Am I wasting my time claiming compensation for buying diesel?

cattom

mobileron said:

Tell us how much you lost.

Nothing, apart from 2.5k for a new catalyst,nox sensor, fuel additive pump, and the elloys and add blue fluid needed. thats all.

Grumpy_chap

cattom said:

mobileron said:

Tell us how much you lost.

Nothing, apart from 2.5k for a new catalyst,nox sensor, fuel additive pump, and the elloys and add blue fluid needed. thats all.

Would any of those expenses be covered by a successful diesel emissions claim?  Arguably, the "dieselgate" cheat devices already gave you a benefit through lower car tax rates.

cattom

Grumpy_chap said:

cattom said:

mobileron said:

Tell us how much you lost.

Nothing, apart from 2.5k for a new catalyst,nox sensor, fuel additive pump, and the elloys and add blue fluid needed. thats all.

Would any of those expenses be covered by a successful diesel emissions claim?  Arguably, the "dieselgate" cheat devices already gave you a benefit through lower car tax rates.

I don't know. when it initially went to peugeot with the engine management light on, after they had diagnosed the fault and told me the cost, the service manager there advised me to trade it in against a new one they had in the showroom. not ev. but they would only give me half the actual trade in price, because of the fault. so had all the work done and keeping it now for a few more years.

Mickey666

neilmcl said:

cattom said:

thanks for all the replies. the point of my original post was to find out if I had been mis sold a product. ie a peugeot diesel. and maybe as someone said in this thread, get some free cash. the emmisions on my car are euro6.1. which is within the latest emmisions bracket. I have now put in a claim with a 'no win no fee' company. and I will keep you updated on that,via this forum.

You've still failed to tell us on why you think you were miss-sold your car?

You're missing the point.  It's not necessary for the OP to justify their loss (if any), that's for the ambulance chasing scumbag lawyers to argue and if they win the OP gets a share of some free money.  If they lose then the OP gets a share of nothing, but doesn't have to pay the lawyers a fee.

I just hope the OP has checked that they will not be liable for a share of the legal costs if the case is lost and the defendent's costs are awarded by the court.

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

Deleted_User said:

Mickey666 said:

boobyd said:

Why is it they want to claim compo for emissions when the most likely reason they got a diesel was ,MPG and low ved and the reason for  low ved was not emissions but a perceived £ saving on petrol ved?

I thought the low VED on diesels was because at the time the focus was all about CO2 emissions and diesels emit far less CO2 than petrol engines, so petrol cars were the bad boys.  Then the focus changed to NOx emissions and diesels became the bad boys again (and recently joined by domestic stoves burning carp fuels that add to particulate pollution).

As the focus moves increasingly onto EVs, we can expect all forms of ICE to be increasingly demonised, probably with higher VEDs across the board as well.  Later, when the true environmental impact of battery production and disposal comes to light we can expect EVs to become the bad boys.  Our grandchildren will be fortunate if they're allowed bicycles by the end of the century

It's a bit of a mixed bag. NOx is 200-300x more potent at trapping heat than CO2 plus it depletes the ozone layer, however there is far less of it, so it's arguable which is worse. NOx emissions in the UK certainly are much reduced because of catalytic converters and emissions regulations (emissions of NOx are down 51% 2005-2019). The main problem with NOx for climate change purposes is agriculture though not cars. In the US (admittedly not the best example as they mostly use petrol) agricultural soil management is the biggest contributor at 74% of emissions, transport is just 5%

Side point through really as nobody in the UK buys a diesel on the basis of the NOx emissions, therefore no-one has lost any money so no compensation is due. The cheat tests were designed for example for the US market where they do test for that and tax accordingly where vehicles may become unsellable or face higher taxes, hence compensation was due.

Incidentally, the battery production/environmental impact of EV is already well known and it's still far better than making ICE cars. Battery tech can change and improve, batteries can be disposed of in storage plants like Tesla build. Moreover, the batteries themselves still work fine - a car that does say 400 miles on one charge when new and loses even 25% of battery capacity over 10 years, still does 300 miles so is hardly useless. The real world testing of Teslas show that battery life is nothing like as bad, even the oldest/most heavily used Teslas are not even dropping 10%

The NOx issues are not climate-change related, they're localised-air-quality related.

The changes to diesels to reduce CO2 ironically increased NOx levels, because of the changes in combustion, which is why it suddenly became a problem through the 00s.

If you'd be so kind as to actually read my post, NOx IS a climate change pollutant, increased diesel use increases NOx which in turn increases the impact of climate change. Local air quality is an unrelated issue to my point

[Deleted User]

cattom said:

Grumpy_chap said:

cattom said:

mobileron said:

Tell us how much you lost.

Nothing, apart from 2.5k for a new catalyst,nox sensor, fuel additive pump, and the elloys and add blue fluid needed. thats all.

Would any of those expenses be covered by a successful diesel emissions claim?  Arguably, the "dieselgate" cheat devices already gave you a benefit through lower car tax rates.

I don't know. when it initially went to peugeot with the engine management light on, after they had diagnosed the fault and told me the cost, the service manager there advised me to trade it in against a new one they had in the showroom. not ev. but they would only give me half the actual trade in price, because of the fault. so had all the work done and keeping it now for a few more years.

