Diesel Emissions Scandal - Can We All Now Claim?

Mickey666

Modelman_2 said:

boobyd said:

So Op you bought the cars based on what the emissions were?no other factor involved?
If the claims are based on emissions why aren't the NWNF asking for all the population to claim as they have had all these extra emissions in the air to breath in?
Just asking,I'm curious.

I bought the cars because they were best suited to our family requirements. Indeed I did consider emissions when buying our two cars as they were supposedly ultra low emissions failing in the £20 and £30 road tax bracket.
Also the fact that the UK government were plugging diesel cars big time 12 years ago with their so called environmental footprint and economical miles per gallon.

Today it's the opposite with diesels being the worst polluters especially now everyone seems to want those Range Rover size four wheel drives for school runs. Do we need these giant cars...No however they look good and with the option of changing them every three years, why not. It's easy to blame the manufactures for fiddling the numbers but in hindsight I think the real problem is closer to home. 

FGS!  Can we please move on from this ridiculously exaggerated stereotype?!!!

What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc?  Would you suggest they ONLY use them when towing and buy another car just for the school run?   Or perhaps you'd be in favour of simply banning caravans/horseboxes/boats anyway - after all, who NEEDS them?  Well you know what?  Half the stuff we all own is not NEEDED, but we buy it nevertheless because it brings some form of joy into our lives.  Try lightening up a bit.

A friend of mine runs a groundworks contracting business and frequently tows 3.5 ton trailers full of things such as diggers, dumpers, soil and rubble etc.  And guess what, yes, he has a large 4x4 for the job because relatively few vehicles today are even rated to tow 3500kg and towing such things off road is even more onerous. 

Fine, you might say, that's what they are for . . . and you'd be dead right.  So what happens when you see him in the local supermarket doing his weekly shop?  Do you then rant on about why do people need a huge 4x4 to go shopping?  Or would you prefer him to buy a whole additional car JUST for his shopping?

I was in a supermarket car park just this week and there was a lovely old Jaguar XJ12 cabriolet parked up with the roof down.  I've always though of those Jags as pretty large cars but it was parked next to an ordinary saloon car of some sort (so ordinary I'm not even sure what it was) and the Jag stuck out as looking fairly small and tinny by comparison.

As for 'huge' cars in general, have you ever seen an old mini and and the new mini parked side by side.  The new mini is huge by comparison . . . courtesy of all the safety improvements and legislation over over the years.

Anyway, rant over.  I know it will make no difference whatsoever.

neilmol2000

Mickey666 said:

Modelman_2 said:

boobyd said:

So Op you bought the cars based on what the emissions were?no other factor involved?
If the claims are based on emissions why aren't the NWNF asking for all the population to claim as they have had all these extra emissions in the air to breath in?
Just asking,I'm curious.

I bought the cars because they were best suited to our family requirements. Indeed I did consider emissions when buying our two cars as they were supposedly ultra low emissions failing in the £20 and £30 road tax bracket.
Also the fact that the UK government were plugging diesel cars big time 12 years ago with their so called environmental footprint and economical miles per gallon.

Today it's the opposite with diesels being the worst polluters especially now everyone seems to want those Range Rover size four wheel drives for school runs. Do we need these giant cars...No however they look good and with the option of changing them every three years, why not. It's easy to blame the manufactures for fiddling the numbers but in hindsight I think the real problem is closer to home. 

FGS!  Can we please move on from this ridiculously exaggerated stereotype?!!!

What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc?  Would you suggest they ONLY use them when towing and buy another car just for the school run?   Or perhaps you'd be in favour of simply banning caravans/horseboxes/boats anyway - after all, who NEEDS them?  Well you know what?  Half the stuff we all own is not NEEDED, but we buy it nevertheless because it brings some form of joy into our lives.  Try lightening up a bit.

A friend of mine runs a groundworks contracting business and frequently tows 3.5 ton trailers full of things such as diggers, dumpers, soil and rubble etc.  And guess what, yes, he has a large 4x4 for the job because relatively few vehicles today are even rated to tow 3500kg and towing such things off road is even more onerous. 

Fine, you might say, that's what they are for . . . and you'd be dead right.  So what happens when you see him in the local supermarket doing his weekly shop?  Do you then rant on about why do people need a huge 4x4 to go shopping?  Or would you prefer him to buy a whole additional car JUST for his shopping?

I was in a supermarket car park just this week and there was a lovely old Jaguar XJ12 cabriolet parked up with the roof down.  I've always though of those Jags as pretty large cars but it was parked next to an ordinary saloon car of some sort (so ordinary I'm not even sure what it was) and the Jag stuck out as looking fairly small and tinny by comparison.

As for 'huge' cars in general, have you ever seen an old mini and and the new mini parked side by side.  The new mini is huge by comparison . . . courtesy of all the safety improvements and legislation over over the years.

