2019 Nissan Leaf electrical problems

Filed Oct 16, 2026 · Electrical · 100,000 miles · TX

The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System); however, the recall service failed to prevent a failure shortly after completion. The contact stated that while driving at approximately 30 MPH, an unknown battery warning light illuminated. The vehicle was returned to the dealer, where diagnosis confirmed an internal battery cell failure. The manufacturer was notified of the failure, and a case was filed via telephone. The failure mileage was approximately 100,000.

Filed Sep 24, 2026 · Electrical, Engine · UT

Update to complaint XXX— XXX I am updating my complaint regarding Nissan LEAF recall R24B2 and the dealer’s handling of the recall remedy. On XXX I brought my 2019 Nissan LEAF to Ken Garff Nissan Salt Lake to have recall R24B2 performed. The dealer told me that performing the recall remedy could cause the vehicle to enter reduced-power mode or become non-drivable, and that replacement batteries were backordered or unavailable. The dealer therefore declined to perform the recall remedy at that 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 [XXX] Nissan of Murray on XXX, 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)

Filed Sep 23, 2026 · Electrical, Transmission · CO

My 2019 Nissan Leaf's battery stopped charging due to a manufacturer defect. Nissan North America confirmed this is covered under the federal safety agency Recall 24V‑700 and agreed to repurchase the vehicle (case #1163589). However, Nissan's repurchase process has been severely delayed by issues connected to the recall remedy itself: Nissan requires a physical title to complete the repurchase, but their own financing arm (NMAC) failed to release a lien for six years after payoff--despite the law requiring them to--and then provided a 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.

Filed Sep 21, 2026 · Electrical · NY

I own a 2019 Nissan Leaf (recall R24B2/the federal safety agency 24V‑700), 70,000 km, battery State of Health 97% per LeafSpy (OBD-based BMS health reading, not the dash gauge). I support the recall's intent and have stopped Level 3 fast charging entirely, using only home Level 1/2 charging. I'm raising a structural concern, relevant beyond my own vehicle: for cars that trip the SOC-fluctuation fault, the only remedy offered is full battery replacement or buyback — scrapping/replacing packs that are often barely degraded, at real 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.

Filed Sep 21, 2026 · Electrical · UT

The contact owned a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System). The local dealer was contacted and declined to perform the recall repair, stating that the recall repair would place the vehicle in LIMP Mode, and advised the contact to disregard any warning lights illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue and informed the contact to reach out to the dealer for assistance. The contact had not experienced a failure.

Filed Sep 20, 2026 · Electrical · FL

[XXX] of [XXX] sold me this vehicle as a certified pre owned vehicle with an unrepairable recall on XXX. This vehical had been diagnosed with this recall prior to sale and nissan issued a stop sale of this vehicle prior to me purchasing this vehicle. I am unable to fast charge due to potential fire risk. This has hindered my ability to travel and is very dishonest practice. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Sep 10, 2026 · Electrical · CA

My vehicle is subject to open the federal safety agency 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 the federal safety agency'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.

Filed Aug 14, 2026 · Electrical · AZ

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)

Filed Aug 10, 2026 · Electrical · CA

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.

Filed Jul 9, 2026 · Acceleration, Driver assistance · 30,000 miles · WA

The contact owns a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notifications of the federal safety agency 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.