2022 Nissan Leaf Recalls, Ratings & Complaints

Incident: September 20, 2026 · Filed: October 12, 2026

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)

Incident: September 16, 2026 · Filed: September 30, 2026

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.

Incident: July 1, 2026 · Filed: September 22, 2026

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.

Incident: July 16, 2026 · Filed: September 14, 2026

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

Incident: August 26, 2026 · Filed: August 31, 2026

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: August 25, 2026

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 NHTSA 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.

Incident: August 19, 2026 · Filed: August 19, 2026

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".

Incident: August 4, 2026 · Filed: August 5, 2026

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)

Incident: July 2, 2026 · Filed: July 7, 2026

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.

Incident: October 8, 2025 · Filed: July 2, 2026

In October of 2025 , while driving my nissan leaf. Suden4ly i got an error message on the dash showing battery issue force reduced, due to this the vehicle driven at 55miles approximately lower it self down to 30 mph, I was approximat3ly 35 miles from home or any nissan service departments, I was able to drive the vehicle to my closest dealership and they were able to look at the possible cause, they gave me the vehicle back a couple of days after withe codes del3t3d and a supposedly fix was recharged the 12w battery. ,less than a week pass by and same issue happen and I was able to come back to their service department.for further diagnostic. Aproximat3ly 45 days went by and I stop by there service dep and was told they didn't have the equipments special gloves to work on the high volt electrical battery so instead of me leaving it there for it to just sit there I took it home with is not far from it, for two months to allow them tkme.to.get the required equipment. I come back on December 27 since rh3n is still there with no diagnostic results or repairs just sitting there, getting more damage as I come back a few months after, I had my children car seat on it and they are all molded and no longer usable. I contacted nissan cuatomet affairs months ago and after many calls and emails to get some one to finally accept to help me get a resolution in March I was told by letter sent to my email that they agreed to buy back the unit. They asked for some documents on the letter, I got all the documents, sent them and , them asking for.more documents not listed and taking weeks to even answer and email , since then its been months and all I know they will buy but I have no value or update if they need any further docs or if what are they waiting for.