2022 Nissan Leaf problems

Filed Nov 4, 2026 · Electrical · 24,200 miles · WA

The contact owns a 2022 Nissan Leaf. The contact received notification of the federal safety agency Campaign Number: 25V655000 (Electrical System), and the dealer was contacted. The contact informed the dealer that the recall repair was required to prevent the warranty from being voided. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where the recall repair was completed. The contact stated that while her son was driving at approximately 60-65 MPH shortly after the recall repair, the vehicle decelerated unexpectedly to 7 MPH due to a premature battery discharge. The driver pulled into a commercial charging station. The vehicle failed to charge, leaving both the contact's son and grandson stranded. Roadside Assistance was contacted but declined towing service, stating that the warranty had expired. AAA towed the vehicle to the dealer at the owner's expense. The vehicle was towed three times from the charging station to the dealer within 50 miles. The dealer determined that the vehicle was unrepairable. The contact was provided a loaner vehicle, and the dealer informed the contact that the manufacturer offered a buyback. The dealer initiated a buyback case without authorization from the contact, and the manufacturer contacted the contact regarding the buyback offer. The Attorney General was contacted and informed that the vehicle qualified for repurchase or replacement of equivalent value. The contact was in the process of submitting a request to the Attorney General for buyback assistance. The contact associated the failure with the recall repair. The failure mileage was approximately 24,200.

Filed Oct 12, 2026 · Electrical, Transmission · WA

Vehicle experienced total electrical propulsion loss while driving on a public highway and had to be towed. Dealer diagnosis confirmed Diagnostic Trouble Code P33ED-00 per Nissan Bulletin NTB26-032. This is related to the open federal battery recall R25C8; the recall remedy failed. Nissan authorized a high-voltage traction battery replacement under Powertrain Authorization #[XXX]. The vehicle has been held disabled at the dealership (Nissan of Everett, Washington) since [XXX] because it is unsafe to operate, and no replacement parts are available. Nissan North America agreed in writing (Intent Letter dated June 29, 2026, Case #[XXX]) to repurchase the vehicle but has not completed the buyback. The safety risk is a sudden, total loss of motive power while driving on public roads. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Sep 30, 2026 · GA · fire

I am writing to formally document a catastrophic safety failure involving my vehicle, a Nissan LEAF, which resulted in a total vehicle fire, the destruction of personal property, and severe risk to human life. Prior to this incident, the vehicle had operated without issue. However, the vehicle became subject to an official safety recall. In attempting to resolve this, I brought the car to a Nissan dealership multiple times, only to be informed that no remedy was available yet. I was subsequently directed to call Nissan Consumer Affairs via their 800-number. The corporate representative instructed me to take the vehicle to a dealership for a formal evaluation. Following these instructions, I brought the vehicle to an alternative Nissan dealership. This facility performed a software update and explicitly assured me that the recall issue had been resolved. Furthermore, service personnel stated that it was entirely safe to utilize high-speed DC fast chargers (commonly referred to as superchargers). Approximately one month after this service was completed, I connected the vehicle to an EVgo fast-charging station. While the vehicle was charging, my son and I remained inside the cabin. We were resting and on the verge of falling asleep due to the expected charging duration. Suddenly, I heard loud crackling noises and witnessed heavy fumes emerging from the vehicle. We immediately evacuated the cabin. Within moments, the vehicle filled with thick smoke, and an active fire erupted. I contacted emergency services, and the fire department arrived to extinguish the blaze. Due to the extreme toxicity of lithium-ion battery smoke, emergency personnel ordered us to evacuate the immediate area to avoid lethal inhalation. The vehicle was completely incinerated, resulting in a total loss of both the automobile and all personal property contained within it. My son and I are incredibly fortunate to have survived.

