Diesel Emissions claim

Gandaff_the_taff

Who is the best firm to claim with the emissions scandal and the line with the lowest fees paid 

AdrianC

What manufacturer?

The VW claim is in the court system, and closed to new claimants.
The others are all totally speculative, and hanging off the coat-tails of the VW claim.

What are your actual losses that you're claiming for?
When did you buy the car, and when did you sell it, relative to the uncovering of the original VW US issue in September 2015?
Why have you waited so long?

Ant555

AdrianC said:

What are your actual losses that you're claiming for?

Thats exactly what I keep thinking when I hear the radio ads - what are the lawyers claiming UK purchasers have lost out on or is it just a speculative punt for the compo hunters?

I bought a 3yr old small diesel in 2013 as it was relatively cheap to buy at the time, £30 annual Tax, 50+ mpg, and if looked after will probably still do me for thousands more miles.

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

What manufacturer?

The VW claim is in the court system, and closed to new claimants.
The others are all totally speculative, and hanging off the coat-tails of the VW claim.

What are your actual losses that you're claiming for?
When did you buy the car, and when did you sell it, relative to the uncovering of the original VW US issue in September 2015?
Why have you waited so long?

Surely the best thing is to wait for the outcome of the case?  If it turns out that VW diesel purchasers between such-and-such dates ARE entitled to something then all those who meet the award criteria can then just join the queue for their payment. 

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:

AdrianC said:

What manufacturer?

The VW claim is in the court system, and closed to new claimants.
The others are all totally speculative, and hanging off the coat-tails of the VW claim.

What are your actual losses that you're claiming for?
When did you buy the car, and when did you sell it, relative to the uncovering of the original VW US issue in September 2015?
Why have you waited so long?

Surely the best thing is to wait for the outcome of the case?  If it turns out that VW diesel purchasers between such-and-such dates ARE entitled to something then all those who meet the award criteria can then just join the queue for their payment. 

Nope, because you would not have been a defendant in the court case. The court would not award payment to you.

You could stick your begging bowl out in the hope of a crumb coming off the edge, but you would have no legal basis to be paid. You would have to launch another court claim... and the first question they would ask would be why you hadn't joined the original claim, given the cutoff date was three years after the original issue hit the headlines - nearly three years ago now.

Mickey666

I don't see why not joining the original claim should count against you.   Wasn't the 3-year cut-off date just for the original claim, rather than a legal restriction?

A second claim following a clear judgement would surely be a lot easier than the first one . . . which is perhaps why various ambulance chasers  law firms are still touting for new claimants. 

Why would they bother to do that if they were out of time?

PixelPound

Mickey666 said:

I don't see why not joining the original claim should count against you.   Wasn't the 3-year cut-off date just for the original claim, rather than a legal restriction?

A second claim following a clear judgement would surely be a lot easier than the first one . . . which is perhaps why various ambulance chasers  law firms are still touting for new claimants. 

Why would they bother to do that if they were out of time?

New cases would cite the outcome of the first as justification. It's called case law. 

Mickey666

nic_c said:

Mickey666 said:

I don't see why not joining the original claim should count against you.   Wasn't the 3-year cut-off date just for the original claim, rather than a legal restriction?

A second claim following a clear judgement would surely be a lot easier than the first one . . . which is perhaps why various ambulance chasers  law firms are still touting for new claimants. 

Why would they bother to do that if they were out of time?

New cases would cite the outcome of the first as justification. It's called case law. 

In which case, wouldn't any VW defence for second claims be a waste of court time (something usually frowned upon by the courts) - so no court case needed?

Isn't that how it worked with PPI?  AIUI (not being a claimant myself), individuals could claim for themselves without having to go to court.

Spartan_Saver

I Mickey666 said:

nic_c said:

Mickey666 said:

I don't see why not joining the original claim should count against you.   Wasn't the 3-year cut-off date just for the original claim, rather than a legal restriction?

A second claim following a clear judgement would surely be a lot easier than the first one . . . which is perhaps why various ambulance chasers  law firms are still touting for new claimants. 

Why would they bother to do that if they were out of time?

New cases would cite the outcome of the first as justification. It's called case law. 

In which case, wouldn't any VW defence for second claims be a waste of court time (something usually frowned upon by the courts) - so no court case needed?

Isn't that how it worked with PPI?  AIUI (not being a claimant myself), individuals could claim for themselves without having to go to court.

I think Mickey has a point

lemondrops69

Another 'diesel-gate' thread started by a new member who we'll probably never hear from again, like the other threads. Almost seems like someone is trying to stir up interest in the topic?

Ditzy_Mitzy

Mickey666 said:

nic_c said:

Mickey666 said:

I don't see why not joining the original claim should count against you.   Wasn't the 3-year cut-off date just for the original claim, rather than a legal restriction?

A second claim following a clear judgement would surely be a lot easier than the first one . . . which is perhaps why various ambulance chasers  law firms are still touting for new claimants. 

Why would they bother to do that if they were out of time?

New cases would cite the outcome of the first as justification. It's called case law. 

In which case, wouldn't any VW defence for second claims be a waste of court time (something usually frowned upon by the courts) - so no court case needed?

Isn't that how it worked with PPI?  AIUI (not being a claimant myself), individuals could claim for themselves without having to go to court.

PPI is very different, in that the claimant is only asking for return of monies that should not have been paid.  The court ruling against the British Bankers Association was in relation to a challenge that organisation issued to the FSA (as was in those days) as regards the original ruling concerning mis-selling.  It's a regulated sector. 
The issue here, as regards diesel cars, is the difficulty of proving tangible losses.  Many of the cars currently being discussed will have been sold at least once on the second hand market, some will have been scrapped.  It may be the case that the emissions furore depressed second hand prices, but the current owner stands to have benefitted from that on the buy side of the transaction.  It may also be the case that nothing at all happened, that the majority of second hand customers didn't care so prices were not affected.  One also has to consider the news cycle: does anyone care about 'dieselgate' any more?  Probably not, outside the minds of ambulance chasers.  The depressive effect may be no more.  In any case, we're talking about quite old cars now.  The whole thing seems completely pointless.