Emissions Mercedes group action claim, question.

diystarter7

shiraz99 said:

diystarter7 said:

shiraz99 said:

diystarter7 said:

k3lvc said:

diystarter7 said:

Good luck to all those that claim and hopefully Mercedes drivers get a lot more than that. He bought the car new for just under 40 k so 15% of that is 6k.

Where on earth are you plucking your 15% from - please don't go suggesting to your Dad you can win him £6k to plant some new trees

And to be fair if you're going to play the 'I want to save the planet' card then buying a 2 tonne, 200bhp+ Mercedes really isn't the way to be doing it

He was advised it was a very green car/with low emissions and it was a good 6 years ago long before the battery cars became affordable and quicker battery charging and better mileage. He'd change to an EV but can afford a new car that is similar size and EV. He could just give it me, enjoy it away but he cares about the environment and was misled and feels awful driving the car now that it has had its recall a couple of years ago I think resulting in pooer mpg, poorer idling, acceleration and worse of all, more pollution.

.

It is a "green" car in relative terms, the thing that harms the plant is CO2. This whole dieselgate storm is/was about the amount of NOx being emitted which was never a factor in the buying process of any diesel car, as it was never mentioned or advertised by any manufacturer in the UK, or EU when your Dad bought his car. Don't kid yourself on that this is all about your dad's green credentials, it's not.

He was sold a green car and if the emissions stood at what they stand at now after the recall, he would have never bought the car.

What "emissions" are these exactly? He was sold a car with a specified and advertised CO2 rating, which was the only measure used to determine how "green" your car was. This hasn't changed, as I stated the diesel gate palaver had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. If he thinks his car has been damaged by a recall then by all means he should take the dealer to task for that but don't jump on the gravy train, which has already left the station, just because you think your green sensibilities have been damaged.

The car as per my previous posts was not what dad was sold, please see previous posts.
The car has pooer mpg, does not seem as smooth and is less friendly to the environment.
Dad has a very, very strong case.

shiraz99

diystarter7 said:

shiraz99 said:

diystarter7 said:

shiraz99 said:

diystarter7 said:

k3lvc said:

diystarter7 said:

Good luck to all those that claim and hopefully Mercedes drivers get a lot more than that. He bought the car new for just under 40 k so 15% of that is 6k.

Where on earth are you plucking your 15% from - please don't go suggesting to your Dad you can win him £6k to plant some new trees

And to be fair if you're going to play the 'I want to save the planet' card then buying a 2 tonne, 200bhp+ Mercedes really isn't the way to be doing it

He was advised it was a very green car/with low emissions and it was a good 6 years ago long before the battery cars became affordable and quicker battery charging and better mileage. He'd change to an EV but can afford a new car that is similar size and EV. He could just give it me, enjoy it away but he cares about the environment and was misled and feels awful driving the car now that it has had its recall a couple of years ago I think resulting in pooer mpg, poorer idling, acceleration and worse of all, more pollution.

.

It is a "green" car in relative terms, the thing that harms the plant is CO2. This whole dieselgate storm is/was about the amount of NOx being emitted which was never a factor in the buying process of any diesel car, as it was never mentioned or advertised by any manufacturer in the UK, or EU when your Dad bought his car. Don't kid yourself on that this is all about your dad's green credentials, it's not.

He was sold a green car and if the emissions stood at what they stand at now after the recall, he would have never bought the car.

What "emissions" are these exactly? He was sold a car with a specified and advertised CO2 rating, which was the only measure used to determine how "green" your car was. This hasn't changed, as I stated the diesel gate palaver had nothing to do with CO2 emissions. If he thinks his car has been damaged by a recall then by all means he should take the dealer to task for that but don't jump on the gravy train, which has already left the station, just because you think your green sensibilities have been damaged.

The car as per my previous posts was not what dad was sold, please see previous posts.
The car has pooer mpg, does not seem as smooth and is less friendly to the environment.
Dad has a very, very strong case.

I really, really don't think he does, but that is just my opinion. Good luck going forward.

