2020 Nissan Leaf problems

Filed Oct 6, 2026 · Electrical, Fuel system · CO

I purchased this 2020 Nissan Leaf S Plus on September 22, 2020 for $39,104. The vehicle was fully functional when I delivered it to Nissan's authorized service center to comply with the federal safety agency Recall 24V‑700. Following the software update performed by Nissan's technician, the vehicle would not operate. It has remained inoperable since that date. Nissan provided a rental vehicle, which I am currently using. I did not cause this damage. I complied fully with Nissan's recall instructions. Nissan's own repair process destroyed the functionality of my vehicle.

Filed Sep 30, 2026 · Electrical · AZ

In XXX, my 2020 Nissan Leaf experienced a catastrophic battery failure while plugged into a Level 3 DC fast charger at the Nissan dealership where the vehicle was originally purchased. During the charging session, the high-voltage traction battery severely overheated, physically expanded/swelled, and tripped a major vehicle fault sensor. The dealership confirmed the battery was permanently damaged and rendered the vehicle entirely inoperable. Initially, Nissan corporate quoted $22,000 out-of-pocket to 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, [XXX], forcing me to restart the entire process from the beginning. [XXX] 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 the federal safety agency 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)

Filed Sep 24, 2026 · Electrical · PA

Vehicle: 2020 Nissan Leaf SV, VIN [[XXX]], ~55,000 miles Recall: R24B2 / the federal safety agency campaign 24V700000 (battery may overheat during Level 3 charging — fire risk) I brought my vehicle to Conicelli Nissan (Conshohocken, PA) for the R24B2 recall software update.The vehicle has been held at the dealership since on or about XXX with the recall remedy incomplete; the dealer says it cannot proceed without Nissan's approval (dealer case XXX). I opened case XXX with Nissan Consumer Affairs requesting rental coverage while the vehicle is grounded for this safety recall. Nissan verbally denied the request on XXX and refused to put the denial in writing. I have no transportation. Nissan provided rental cars to owners in its XXX Leaf battery recall until repairs were complete, but refuses the same here. I ask the federal safety agency 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)

Filed Sep 1, 2026 · Fuel system · CA

We were asked by Nissan corporate to bring in the vehicle for a safety recall related to the battery. The Nissan dealership updated the battery software then gave the vehicle back to us. However, as soon as we drove away the dash lit up with warning lights. We were on the freeway so we pulled over. It was a dangerous situation. We called the dealership and they required us to bring the car back. So we slowly and carefully drove the car a few miles back to the dealership. In their analysis, they decided the battery must be replaced. However, they no longer make that kind of battery, the stocks were on back order for up to a year, and the software update could not be reversed. So they initiated a buyback. We were not interested in selling the vehicle -- we simply wanted the recall issue fixed -- but we had no choice. The procedure for determining a buyback dollar amount has been extremely frustrating and manipulative. From our perspective, it's unlikely we'll be able to buy a working used EV for the amount they're offering. We have searched and it's difficult-to-impossible. No one informed us this situation was a possibility. We asked for a higher dollar amount, only enough to actually buy an equivalent replacement vehicle. They tell us they require the original Bill of Sale for the vehicle. But we don't have that and can't get it. We sent it to DMV after the purchase. We did get certified copies from DMV at a cost but Nissan insists they must have the original Bill of Sale in order to make us an offer greater than Kelly Blue Book value + 40%, which is insufficient as noted. Obviously, this is an arbitrary demand. If they can offer us one amount without the Bill of Sale, they can offer us any amount. But they refuse to discuss or negotiate.