Filed Sep 22, 2026 · Electrical, Fuel system · KS

I am submitting this complaint regarding a manufacturer‑performed recall on my 2022 Nissan LEAF that resulted in a complete loss of charging capability immediately after Nissan applied its software update. Prior to the recall, the vehicle operated normally and had no charging issues. Following the recall intervention, the vehicle became unable to charge at all. This failure occurred directly and immediately after Nissan’s recall action. At the dealership, battery replacement was initially presented as a potential remedy. However, Nissan corporate assigned the case to a third‑party administrator, and it became clear that no repair option — including battery replacement — was available. Ultimately, Nissan proceeded with a buyback of the vehicle. This outcome raises a significant fairness concern. The vehicle is only four years old, and a battery replacement should reasonably be available to consumers when a manufacturer‑initiated recall causes the battery system to fail. Treating a four‑year‑old electric vehicle as irreparable — and offering repurchase as the only remedy — is not consistent with reasonable consumer expectations, especially when the failure was caused by the manufacturer’s own recall procedure. I am requesting that the agency review Nissan’s handling of this recall, the denial of battery replacement for a relatively new vehicle, and the use of repurchase as the sole remedy. The recall directly caused the vehicle to become inoperable, and Nissan’s refusal to authorize repair left the consumer with no reasonable path other than surrendering the vehicle.

Filed Sep 14, 2026 · Electrical · CA

Battery recall has not been serviced. I was turned away from dealers more than once for recall 25V‑655.

Filed Aug 31, 2026 · Engine, Fuel system · UT

My car all of a sudden lost drive power while I was driving up Parleys Canyon on I-80. My car started slowing down in traffic rapidly and I had to make emergency maneuvers to get to the side of the road. After the incident the car had trouble accelerating and couldn't keep up with traffic to get it to the shop. This is an active recall and Nissan refuses to fix the battery.

Filed Aug 25, 2026 · Fuel system · NC

The high-voltage battery on my 2022 Nissan Leaf is subject to Recall 25V655. The recall notice states that the battery cells can develop excessive lithium deposits, which increases electrical resistance and can cause rapid battery heating during Level 3 fast charging. Nissan instructs owners not to use Level 3 charging at all until a “remedy” is available. The issue is that the remedy described by Nissan is not an actual repair of the battery defect. Nissan states it will install software that monitors for “state-of-charge fluctuation” and, if detected, will prevent the vehicle from restarting or recharging in order to avoid a thermal incident. This means the defect inside the battery cells is still present, and the car may disable itself if the defect begins to appear. The recall materials also state there is no warning before overheating occurs. This creates multiple safety concerns: • The underlying battery defect remains uncorrected. • The vehicle can become immobilized (unable to restart or recharge) if the software detects the condition. • Loss of Level 3 charging capability affects the ability to travel safely or plan charging when needed. • A battery fire risk exists during Level 3 charging if the defect is not detected in time. Nissan’s documents state that the software is meant only to prevent the “progression” of a thermal incident, not to repair the defective battery. I am concerned that my vehicle contains a known hazardous defect that has not been physically repaired and that the software-only response is inadequate to ensure safety. I am filing this complaint so the federal safety agency is aware that the remedy being offered does not address the internal battery defect itself and may leave owners exposed to continued safety and reliability risks.

Filed Aug 19, 2026 · Electrical · CA

I have attempted to conduct the recall repairs (25V‑655) on the LEAF battery. 2 different Nissan locations have cancelled my scheduled appointments stating "We don't have the software to complete these repairs".

Filed Aug 5, 2026 · Electrical · TX

VIN [XXX] battery percentage drops drastically and instantly once it reaches 50–60%. is behavior aligns with the active lithium deposit defects found under open Recall R25C8. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Filed Jul 7, 2026 · Electrical · NC

After having the recall (Recall 25V655) remedy applied to my car, it will not restart after charging. I charged it once after receiving it back (the dealership had not fully charged it during the recall work - it was returned at 76%). And it immediately started throwing errors and will only be in neutral now. The Dealership service center maintains that this is not the result of the recall issue or the recall fix, which is quite unbelievable. I do not believe the recall remedy is actually a remedy.