Anyway, rant over.  I know it will make no difference whatsoever.

Ranting and make no point whatsoever!!!

Norman_Castle

Mickey666 said:

Modelman_2 said:

boobyd said:

So Op you bought the cars based on what the emissions were?no other factor involved?
If the claims are based on emissions why aren't the NWNF asking for all the population to claim as they have had all these extra emissions in the air to breath in?
Just asking,I'm curious.

I bought the cars because they were best suited to our family requirements. Indeed I did consider emissions when buying our two cars as they were supposedly ultra low emissions failing in the £20 and £30 road tax bracket.
Also the fact that the UK government were plugging diesel cars big time 12 years ago with their so called environmental footprint and economical miles per gallon.

Today it's the opposite with diesels being the worst polluters especially now everyone seems to want those Range Rover size four wheel drives for school runs. Do we need these giant cars...No however they look good and with the option of changing them every three years, why not. It's easy to blame the manufactures for fiddling the numbers but in hindsight I think the real problem is closer to home. 

FGS!  Can we please move on from this ridiculously exaggerated stereotype?!!!

What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc? 

I live in a city. A towball on a 4x4 is a novelty.

AdrianC

Norman_Castle said:

Mickey666 said:
What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc? 

I live in a city. A towball on a 4x4 is a novelty.

TBF, have you come across the concept of removable and retractable towballs?

fred246

I suppose they don't rust over winter. I had to give my ball a good sanding yesterday. It was well rusty.

Norman_Castle

AdrianC said:

Norman_Castle said:

Mickey666 said:
What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc? 

I live in a city. A towball on a 4x4 is a novelty.

TBF, have you come across the concept of removable and retractable towballs?

I have, there's often still parts visible with the ball removed.

Mickey666

neilmol2000 said:

Mickey666 said:

Modelman_2 said:

boobyd said:

So Op you bought the cars based on what the emissions were?no other factor involved?
If the claims are based on emissions why aren't the NWNF asking for all the population to claim as they have had all these extra emissions in the air to breath in?
Just asking,I'm curious.

I bought the cars because they were best suited to our family requirements. Indeed I did consider emissions when buying our two cars as they were supposedly ultra low emissions failing in the £20 and £30 road tax bracket.
Also the fact that the UK government were plugging diesel cars big time 12 years ago with their so called environmental footprint and economical miles per gallon.

Today it's the opposite with diesels being the worst polluters especially now everyone seems to want those Range Rover size four wheel drives for school runs. Do we need these giant cars...No however they look good and with the option of changing them every three years, why not. It's easy to blame the manufactures for fiddling the numbers but in hindsight I think the real problem is closer to home. 

FGS!  Can we please move on from this ridiculously exaggerated stereotype?!!!

What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc?  Would you suggest they ONLY use them when towing and buy another car just for the school run?   Or perhaps you'd be in favour of simply banning caravans/horseboxes/boats anyway - after all, who NEEDS them?  Well you know what?  Half the stuff we all own is not NEEDED, but we buy it nevertheless because it brings some form of joy into our lives.  Try lightening up a bit.

A friend of mine runs a groundworks contracting business and frequently tows 3.5 ton trailers full of things such as diggers, dumpers, soil and rubble etc.  And guess what, yes, he has a large 4x4 for the job because relatively few vehicles today are even rated to tow 3500kg and towing such things off road is even more onerous. 

Fine, you might say, that's what they are for . . . and you'd be dead right.  So what happens when you see him in the local supermarket doing his weekly shop?  Do you then rant on about why do people need a huge 4x4 to go shopping?  Or would you prefer him to buy a whole additional car JUST for his shopping?

I was in a supermarket car park just this week and there was a lovely old Jaguar XJ12 cabriolet parked up with the roof down.  I've always though of those Jags as pretty large cars but it was parked next to an ordinary saloon car of some sort (so ordinary I'm not even sure what it was) and the Jag stuck out as looking fairly small and tinny by comparison.

As for 'huge' cars in general, have you ever seen an old mini and and the new mini parked side by side.  The new mini is huge by comparison . . . courtesy of all the safety improvements and legislation over over the years.

Anyway, rant over.  I know it will make no difference whatsoever.

Ranting and make no point whatsoever!!!

I'd rather hoped you'd get the point about tolerance, but obviously not.

How about I pop round to your place and moan about all the things you own but don't actually NEED but have chosen to buy?  EVERYTHING you buy but don't actually NEED contributes to environmental damage.  Just because they are not sitting outside your house makes no difference.  The whole '4x4 school run' argument is lazy thinking and intellectually shallow.  But you carry on - it's a free world (for now).

boobyd

Mickey666 said:

neilmol2000 said:

Mickey666 said:

Modelman_2 said:

boobyd said:

So Op you bought the cars based on what the emissions were?no other factor involved?
If the claims are based on emissions why aren't the NWNF asking for all the population to claim as they have had all these extra emissions in the air to breath in?
Just asking,I'm curious.