Filed Aug 26, 2026 · Fuel system · NH

My 2020 Nissan LEAF is subject to open safety recall 24V700 / R24B2 for a high-voltage lithium-ion battery defect that poses a fire risk during Level 3 quick charging. On [XXX], I brought the vehicle to an authorized Nissan dealer for the recall remedy. Three days later, on [XXX], while driving from New Hampshire to Connecticut, the vehicle displayed a "Service EV" warning and entered a reduced-power (limp) state on the highway, creating a hazardous condition in traffic. A separate authorized Nissan dealer diagnosed a fault in the high-voltage battery pack. The vehicle is now undrivable and cannot be charged. Nissan has been unable to supply a replacement battery and has indicated the vehicle will likely be repurchased because the recall remedy is unavailable. As a result, I am the owner of a vehicle that is undrivable due to an unremedied federal safety recall, with no available remedy and no timeline for one. The mileage at diagnosis was 99,100, within the vehicle's battery warranty period. I am filing this complaint because the recall remedy for 24V700 was not effective in my case, the vehicle failed dangerously shortly after the recall service was performed, and Nissan is currently unable to remedy the recall. I am also documenting the manufacturer's failure to provide interim transportation while the recall remains unremedied. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Aug 17, 2026 · Electrical · 80,000 miles · NY

The contact owns a 2020 Nissan Leaf. The contact stated that the vehicle was taken to the local dealer to be repaired under the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 24V700000 (Electrical System). The contact stated that 100 miles of using the ED system, the power reduced message was displayed. The contact stated that the battery became disabled. The vehicle was taken back to the local dealer, but the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired after a week. The manufacturer was contacted, and a case was opened, but no further assistance was provided. The failure mileage was approximately 80,000.

Filed Aug 16, 2026 · Electrical, Engine · ID

SAFETY COMPLAINT / INCIDENT DESCRIPTION Vehicle presented to Dennis Dillon Nissan on June 20 2026 for a factory high voltage battery recall software update intended to fix Level 3 fast charging safety risks. The software update rendered the vehicle completely inoperable by disabling standard Level 2 charging. The vehicle has been held in continuous dealer custody for 58 consecutive days without a working repair. Nissan failed to disclose that the recall patch could brick a functioning EV. Loaner support was revoked prematurely forcing 850 in out of pocket rental costs. Inadequate buyback offer via Morley Companies was rejected. Factory recall update rendered vehicle useless and unsafe to operate.

Filed Aug 10, 2026 · Transmission · TX

Regarding Nissan Safety Recall 24V‑700 / Campaign R24B2. After the recall remedy was performed on my 2020 LEAF in June I experienced the "Service EV System" message during normal highway driving on 8/1/26. I have an invoice from the dealership that documented logged safety recall code P33ED along with EV system codes P317E-97 and P3180-97. The dealership improperly cleared the recall safety codes, charged me a diagnostic fee, and released a vehicle that is subject to an active safety hold under Recall 24V‑700 / Campaign R24B2. The dealership released an unsafe vehicle back to me that remains a documented thermal and fire risk. The Nissan Nissan Safety Recall 24V‑700 / Campaign R24B2 states that vehicles that experience this situation after the recall remedy was performed will have the battery replaced or vehicle repurchased.

Filed Jul 23, 2026 · Electrical · CA

See attached document for complaint.

Filed Jul 3, 2026 · Electrical · WI

This recall appointment does not take 2 hours to complete. The dealer quoted me 1-2 days with an inability to offer a loaner vehicle. Several Leaf owners have completed the recall appointment and subsequently been left stranded because the car went into an undrivable mode leaving the owner stranded and incurring towing and rental fees for weeks without resolution. Nissan Consumer Affairs has denied to consider a buyback without taking the vehicle in for the recall notice even though the recall notice successfully being applied does not guarantee the car will not stop abruptly after that visit. Without the recall appointment, Nissan has limited my ability to safely fast‑charge, preventing me from using the full functionality of the vehicle. Nissan is conditioning buyback eligibility on my willingness to undergo the recall inspection, even though the recall remedy has repeatedly resulted in battery failure and sudden loss of power for other Leaf owners. This effectively forces me to expose myself to a known safety hazard in order to qualify for a remedy Nissan itself acknowledges may be required. I am being denied both safe vehicle operation and access to the promised buyback unless I accept a repair that may leave me stranded or without a functioning battery. Nissan recognizes the potential risk of the recall remedy by issuing a second notice dated 6/17/2026 that if the vehicle experiences this battery specific condition within 12 months after the date the software reprogram remedy was completed on the vehicle. Nissan will replace the battery or offer to re-purchase the car. Nissan has also recognized that batteries are rare at this time. I thought that a manufacturer must offer a remedy that was deemed Safe and this does not seem like it’s guaranteeing safety.