Grumpy_chap

diystarter7 said:

@facade

Thank you, dad clearly meets the criteria on all three points.

NB: Payment is over 2k per claim and the lawyers are to be paid separately and that is stated in the link

Clearly, the other two posters got it completely wrong.

Thank you again.

I've been busy at work for a couple of days, but still stand by my previous comments that the news broke in 2015 so purchases after that date were from a position of knowledge.

As to whether that is "completely wrong" is a matter that will not be known until it is tested in a court.  That may never happen.  Even if not "completely wrong", a court may well reduce any award by virtue of the level of knowledge that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would likely have of the subject.

The article below disagrees with my view and suggests cars made up to 2018 may be eligible which would debunk my "2015 knowledge" position
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims

The same article also notes that you have to "have a case" (financial loss) as a result.  This is hard to demonstrate in the bulk of cases, and any "loss" would need to be set against savings from the lower road tax, fuel bills etc. 
You have to consider the business model of opinion reporting websites and whether it is far easier to run a click-bait headline than a serious critique.

How did you calculate the loss you have indicated?

diystarter7 said: He bought the car new for just under 40 k so 15% of that is 6k.

diystarter7 said:

We are hoping for at least the full price of the car.

Big difference by those two calculations of loss.
Both seem wildly optimistic.

I am not sure that anyone actually buying a car with the focus on the car being "green" would ever have chosen the E-Class as there have always been alternatives that are lower rated for VED etc, even with similar size and comfort.

I am also perplexed by the people saying they want to claim financial reward but also that the whole driver is to ensure the future environment is protected.  Would that £190m paid out by VAG achieve more environmental mitigation paid in small parts to a number of individuals, or invested by VAG in next generation super-green EV's?  The money can only be spent once.

diystarter7

Thank you all for trying to help, one way or another.

Look at the link kindly posted by a poster from MSE. It is very helpful.

Based on what I have read, dad has as good of a chance as the VW/Aud lot.

The bit posted by the poster that my dad could not claim because he bought the car in 2016 is at best wrong.

Unless I see something constructive in this thread and that has not already been covered, I will refrain from posting here and hope others with a Mercedes or almost any other diesel in the qualifying period finds this thread helpful.

In summary, dad has a case because he is suffering financial loss due to worse MPG.
He has lost enjoyment, therefore, adding to his claim along with poor engine idle ie not same as before. He was sold something that was not what the car makers claimed it to be, hence the official recall.

It is clearly up to you to claim but a good start is to read the link and based on that I'm convinced dad has a claim and as his car cost a lot of money, he should at least get 15% of the new price and the legal fees on top.


Copied link from post

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims/?_ga=2.180553317.318991900.1654159708-1629466805.1654159708&_gl=1*q5gl3r*_ga*MTYyOTQ2NjgwNS4xNjU0MTU5NzA4*_ga_X74CWQS9F0*MTY1NDE1OTcwOC4xLjEuMTY1NDE2MjA5MS41OA..

user1977

diystarter7 said:

It is clearly up to you to claim but a good start is to read the link and based on that I'm convinced dad has a claim and as his car cost a lot of money, he should at least get 15% of the new price and the legal fees on top.

As previously asked - where are you getting this 15% figure from? If it is a percentage of the price, why would the fact it "cost a lot of money" make the percentage higher?

Yesterday you were hoping for 100% of the price!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79241539/#Comment_79241539

Ibrahim5

I have a diesel from the same era. Doesn't do much idling. It's called start stop technology. I would have thought a £40k Mercedes would have that too. He wouldn't have turned it off because he is so concerned about the environment. Say it's very hot mine will idle to keep the compressor running. It's much smoother at speed. Maybe I can ask for my money back on the car, and keep the car too of course.

diystarter7

Ibrahim5 said:

I have a diesel from the same era. Doesn't do much idling. It's called start stop technology. I would have thought a £40k Mercedes would have that too. He wouldn't have turned it off because he is so concerned about the environment. Say it's very hot mine will idle to keep the compressor running. It's much smoother at speed. Maybe I can ask for my money back on the car, and keep the car too of course.