I bought the cars because they were best suited to our family requirements. Indeed I did consider emissions when buying our two cars as they were supposedly ultra low emissions failing in the £20 and £30 road tax bracket.
Also the fact that the UK government were plugging diesel cars big time 12 years ago with their so called environmental footprint and economical miles per gallon.

Today it's the opposite with diesels being the worst polluters especially now everyone seems to want those Range Rover size four wheel drives for school runs. Do we need these giant cars...No however they look good and with the option of changing them every three years, why not. It's easy to blame the manufactures for fiddling the numbers but in hindsight I think the real problem is closer to home. 

FGS!  Can we please move on from this ridiculously exaggerated stereotype?!!!

What about famillies that use large 4x4s as towing vehicles for their caravans/horseboxes/boats etc?  Would you suggest they ONLY use them when towing and buy another car just for the school run?   Or perhaps you'd be in favour of simply banning caravans/horseboxes/boats anyway - after all, who NEEDS them?  Well you know what?  Half the stuff we all own is not NEEDED, but we buy it nevertheless because it brings some form of joy into our lives.  Try lightening up a bit.

A friend of mine runs a groundworks contracting business and frequently tows 3.5 ton trailers full of things such as diggers, dumpers, soil and rubble etc.  And guess what, yes, he has a large 4x4 for the job because relatively few vehicles today are even rated to tow 3500kg and towing such things off road is even more onerous. 

Fine, you might say, that's what they are for . . . and you'd be dead right.  So what happens when you see him in the local supermarket doing his weekly shop?  Do you then rant on about why do people need a huge 4x4 to go shopping?  Or would you prefer him to buy a whole additional car JUST for his shopping?

I was in a supermarket car park just this week and there was a lovely old Jaguar XJ12 cabriolet parked up with the roof down.  I've always though of those Jags as pretty large cars but it was parked next to an ordinary saloon car of some sort (so ordinary I'm not even sure what it was) and the Jag stuck out as looking fairly small and tinny by comparison.

As for 'huge' cars in general, have you ever seen an old mini and and the new mini parked side by side.  The new mini is huge by comparison . . . courtesy of all the safety improvements and legislation over over the years.

Anyway, rant over.  I know it will make no difference whatsoever.

Ranting and make no point whatsoever!!!

I'd rather hoped you'd get the point about tolerance, but obviously not.

How about I pop round to your place and moan about all the things you own but don't actually NEED but have chosen to buy?  EVERYTHING you buy but don't actually NEED contributes to environmental damage.  Just because they are not sitting outside your house makes no difference.  The whole '4x4 school run' argument is lazy thinking and intellectually shallow.  But you carry on - it's a free world (for now).

This is the point with these diesel claims.
The minority bought solely for emissions,yet there will be claims by people who own everything from a small city car to "Chelsea tractor".
because I want a bit of money for nothing even though not any process involved exhaust gas,it was for looks/money/neighbour snobbery  etc etc
The Op posted he bought for the tax bracket and emissions,yet he wants to claim because he can ( fine yes you can).
Just a mockery in reality.

alanfp

Desperately trying to drag this back on topic!!!

Sunday Times says that VW HAVE paid out compensation
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/vw-suffers-hit-ongoing-dieselgate-scandal/

I'd be surprised if you'd be left with the legal costs if you lost the case - I don't remember anyone being told to be wary of that with PPI mis-selling, so I don't see why tis should be different??? (Though I haven't read the contract yet). I think MSE just said "go ahead and claim - you don't need to use a claim firm".

To answer previous posts about "what have your losses been?" - I bought a car claiming to give around 50mpg and only achieved 40 mpg driving conservatively. The 50 mpg figure used in sales literature was achieved using a defeat device which some courts throughout the world have ruled 'illegal'. I do about 12k miles p.a. - you do the math.

boobyd

alanfp said:

Desperately trying to drag this back on topic!!!

Sunday Times says that VW HAVE paid out compensation
https://www.driving.co.uk/news/vw-suffers-hit-ongoing-dieselgate-scandal/

I'd be surprised if you'd be left with the legal costs if you lost the case - I don't remember anyone being told to be wary of that with PPI mis-selling, so I don't see why tis should be different??? (Though I haven't read the contract yet). I think MSE just said "go ahead and claim - you don't need to use a claim firm".

To answer previous posts about "what have your losses been?" - I bought a car claiming to give around 50mpg and only achieved 40 mpg driving conservatively. The 50 mpg figure used in sales literature was achieved using a defeat device which some courts throughout the world have ruled 'illegal'. I do about 12k miles p.a. - you do the math.

What did the device have to do with mpg?The USA was over NOx.
How many cars have you bought that got close giant published mpg figures,at a guess nil.
What are you losses,?if mpg then start a claim to to do with mpg.
You bought any of your cars based on emissions only?