VW Dieselgate claims

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

stecd123 said:

I bought the VW in 2013 and it has been identified as having the cheat device fitted - I stiil have it and it has always been dealer serviced.

So you had the fix applied back in 2016 or 2017, then? That was the end of your "losses".

My understanding is that there is no 'fix' to the emissions issue.

Then your understanding is flawed. VW released a fix for the issue within a very short period of the issue hitting the headlines back in autumn 2015. That fix has been available FOC to all owners for nearly five years.

Yes, VW removed the 'cheat' software that lowered emissions during testing

Exactly. There is no further loss to the individual, which is what the court cases seek to recompense.

but that's not really a fix to the basic charge of misrepresenting the emissions.

Which is between VW and the type approvals bodies.

So, purchasers have still been misled at the time they bought their vehicle

No, they haven't. They bought a car on the basis it meets the relevant Euro emissions standard. It does.
As has been said, NOx figures are not published. CO2 figures are.
There is no suggestion "dieselgate" is related to NOx or fuel economy, only NOx. The original shenanigans came to light because VW sold diesels in the US, where NOx limits are FAR stricter than Europe, and diesels could not easily meet them.

The "defeat devices" were not explicitly illegal in Europe, although they were in the US, but have been ruled to breach the regulations.

and if the courts decide that should be compensated

And therein lies the big question...

In fact, there are two questions.
1. Will the primary class action win its case?
2. Can the OP piggy-back on the back of that, getting the benefit without the risk?

The OP can be reasonably assumed to have been aware of the issue for five and a half years, given the media coverage, has had five years to mitigate the issues they claim to be suffering, and yet is only coming forward two and a half years after the closing date to join that class action.

A summary of the position wrt the class action, from October 2018, a week before the deadline to sign up...
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/10/was-your-car-affected-by-the-vw-emissions-scandal--you-ve-less-t/

Once again... what are the OP's losses? 

Mickey666

Deleted_User said:

Mickey666 said:

Deleted_User said:

Mickey666 said:

Herzlos said:

stecd123 said:

Thanks williamgriffin - to be honest I'm not sure but am being told I have been put at a loss by a solicitor although not sure what the formula is to calculate the value.

You're only out by the difference between what you paid for the car and what the car was actually worth. Given that VW did a software update under warranty to remove the cheat then I don't think the value changed much as no-one really cares about the performance beyond the outrage. The value of the cars tanked when the announcement was made but have since recovered.

. . . and you know that for a fact do you?  For every purchaser of said car?

BTW, I tend to agree with you that few people buy a car based on emissions, but that's not really the point is it?  The point is the subterfuge of VW and whether they should get away with it scott-free.  You seem to think they should.

No.
VW have not got away with it, they got massive fines. Herloz is not saying VW shouldn't get away with it, he/she is saying owners aren't owned money for a non-existent loss. 
Nobody in the UK buys a car based on NOx emissions because they're not advertised as a selling point and, beyond the MOT, aren't even recorded. When you buy a diesel you look at the annual vehicle tax rate (low as it's based on CO2 which wasn't on the cheat test) and MPG, you don't ask about NOx because it's not a big thing here unlike the US. Nobody in the UK who has an affected vehicle has lost money based on a cheat test designed primarily for the US market as it didn't affect them. These compo group actions are simple greedy, money grubbing grifters who see a chance for free cash if they lie and turn on the waterworks about how terrible they treated and how they'd never have bought the car if they'd known it had higher NOx than it was recorded as having and blah blah blah.

Come on, you must realise you cannot state that as a proven fact.  Besides, what IS a 'selling point' anyway?
You can only guess the reason someone chose to buy a car.  As for 'money grubbing grifters', that's just your opinion and is totally worthless as a point of law.  Thank goodness.

Look, I happen to largely agree with you about ambulance chasers and chancers, but that's not the point.  A major multinational company engaged in wilful cheating and conspiracy to deceive and it seems only reasonable that they pay the price for such a heinous transgression - as they largely have.  In the USA their customers were indeed able to return there cars in exchange for money/compensation so it seems entirely reasonable to ask if that's possible in the UK.

Yes, I know UK laws are different and I know our emissions are different and I've previously agreed that if the cars met UK standards then VW UK is not guilty, in which case presumably any case against them will fail.  That is how the law works, and should work.
How the law should NOT work is by taking any notice of people implying what went through the mind of VW buyers and their  own personal distaste for 'money grubbing grifters'.

I'm not trying to state it as a proven fact, but it doesn't change the point that it is correct. How can anyone claim they were miss-sold buying a VW based on it having higher NOx emissions when these are not advertised in the UK as a selling point - CO2 (through VED) and mileage are what are advertised, even today, you won't see NOx emissions listed as part of the main site. I am on the VW Golf 8 brochure right now, the spec sheet for the range advertises CO2 emissions only. There are no figures for NOx, indeed, searches on the PDF for nitrous, oxide, nox provide no results. Simply put, no-one bought a VW because of low NOx and that is provable by the fact it's not even advertised on the VW site.

Are you seriously suggesting that people only use manufacturer's advertising media when choosing which vehicle to buy?  There are loads of independent magazines and websites out there that review vehicles to the nth degree including NOx emissions, so the information is available if someone really wanted to find it.

Further though, I am not the one making the claim, thus the burden of proof is not on me. If we pretend that multiple people bought a VW golf because they thought it had lower NOx figures, what evidence can they show that proves that was the reason they bought the golf? Are the golf figures lower NOx than say a Seat Leon, Mazda 3 etc? If not, again, the argument they bought the golf for low NOx is again defeated.

Surely the burden of proof lies with you (or VW in this case) to prove that their cheat device was not a factor in the buying decision?

