Hi Does anybody know how the compensation claim is getting on in the courts.

                                                                                                                                      J&J

So far so good.  It has been confirmed by the court that VW did fit a defeat device and VW's attempt to appeal this has been dismissed.  The judge has been pretty unimpressed with VW's arguments.  Still no idea on when or if any actual compensation will be paid, nor how much it might be.

I still want to know what actual financial loss claimants have endured that deserves any compensation payout whatsoever...

Having bought the car last year in full knowledge of the affair I have not suffered any loss nor do I deserve any compo payout but will be quick off the line towards the feeding through when the starters pistol is fired!

4 hours ago, skomaz said:

I still want to know what actual financial loss claimants have endured that deserves any compensation payout whatsoever...

 Certainly less than people may be expecting, but there is a real loss of value in terms of residuals and resale value.

Surely nothing for those that have purchased a Euro 5 TDI since mid 2016 given that the Scandal broke late 2015 and VW had admitted to 11 Million vehicles having defeat devices by Summer 2016.

 

It is a shame for those that have vehicles with the VW Emissions fix out of the 24 month peace of mind guarantee period and that failed on them.

I think the problem is that the engine's now has been tweaked to make them cleaner to get near the fiddle achieved by the defeat device - obviously at the expense of performance...

 

The issue is that they were only tweaked so that if they were tested under test conditions they could meet the kidology results on rolling roads, 

and they are not actually emitting less emissions on the roads.

But then the Government accepted a million and a bit from VW and then never got the rest and no cars had to go off the UK roads.

58 minutes ago, weasley said:

 Certainly less than people may be expecting, but there is a real loss of value in terms of residuals and resale value.

 

I really can't see that being much at all to be honest and in terms of overall general depreciation due to other factors such as mileage and condition it must be negligible.  I think I've yet to see someone show clear evidence of loss.

Stories of EGR failures put off some buyers and people that do not want diesels and because of the government demonising them, but 2008/9 - 2016 TDI's still sell and the trade still take them in as trade ins.

Edited 19 June, 20205 yr by Roottootemblowinootsoot

I expect i got less for my diesel Yeti on trade in for my petrol Superb than I would have done if it was a petrol Yeti.

 

How much less? No idea.

@Gyp

Maybe not less than some maybe got that traded in a Euro 5 1.8TSI or a pre Chain Tensioner upgrade 1.2TSI that VW Group produced and never did any recalls on or apologies to those that ended up with them and needed to get engine rebuilds or replacements from money out of their own pockets.

I sold my 2014 110bhp Yeti in Feb/March 2019. It went as a private sale to a small local garage to use it as a customer collection vehicle and who still use it. It made more than trade-in and top private sale figures.

Could I have not got more without the fix situation, I don't know. What I do know is that the vehicle was sold under false pretences and for that their should be some comeback.

 

Colin

I have never heard of owners offering to pay back anything they saved with the low VED's or from saving on fuel because they got good economy.

18 hours ago, eribaMotters said:

I sold my 2014 110bhp Yeti in Feb/March 2019. It went as a private sale to a small local garage to use it as a customer collection vehicle and who still use it. It made more than trade-in and top private sale figures.

Could I have not got more without the fix situation, I don't know. What I do know is that the vehicle was sold under false pretences and for that their should be some comeback.

 

Colin

 

What false pretences...   it passed a test it was designed to pass but the test regime was flawed and had loopholes so VW used them.

 

Again what direct personal loss have owners endured that now requires compensation...   none in reality.

Edited 21 June, 20205 yr by skomaz

There will be some people who were influenced by environmental considerations in their choice of cars and didn't get what they thought they were getting.

 

Even so that still doesnt equate to personal financial loss that requires compensation??

9 minutes ago, skomaz said:

Even so that still doesnt equate to personal financial loss that requires compensation??

 

If you don't get what you paid for, that amounts to a financial loss. Also there will be a financial loss due to consumption of extra fuel. 

I had a 2013 Tiguan that when I came to sell it in 2016 was for a lesser price than what I believed it should have gone for if Dieselgate hadn’t happened . In saying that, I’ve not joined any Class Action’s so will definitely not benefit!
 

