RE: TDI the new PPI
Discussion
I bought a 2010 Seat Ibiza 1.6 tdi for my wife. It was absolutely crap. In the 2 years we had it we replaced about 8 various sensors , the DPF, and the EGR system twice. I eventually did an illegal EGR delete and remap and the car finally ran as it should have from the start. I sold it before anything else went wrong.
I bought the car initially based on VAGs good reputation for quality which turned out to be nonsense.
I don't think I should be entitled to compensation on the bases put forward in this class action but as VAG were entirely unhelpful, dishonest and completely lacking in customer service in my dealings with them, I'm happy to jump on the bandwagon and screw them for every penny I can get.
I bought the car initially based on VAGs good reputation for quality which turned out to be nonsense.
I don't think I should be entitled to compensation on the bases put forward in this class action but as VAG were entirely unhelpful, dishonest and completely lacking in customer service in my dealings with them, I'm happy to jump on the bandwagon and screw them for every penny I can get.
PhantomPH said:
I don't disagree - that's a perfectly valid comparison. My issue (I guess) is around the presentation of this. To labour this a little bit, if I was not in any way affected by the cheesy arsenic, I would struggle to shout and complain and accept compensation without feeling just as bad as the manufacturer.
The manufacturer is fabricating a situation...those (ok, not ALL) are fabricating a loss in order to gain financially. And lets not dress this up - if VW gave me £3-5k compensation, I would struggle to rationalise that to a £3-5k loss. To me it feels like a whiplash claim when there is nothing wrong with you....everyone is doing it, so I may as well get paid.
In this situation, I would speculate that the majority of people who make a claim, are just as bad as VAG.
Yes, and whether they make a claim is entirely up to the individual, and their conscience; personally, I'm glad that there appears to be a mechanism for UK consumers to make a claim.The manufacturer is fabricating a situation...those (ok, not ALL) are fabricating a loss in order to gain financially. And lets not dress this up - if VW gave me £3-5k compensation, I would struggle to rationalise that to a £3-5k loss. To me it feels like a whiplash claim when there is nothing wrong with you....everyone is doing it, so I may as well get paid.
In this situation, I would speculate that the majority of people who make a claim, are just as bad as VAG.
I disagree that those claimants will be 'just as bad' as VAG though, but that's your opinion.
I couldn't really make out from the chap from the law firm what the basis of the claim is going to be - unless I've missed something he just said that purchasers of the affected cars are upset about the environment. That may be true, and I do believe that VW should get a kicking for what they've done, but that's what regulatory fines are for. For a private individual to bring a successful civil claim in English law they have to show some sort of loss, not just demonstrate that the defendant should be punished.
If purchasers would have instead bought a petrol car had they known how polluting their diesel really was then they would have paid more in fuel costs and VED - so they are in fact better off on that score. If they are so devastated at the discovery that their 'clean' diesel is in fact dirty as sin that they have taken to using the bus/train instead then they may have increased costs which they can claim for - but I doubt anybody who claims to have been heinously betrayed by VW is actually bothered enough to do that.
There is very little evidence of residual values being affected, you can't being a claim just because your feelings have been hurt, and while you can found a claim for breach of contract on misrepresentation you still need to show a loss if you want anything more than nominal damages. So all in all I'm interested to see A) how much the claimants will claim, and B) how they'll justify that as an amount they've 'lost'. It does rather smack of angling for an out-of-court settlement to me.
If purchasers would have instead bought a petrol car had they known how polluting their diesel really was then they would have paid more in fuel costs and VED - so they are in fact better off on that score. If they are so devastated at the discovery that their 'clean' diesel is in fact dirty as sin that they have taken to using the bus/train instead then they may have increased costs which they can claim for - but I doubt anybody who claims to have been heinously betrayed by VW is actually bothered enough to do that.
There is very little evidence of residual values being affected, you can't being a claim just because your feelings have been hurt, and while you can found a claim for breach of contract on misrepresentation you still need to show a loss if you want anything more than nominal damages. So all in all I'm interested to see A) how much the claimants will claim, and B) how they'll justify that as an amount they've 'lost'. It does rather smack of angling for an out-of-court settlement to me.
Cotic said:
PhantomPH said:
I don't disagree - that's a perfectly valid comparison. My issue (I guess) is around the presentation of this. To labour this a little bit, if I was not in any way affected by the cheesy arsenic, I would struggle to shout and complain and accept compensation without feeling just as bad as the manufacturer.
The manufacturer is fabricating a situation...those (ok, not ALL) are fabricating a loss in order to gain financially. And lets not dress this up - if VW gave me £3-5k compensation, I would struggle to rationalise that to a £3-5k loss. To me it feels like a whiplash claim when there is nothing wrong with you....everyone is doing it, so I may as well get paid.
In this situation, I would speculate that the majority of people who make a claim, are just as bad as VAG.
