. The dealer was made aware of the failure but confirmed that parts were not yet available. The vehicle was not repaired. The manufacturer was not made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 30,000.

The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received a notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System); however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The contact stated that while attempting to start the vehicle by pressing the Push-To-Start button, the engine failed to turn over, and no electrical features were available. The vehicle was towed to the local dealer, where it was diagnosed with needing a battery module replacement. The vehicle was not repaired due to the out-of-pocket cost. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 90,000.

This vehicle experienced an EV system power failure and low battery message. The manufacturer has diagnosed a covered warranty battery defect but has refused to repair the vehicle citing supply constraints. They are using their parts shortage to pressure a [XXX] senior citizen on a fixed income in an inadequate cash buyback that leaves her stranded without transportation. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

My 2019 Nissan Leaf SL Plus is subject to NHTSA Recall 24V-700 for a battery defect that poses a fire risk during DC fast charging. The recall was issued in September 2024 with a fix promised by November 2024. Nissan repeatedly delayed the remedy, first to Spring 2025, then Q3 2025, then March 2026, then an indefinite date in 2026. During this time I was instructed not to use Level 3 DC fast charging. I was without this capability for approximately 18 months. I purchased the SL Plus specifically for the extended range provided by the 62 kWh battery, which depends on fast charging for longer trips. Without fast charging the vehicle was reduced to short-range local use only. The remedy Nissan eventually provided was a software update only. It does not repair the underlying battery defect; excessive lithium deposits within battery cells causing increased electrical resistance. The software monitors for conditions that could lead to a thermal event and shuts down charging if detected. The physical defect remains in the battery. Nissan included a letter with the software update stating that if the vehicle triggers a specific error code within one year of the update, they would replace the battery or buy back the vehicle. This suggests Nissan acknowledges the software update does not adequately address the defect. I am filing this complaint because the recall remedy does not fix the root cause of the safety defect, and because Nissan took 18 months to provide even this inadequate remedy. The component is the lithium-ion battery pack and it is available for inspection.

I am filing a complaint regarding NHTSA Recall 24V-700 (R24B2) for my 2019 Nissan LEAF S Plus, VIN: [XXX], Nissan Case No. XXX. I complied fully with Nissan's recall instructions, avoiding Level 3 fast charging for my entire ownership. On or about April 23, I filed a complaint with Nissan Consumer Affairs (Case #XXX) regarding the impact of the charging restriction on my vehicle's usability and requested a buyback. Nissan denied my claim approximately two months ago. I then surrendered my vehicle for the recall repair. The dealer returned it, stating the recall was remedied. Over the following three days, I drove only short local trips with minimal driving — no fast charging. The vehicle lurched violently on a public road, entered turtle mode, and displayed multiple dashboard warning lights. I drove it slowly to the dealership. My dealer confirmed full battery replacement is required and submitted a Goodwill Warranty claim on my behalf — acknowledging this failure was not due to owner misuse. Nissan North America (Case No. XXX) has since informed me in writing that battery replacement cannot be provided and is now offering repurchase. The battery failure occurred directly after Nissan's purported recall repair with minimal driving. Nissan claimed the defect was fixed — it was not. I am concerned the KBB value Nissan intends to use may be artificially suppressed by five open safety recalls, including 24V-700, and the vehicle's current non-operational status — caused entirely by Nissan's defective repair. I request NHTSA scrutinize Nissan's repurchase valuation methodology for affected owners. I request NHTSA investigate Nissan's failure to remedy this recall. My preferred remedy remains battery replacement. I should not bear the financial consequences of a repair Nissan certified as complete. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System). The contact stated that while driving approximately 60 MPH, the message that the "Battery was Low" was displayed, and while the vehicle was slowing down, the vehicle regained charge back up to 80%. The contact stated that on another occasion, after the vehicle was parked and charging with a Level 2 charger, the vehicle failed to start the next day. The contact stated that the battery only charged to 61% and the vehicle failed to start up. The message "Service EV System" and the battery warning light were illuminated. A battery tester was connected to the vehicle and indicated that the battery was fully charged. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The manufacturer was not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was 56,408.