That fault is nothing to do with diesel cheat tests. The ambulance chasers are just chucking claims in at every manufacturer, regardless of whether there was any cheat test. You have not lost anything as a result of this. You are not due any compensation.

AdrianC

Deleted_User said:

AdrianC said:

Deleted_User said:

It's a bit of a mixed bag. NOx is 200-300x more potent at trapping heat than CO2 plus it depletes the ozone layer, however there is far less of it, so it's arguable which is worse.

The NOx issues are not climate-change related, they're localised-air-quality related.

The changes to diesels to reduce CO2 ironically increased NOx levels, because of the changes in combustion, which is why it suddenly became a problem through the 00s.

If you'd be so kind as to actually read my post, NOx IS a climate change pollutant, increased diesel use increases NOx which in turn increases the impact of climate change. Local air quality is an unrelated issue to my point

Re-reading your post will not change the scientific reality.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/assets/documents/reports/aqeg/nitrogen_dioxide_in_the_UK-summary.pdf

NOx's greenhouse effect is actually through increasing tropospheric ozone, although it also contributes to methane which has a cooling effect.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/assets/documents/reports/aqeg/nitrogen_dioxide_in_the_UK-summary.pdf

Mickey666

Deleted_User said:

AdrianC said:

Deleted_User said:

Mickey666 said:

boobyd said:

Why is it they want to claim compo for emissions when the most likely reason they got a diesel was ,MPG and low ved and the reason for  low ved was not emissions but a perceived £ saving on petrol ved?

I thought the low VED on diesels was because at the time the focus was all about CO2 emissions and diesels emit far less CO2 than petrol engines, so petrol cars were the bad boys.  Then the focus changed to NOx emissions and diesels became the bad boys again (and recently joined by domestic stoves burning carp fuels that add to particulate pollution).

As the focus moves increasingly onto EVs, we can expect all forms of ICE to be increasingly demonised, probably with higher VEDs across the board as well.  Later, when the true environmental impact of battery production and disposal comes to light we can expect EVs to become the bad boys.  Our grandchildren will be fortunate if they're allowed bicycles by the end of the century

It's a bit of a mixed bag. NOx is 200-300x more potent at trapping heat than CO2 plus it depletes the ozone layer, however there is far less of it, so it's arguable which is worse. NOx emissions in the UK certainly are much reduced because of catalytic converters and emissions regulations (emissions of NOx are down 51% 2005-2019). The main problem with NOx for climate change purposes is agriculture though not cars. In the US (admittedly not the best example as they mostly use petrol) agricultural soil management is the biggest contributor at 74% of emissions, transport is just 5%

Side point through really as nobody in the UK buys a diesel on the basis of the NOx emissions, therefore no-one has lost any money so no compensation is due. The cheat tests were designed for example for the US market where they do test for that and tax accordingly where vehicles may become unsellable or face higher taxes, hence compensation was due.

Incidentally, the battery production/environmental impact of EV is already well known and it's still far better than making ICE cars. Battery tech can change and improve, batteries can be disposed of in storage plants like Tesla build. Moreover, the batteries themselves still work fine - a car that does say 400 miles on one charge when new and loses even 25% of battery capacity over 10 years, still does 300 miles so is hardly useless. The real world testing of Teslas show that battery life is nothing like as bad, even the oldest/most heavily used Teslas are not even dropping 10%

The NOx issues are not climate-change related, they're localised-air-quality related.

The changes to diesels to reduce CO2 ironically increased NOx levels, because of the changes in combustion, which is why it suddenly became a problem through the 00s.

If you'd be so kind as to actually read my post, NOx IS a climate change pollutant, increased diesel use increases NOx which in turn increases the impact of climate change. Local air quality is an unrelated issue to my point

Well it should be (as well): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/girls-death-contributed-to-by-air-pollution-coroner-rules-in-landmark-case

Grey_Critic

I think it is wonderful how people suddenly become worried about the environment when there is a possibility of getting some free cash - of course everybody doing these claims also have amnesia as to the reason they bought a diesel rather than petrol so obviously they must have been conned at the time. Did I tell you my car runs very well on Jaffa cakes.

neilmcl

cattom said:

boobyd said:

cattom said:

thanks for all the replies. the point of my original post was to find out if I had been mis sold a product. ie a peugeot diesel. and maybe as someone said in this thread, get some free cash. the emmisions on my car are euro6.1. which is within the latest emmisions bracket. I have now put in a claim with a 'no win no fee' company. and I will keep you updated on that,via this forum.

So when you bought the vehicle your 100% reason for doing so was based on emissions?
You didn't buy it because it was "Price bracket/mpg/look / ved amount ( how many £,eg cheap)
I'm being honest when I say i have bought my diesels it was mpg,running costs ( ved/tyres/service),not because it was a perceived low emission.If it had been a Company car ,other purchase PCP etc it would still be on £ not emissions.

I bought it because it was/is a good car which suited my needs. low emissions, zero road tax,(that may be about to change, if they move the goalposts yet again), high spec,full leather and economical. 
but now with all this diesel emission scandal, I'm wondering if I jump on the band wagon, along with many others, I'm sure.

So you got exactly what you paid for, hence you weren't miss-sold.