Yes, and whether they make a claim is entirely up to the individual, and their conscience; personally, I'm glad that there appears to be a mechanism for UK consumers to make a claim.The manufacturer is fabricating a situation...those (ok, not ALL) are fabricating a loss in order to gain financially. And lets not dress this up - if VW gave me £3-5k compensation, I would struggle to rationalise that to a £3-5k loss. To me it feels like a whiplash claim when there is nothing wrong with you....everyone is doing it, so I may as well get paid.
In this situation, I would speculate that the majority of people who make a claim, are just as bad as VAG.
I disagree that those claimants will be 'just as bad' as VAG though, but that's your opinion.
Cotic said:
You're right, of course - no-one walks into a dealership and asks about NOX levels, in the same way that no-one walks into Sainsburys asking about the levels of arsenic in cheese.
Internal combustion engines create NOx during the combustion process. Does the cheese making process create arsenic?alexrogers92 said:
Can I just ask - why are people asking for compensation? You can't say you bought it because you're environmentally conscious - thats balls. If you were you would've bought a Prius or another Hybrid as they're 'friendly on the environment'.
Any excuse for a claim these days!
It's every man for himself. Any excuse for a claim these days!
VW exploited a situation as best they could (i.e. emissions testing loophole) and profited from it. Now their customers are exploiting the predicament they are in.
mattwhite709 said:
Tankrizzo said:
What loss have you suffered?
I have already p/x the car so potentially the value I recieved was lower but most importantly it is about holding people to account who make mistakes. Leggy said:
I agree. They have dragged their feet on this and need to be held to account. I've had Audis for 18 years. Tomorrow my 2.0 tdi A4 goes back and I will not be getting another Audi/VAG product. I may not have directly suffered but I have always begrudgingly gone with diesel because of company car tax lower than petrol, and I hate the idea that my emissions unbeknown to me are contributing to the worsening air quality.
Considering the unfair competitive advantage they must have gained I'm surprised no other car manufacturers have waded in. But that probably suggests they have their own skeletons!
So what you are saying is you are.worried about a minutely tiny difference is emissions that they lied about but not enough to have a far cleaner petrol instead because of cost?Considering the unfair competitive advantage they must have gained I'm surprised no other car manufacturers have waded in. But that probably suggests they have their own skeletons!
Edited by Leggy on Monday 9th January 19:40
Mr2Mike said:
Cotic said:
You're right, of course - no-one walks into a dealership and asks about NOX levels, in the same way that no-one walks into Sainsburys asking about the levels of arsenic in cheese.
Internal combustion engines create NOx during the combustion process. Does the cheese making process create arsenic?However, running with the cheese thing, lets assume there are food standards which regulate the amount of arsenic in cheese, and that there are tests for it. What VAG have done, is rather than develop the expensive non-arsenic cheese, they've added a cheap chemical which masks the arsenic from the testers, but told everyone that their cheese has low arsenic levels. Levels are still low enough not to kill you, providing you don't sit in a locked garage
Sheepshanks said:
As ours is EU6 it's apparently unaffected and so we wouldn't be compensated anyway - even though it's been caught up in anti-VW opinion specifically and more widely by VW helping turn the tide against diesel.
Before we bought our Tiguan in Sept 15 (a few days prior to the emissions news coming out) I checked the price of the 3yr old same spec version on WBAC and it was £16K.
I've rechecked a few times since, still using 3yr old cars, and it's now around £12K.
The galling thing is that I intended to run the car for 3yrs and then dump it. The fall in values means I'd have been better leasing, rather than buying.
Is that not more due to the fact that at the end of September 2015, the second-generation Tiguan was unveiled at the Frankfurt motor show?Before we bought our Tiguan in Sept 15 (a few days prior to the emissions news coming out) I checked the price of the 3yr old same spec version on WBAC and it was £16K.
I've rechecked a few times since, still using 3yr old cars, and it's now around £12K.
The galling thing is that I intended to run the car for 3yrs and then dump it. The fall in values means I'd have been better leasing, rather than buying.
Residual values of a car always tank when its successor is unveiled.
Want to teach VAG a lesson, don't buy their cars
Want to increase everyones insurance premiums? Join the class action.
Who do you think is funding the defence of the directors and the entities involved...their insurers, probably to the tune of 500m per jurisdiction if not more. Given the insurers of VW would all be multinationals, you would be talking about 1-2bn paid out in claims at least. Even if the case is unsuccessful, the defence costs paid by the insurers will be up there with that of a successful action.
Guess how the insurers will recoup those losses....
Want to increase everyones insurance premiums? Join the class action.
Who do you think is funding the defence of the directors and the entities involved...their insurers, probably to the tune of 500m per jurisdiction if not more. Given the insurers of VW would all be multinationals, you would be talking about 1-2bn paid out in claims at least. Even if the case is unsuccessful, the defence costs paid by the insurers will be up there with that of a successful action.
Guess how the insurers will recoup those losses....
Whats worse...
VAG in its efforts to remain competitive "massage" some meaningless government fuel efficiency test using a device that as far as I can see has no practical purpose in normal day to day driving. The cars before and after the device was used drive in exactly the same way producing pretty close to the same emissions (save for 'real' development improvements that we can assume are so marginal over before that "massaging the test" was needed.
