Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2021-2022 LEAF vehicles equipped with a Level 3 quick charging port. The lithium-ion battery may overheat during Level 3 charging.
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2022 LEAF vehicles. Damage to the camera harness can cause distortion or loss of the rearview camera display image. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 111, "Rear Visibility."
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2023 LEAF vehicles. The vehicle may accelerate unintentionally if the driving mode is changed ("D" to "B"; e-Pedal "On"; or "ECO" mode) after disengaging the cruise control.
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) is recalling certain 2018-2023 LEAF vehicles. The Owner's Manual instructions for defroster operation are incorrect, and may result in reduced defroster performance under specific conditions. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 103, "Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems."
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)
No injuries · No fire · No crash
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.
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.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
Battery recall has not been serviced. I was turned away from dealers more than once for recall 25V-655.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
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.
No injuries · No fire · No crash