No one stopping you.

ontheroad1970

diystarter7 said:

Ibrahim5 said:

I have a diesel from the same era. Doesn't do much idling. It's called start stop technology. I would have thought a £40k Mercedes would have that too. He wouldn't have turned it off because he is so concerned about the environment. Say it's very hot mine will idle to keep the compressor running. It's much smoother at speed. Maybe I can ask for my money back on the car, and keep the car too of course.

No one stopping you.

Apart from legal logic.  Far be it for me to agree with Fred, but you really are in an alternative dimension if you expect a full refund for a car which has been used, and is fit for purpose.  Lower CO2 means that it is less polluting than older diesels, and therefore impacting less on greenhouse gases.  Using the built in systems for start-stop will also help, though some drivers find this annoying so take their foot partially off the brake or drop the clutch to keep the engine running.  

You do not get compensated for your failure to do due diligence.  If a car salesman told you the sun was black and made of ice, would you believe him?  I thought not.  

The only people litigation society is helping are litigators.  We will all be paying even more for cars to pay for the pay off because of short term greed.

diystarter7

Update.

We've made initial contact with one of the outfits that is offering a no-win, no fee offer.
However, I am researching and will ask about the following.
Below I've cut and pasted from the link from MSE and something to consider.

Signing up is free – but not risk-free

As these are 'no win, no fee' legal claims, you won't have to pay anything upfront to join any of them, though if you do join and the claim is successful, somewhere between a third and a half of the payout will go to the law firm.

If a claim ISN'T successful, you're unlikely to have to pay anything, but it's not impossible. If a court ruled in favour of the manufacturer you could technically be liable for its legal costs. In practice, this would likely be covered by the law firm's 'ATE' or 'after the event' insurance – but the cover will be capped, so it's not bulletproof. 

We aren't able to verify whether firms have this cover – but almost all of those listed in the table below told us that they have, or will take out, sufficient ATE cover to protect you from having to pay legal costs.

The exception is Keller Lenkner UK. It said it puts insurance cover in place "in most cases", although it decides this on a case-by-case basis. It added that it has also made a legal promise to financially protect clients itself from having to pay anything if their claim fails.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims/?_ga=2.180553317.318991900.1654159708-1629466805.1654159708&_gl=1*q5gl3r*_ga*MTYyOTQ2NjgwNS4xNjU0MTU5NzA4*_ga_X74CWQS9F0*MTY1NDE1OTcwOC4xLjEuMTY1NDE2MjA5MS41OA..

born_again

diystarter7 said:

Update.

We've made initial contact with one of the outfits that is offering a no-win, no fee offer.
However, I am researching and will ask about the following.
Below I've cut and pasted from the link from MSE and something to consider.

Signing up is free – but not risk-free

As these are 'no win, no fee' legal claims, you won't have to pay anything upfront to join any of them, though if you do join and the claim is successful, somewhere between a third and a half of the payout will go to the law firm.

If a claim ISN'T successful, you're unlikely to have to pay anything, but it's not impossible. If a court ruled in favour of the manufacturer you could technically be liable for its legal costs. In practice, this would likely be covered by the law firm's 'ATE' or 'after the event' insurance – but the cover will be capped, so it's not bulletproof. 

We aren't able to verify whether firms have this cover – but almost all of those listed in the table below told us that they have, or will take out, sufficient ATE cover to protect you from having to pay legal costs.

The exception is Keller Lenkner UK. It said it puts insurance cover in place "in most cases", although it decides this on a case-by-case basis. It added that it has also made a legal promise to financially protect clients itself from having to pay anything if their claim fails.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims/?_ga=2.180553317.318991900.1654159708-1629466805.1654159708&_gl=1*q5gl3r*_ga*MTYyOTQ2NjgwNS4xNjU0MTU5NzA4*_ga_X74CWQS9F0*MTY1NDE1OTcwOC4xLjEuMTY1NDE2MjA5MS41OA..

So there you have it. How much do they charge for that insurance?