 

Edited 21 June, 20205 yr by john999boy
Typo

8 hours ago, OldBoyScout said:

There will be some people who were influenced by environmental considerations in their choice of cars and didn't get what they thought they were getting.

 

Pre-fix, the cars were more economical (lower CO2) than they would have been if they'd been designed without the defeat device.

If you're referring to people choosing on the basis of NOx emissions and their impact on city-dwellers, I should think that would apply to about 0.000001% of UK owners at that time.

 

Edited 21 June, 20205 yr by Wino

Let's face it...   The only people that will benefit from this class action are the lawyers who've seen an opportunity to screw both owners and vw and many owners have seen an opportunity to express false outrage to try and get a few quid for something that has had a negligible impact on them.

 

Maybe it's just me but I'm very cynical about it on both counts.

11 hours ago, skomaz said:

 

What false pretences...   it passed a test it was designed to pass but the test regime was flawed and had loopholes so VW used them.

VW did not exploit a loophole, they out-and-out cheated.  The testing may be flawed in terms of its relation to reality, but the protocols under which testing is carried out are very well-established and defeat devices are explicitly forbidden.  There was no loophole.  The ECUs were deliberately programmed to present a ‘clean’ running condition when on a test bed - which it could easily work out by how it was being run (no steering inputs, bonnet open, very well defined acceleration and speed conditions etc) - but then revert to a more pleasing driving condition when used in real life.  This meant that on the road they were nowhere near compliant with the emissions legislation they were sold as being compliant with but they did have a nicer torque curve and better fuel economy.

 

The ‘fix’ was said to clean them up without affecting peak performance figures.  This is carefully written because whilst peak power and/or torque may be the same, the shape of the curves won’t be and this affects how a car feels to drive.  As soon as I heard about all this I stated that this was going to lead to issues with power, EGRs and DPFs; I’m in no way pleased to be right.  I refused the fix every time it was offered to me.

 

VW displayed an arrogance and contempt for the law and for its customers that was driven by cost-engineering - it was cheaper to cheat than to try and do it properly - or at least it was until they got caught.  And yet still they fly off the shelves.

Having read the wording of the EPA CAA it does reference 'defeat' of systems etc. In relation to how they were originally intended to work and is obtuse in relation to the application of this requirement to testing.  It is therefore open to interpretation and does represent a loophole that many manufacturers, not just VW, have taken advantage of.

 

Compliance was only required and certified via static testing not on the open road, representing another loophole that manufacturers used.  This is now being closed retrospectively but hindsight is a wonderful thing and cannot be used to jutify compensation.

 

Having said that, unless personal financial loss can be proven there is no entitlement to compensation.  Which is different to the imposition of a fine under the CAA.

Edited 21 June, 20205 yr by skomaz

EPA/US stuff was clear-cut enough, hence settled (against VW, for customers) more or less as soon as it went public stateside.

 

In the EU the law was written with less-sharp teeth as I understand it.  Whether it was definitely broken - or a loophole was legally exploited - is exactly what the court hearings in each country will decide.  It doesn't matter much what we personally decide. 

4 hours ago, Wino said:

If you're referring to people choosing on the basis of NOx emissions and their impact on city-dwellers, I should think that would apply to about 0.000001% of UK owners at that time.

 

No, I was just referring to CO. I understand NOx is a more recent issue.

 

1 hour ago, weasley said:

VW displayed an arrogance and contempt for the law and for its customers that was driven by cost-engineering - it was cheaper to cheat than to try and do it properly

 

Maybe they just couldn't find a way to do it properly within the time limits. If that was the case they might have seen cheating as a better option than ceasing to sell the cars. It seems to me that they must have continued to work on the problem as they would have needed to do, and they had apparently found it possible to meet the stricter Euro 6 requirements by the time that those came into force. As it turned out they were able to cover up the cheating until the Euro 6 cars went on sale, so in that sense the tactic worked for them. It seems to me that cheating would have been a last resort for them rather than a cost saver given the risk of the truth coming out.

 

1 hour ago, skomaz said:

unless personal financial loss can be proven there is no entitlement to compensation.

 

Not sure about that. i believe compensation can be applied in relation to any kind of loss or damage that can be proved in court, not just financial.