The reason the people claiming this are money grubbing grifters is because they see the chance for cash and jump on the bandwagon without any evidence that they were wronged.

Yes, I agree, and it's a very distasteful aspect of modern life.  But trying to defend the vehicle manufacturer for admitted cheating on the basis that you can read the minds of buyers is equally distasteful IMO because what you might think and what you can prove are two very different things.  As I said, emotion and law is not a good mix.

Anyway, whatever we think it will be for the courts to decide and from what I've read VW have no case to answer for in the UK, so speculation about buyers decision-making processes are probably moot.

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Once again... what are the OP's losses? 

I understand your focus on someone's losses in this matter so, at the risk of a slight digression, how would a similar focus apply to the PPI scandal.  AIUI, people were 'mis-sold' PPI that would never have paid out in the even of a claim.  OK, sounds like a dreadful con - just like the VW 'cheat' device but what were the ACTUAL losses for anyone who bought PPI in good faith but never needed to claim against it?  I'd argue they lost nothing, just the same as you're arguing VW customers lost nothing because of VW's cheating.

PPI customers who didn't claim on the policy lost nothing in exactly the same way that anyone who doesn't claim on their house insurance hasn't lost anything.  They've effectively bought peace-of-mind, and if they never needed to claim for PI then they would never have discovered that the policy was useless so they would never have known they had been mis-sold, so they would never have incurred any losses because their PPI payments DID buy them peace of mind.

Yet the scandal spawned a whole industry of "greedy, money grubbing grifters who see a chance for free cash", including the MSE website that encouraged people to claim compensation for such mis-selling.  I'm just curious about the apparently double standards by which misrepresenting an insurance policy is seemingly regarded as being worse than worse that misrepresenting a vehicle's emissions - even though vehicle emissions affect everyone regardless of whether they actually buy one.

Is this sort of double-standard because financial institutions are generally hated more than car manufacturers I wonder? 

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

Once again... what are the OP's losses? 

I understand your focus on someone's losses in this matter

It's not my focus. It's explicitly what they're asking a court to provide them recompense for...

so, at the risk of a slight digression, how would a similar focus apply to the PPI scandal.  AIUI, people were 'mis-sold' PPI that would never have paid out in the even of a claim.  OK, sounds like a dreadful con - just like the VW 'cheat' device but what were the ACTUAL losses for anyone who bought PPI in good faith but never needed to claim against it?  I'd argue they lost nothing

And you'd be wrong.
They lost the value of the premium, because they bought something that provided them zero benefit.
The product was useless to them. It could never do anything for them.
The recompense was to put them back in the position they were functionally in, not having any policy in place, by refunding the premiums.

just the same as you're arguing VW customers lost nothing because of VW's cheating.

They bought a car, they got a car.
They got the exact car they thought they were getting.
It did the exact job that they required of it.
It was a car that had passed the tests to show that it was compliant with all type-approval rules in place.

It later turned out that the tests had been passed with software installed that, while it was not explicitly barred, was later deemed to be outside the rules. So a fix was provided free of charge to remove that software and bring the car into compliance without it... The car then passed the tests, legitimately.

What losses did they suffer?

PPI customers who didn't claim on the policy lost nothing in exactly the same way that anyone who doesn't claim on their house insurance hasn't lost anything.  They've effectively bought peace-of-mind

Except they didn't. They were sold something that was never applicable to their situation in the first place. In many cases, they either weren't given a choice about it, or didn't even know about it.

Yet the scandal spawned a whole industry of "greedy, money grubbing grifters who see a chance for free cash",

It also spawned a massive industry around money-grubbing chancers aiming to sucker the gullible into parting with a proportion of their recompensed losses in return for spurious assistance in claiming.

So there are parallels.

[Deleted User]

williamgriffin said:

[DELETED USER] said:

Your losses are devaluation of the car, health damage from exposure to excessive emissions and any costs related to getting it fixed.

Surely everyone is entitled to claim for exposure to emissions?

Yes they are

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Mickey666 said:

PPI customers who didn't claim on the policy lost nothing in exactly the same way that anyone who doesn't claim on their house insurance hasn't lost anything.  They've effectively bought peace-of-mind

Except they didn't. They were sold something that was never applicable to their situation in the first place. In many cases, they either weren't given a choice about it, or didn't even know about it.

Yes, they were mis-sold something, but they didn't understand that at the time so they had peace-of-mind.  It may have been  false, but they didn't realise - so what was their loss if they knowingly paid the PPI premiums?

Ironically, most of them only realised a loss when the scandal broke.  They then understood they'd been mis-sold, that the policy was useless and bang went their peace-of-mind.   Before then, many were happily paying PPI premiums.

AdrianC

Your parallels are based on the presumption that the car was "useless". it wasn't.

Robbo66

Just to clarify VW didn't fit any device to their cars its was software and only worked when the ECU detected that the car was being tested. During normal driving it wasn't activated so tell me how people lost anything and have a claim for losses, the VED didn't change, its debatable whether or not the secondhand values were impacted, not from what I saw.

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

Your parallels are based on the presumption that the car was "useless". it wasn't.

No they are not - you're changing the goalposts again.
First you argued there was no loss - fair enough, but there was also no loss to anyone with PPI who didn't need to claim either.
Now you're changing tack to argue on the basis of product 'uselessness', which I've never mentioned.
My point is that both VW and PPI mis-sold or mis-represented their products, which I think is beyond dispute isn't it?  Yet for some reason you're defending 'money grubbing' claims against VW but not against PPI. 
I'm just pointing out this inconsistency, that's all.

RichardD1970

Of coarse there was a loss with PPI, the premiums that people paid monthly for the policy. If the policy could never be used then they have still paid for it. That is what was claimed back (+ interest).