Hey folks, hoping to collect a bit of advice from those that have faced a similar situation. I have been struggling with my leased Ariya on a dead battery issue (which has now been resolved, at least temporarily), and in the process of working with the dealership I had contacted the BBB auto line for a repurchase of my vehicle. During mediation, the arbitrator ruled against me with the following case and reasoning. Given the car was out of service for over 50 days, is this something worth looking into legal representation or is it a dead case?
Reasons for Decision x Vs. NISSAN # NISxxxxxxxx It is determined that the following decision is a fair resolution of this dispute: DENIAL
Appearing via video conferencing (ZOOM) was the Consumer and for the Manufacturer, (Customer Representative) and
(Technician for the manufacturer) • Based on information received from BBB (Autoline) and agreed to by all concerned , a video conference
was established to address the nonconformities, stated on the Customer’s Claim Form, which were: 1. Battery Dies and car won start The Customer
requested a Repurchase or Replacement The Manufacturer requested a Denial. I reviewed both the Missouri Lemon Law and NISSAN’S Program
Guidelines, testimony as well as documents submitted. • The Customer submitted work orders showing where he had taken the vehicle in for repairs on
several occasions and that the current vehicle mileage was around 9,200. • The Manufacturer submitted a position response that indicated that NNA is not
in a position to offer a repurchase/replacement of this vehicle and will continue to honor the terms and conditions of all applicable warranties. 
PROBLEMS/ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE CUSTOMER- • A review of work orders submitted showed that on 9/06/2023 (mileage not clear), the
vehicle was presented with the following issues: o Vehicle showing 50% battery life but stopped went to start and lights flickered and brake had a pulse to
it.  Dealer Repair: Charged Battery • On 10/4/2023, the vehicle with 4,286 miles was presented with the following issues: o Recall  Dealer Repair:
Inverter reprogramed – general maintenance. • On 10/18/2023, the vehicle was presented with the following issues: o Vehicle would not start, lights
flickered.  Dealer Repair- No duplication of customer concerns, several passcodes stored, recommended starting with removal of RFID chip from
keychain. • On 12/26/2023, the vehicle with 6,258 miles was presented with the following issues: o Had to jump start vehicle numerous times. While
charging the main battery, the 12v will die and will cancel out the charging of the main battery. Warning on dash was to have EV system serviced. 
Dealer Repair: Found 12V battery passing test and the battery charge timer set to 12AM-2AM. Turned off charge timer and charged vehicle. Vehicle
started multiple times throughout several days of testing. The Customer than reached out to the manufacturer, which at that time a manufacturer’s
technician was assigned. MANUFACTURER’S RESPONSE The Manufacturer testified and acknowledged the Customer’s attempts to repair the
malfunctioning of the vehicle and did not have any objections to what the Customer testified. The Manufacture stated that the vehicle warranty would
cover any malfunctions, however in this case, they could not do anything as no warrantable issue could be found. Ultimately, the manufacturer provided a
technician to better determine the causes. The technician testified that the vehicle’s battery was in in fact the problem. It had a bad cell, which was not
found by the dealer and was replaced at no cost to the customer. The manufacturer did acknowledge that the number of days the vehicle was out of
service or not working correctly was on 9/6 for 17 days, 10/18 for 13 days and on 12/26 for 25 days. It is noted that during closing the Manufacturer’s
represented stated that an offer was made to the Customer for some reimbursement. However, they were advised that any kind of offer to settlement or
mediated must be made to BBB and not in the arbitration hearing. CONCLUSION- • Upon review of all facts presented in writing, through testimony and
under the Missouri Lemon Law, it was determined that the customer had not met the presumption repair attempts; but did have out of service impact for
more than 30 working days. However, the nonconformities did not substantially impact Use, Value or Safety as prescribed under the law and all
warrantable issues were taken care of; therefore, the decision to Deny the Customer’s Claim was determined.