Choose a car from before the device was used, and customers are presumably quite happy with the performance and fuel economy. There was no scandal of people dropping dead in the streets, wildlife keeling over and plantlike wilting every time a 2005 VW golf tdi wheezed by.
Ok, they should have done 'proper engineering', or been willing to report NCAP fuel efficiency figures of 46mpg, not 48mpg, but who on earth believes the published figures anyway. Its urban legend the published figures are bench tests you'll never see in real driving. Thats not a story.
So VW got caught, and rather than a few questions a politician seeking headlines blew it up.
So now we have an army of people clamouring for compensation. Compensation for what? While everyone takes a glance at fuel efficiency figures, I just don't believe that so many people are light foot hyper-milers who feel cheated because they can't achieve what VW said they might (in lab controlled bench tests).
If cost was a real issue, they'd all be buying French for the cheap finance or Korean for the low prices. They are buying premium German. So compensation for what?
I'm more ashamed of the society we live in when one sniff of some free cash we're fuelled by greed queuing up like parasites, just like with Deep Water Horizon, where massive sums were being paid out, some of it on the most tenuous link. That imperilled a major employer and significant contributor to pension and investment returns. Taking out VW or severely harming its ability to continue huge R&D programmes and car building will only reduce our choice and hit employment right through the supply chain.
If it was based on an issue of safety, exploding fuel tanks or failing brakes, I'd understand. But a VW from 2012 in reality is doing nothing that one from 2005 was doing and people were extremely happy about.
VAG in its efforts to remain competitive "massage" some meaningless government fuel efficiency test using a device that as far as I can see has no practical purpose in normal day to day driving. The cars before and after the device was used drive in exactly the same way producing pretty close to the same emissions (save for 'real' development improvements that we can assume are so marginal over before that "massaging the test" was needed.
Choose a car from before the device was used, and customers are presumably quite happy with the performance and fuel economy. There was no scandal of people dropping dead in the streets, wildlife keeling over and plantlike wilting every time a 2005 VW golf tdi wheezed by.
Ok, they should have done 'proper engineering', or been willing to report NCAP fuel efficiency figures of 46mpg, not 48mpg, but who on earth believes the published figures anyway. Its urban legend the published figures are bench tests you'll never see in real driving. Thats not a story.
So VW got caught, and rather than a few questions a politician seeking headlines blew it up.
So now we have an army of people clamouring for compensation. Compensation for what? While everyone takes a glance at fuel efficiency figures, I just don't believe that so many people are light foot hyper-milers who feel cheated because they can't achieve what VW said they might (in lab controlled bench tests).
If cost was a real issue, they'd all be buying French for the cheap finance or Korean for the low prices. They are buying premium German. So compensation for what?
I'm more ashamed of the society we live in when one sniff of some free cash we're fuelled by greed queuing up like parasites, just like with Deep Water Horizon, where massive sums were being paid out, some of it on the most tenuous link. That imperilled a major employer and significant contributor to pension and investment returns. Taking out VW or severely harming its ability to continue huge R&D programmes and car building will only reduce our choice and hit employment right through the supply chain.
If it was based on an issue of safety, exploding fuel tanks or failing brakes, I'd understand. But a VW from 2012 in reality is doing nothing that one from 2005 was doing and people were extremely happy about.
dxg said:
Allow me to replicate a post from the diesgate thread, I made last night:
A tremendously detailed and thorough examination of the legal treatment of all this - with lots of comparison between how VW is dealing with the legalities of this in the US vs. Europe. And a call for the press to realise how they are being managed in Europe.
Long, detailed, worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjlHtLux9vc
A brilliant insight at 25 minutes in. Someone should make a movie out of this...
And check out 37 minutes for some fun!!!
There's another presentation from that conference that shows how the software determined when to stop trying to control emissions.
It's all massively underhand. And, as the link above point out, VW were not the only one doing this!
Good video - these guys have done their research. Very worrying but sadly unsurprising conclusions...A tremendously detailed and thorough examination of the legal treatment of all this - with lots of comparison between how VW is dealing with the legalities of this in the US vs. Europe. And a call for the press to realise how they are being managed in Europe.
Long, detailed, worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjlHtLux9vc
A brilliant insight at 25 minutes in. Someone should make a movie out of this...
And check out 37 minutes for some fun!!!
There's another presentation from that conference that shows how the software determined when to stop trying to control emissions.
It's all massively underhand. And, as the link above point out, VW were not the only one doing this!
One final point - VAG vehicles seem to be (real world) further off their claimed economy than most other manufacturers (well, the Ford/Fiat 1.0 turbo petrols deserve mention for wholesale cynicism too...). So whilst VAG aren't the only ones playing the game, they appear (in 2 ways - emissions and economy) to be playing it harder / crossing the line more than their competition...
And I'm with those saying that this NEEDS to happen, and in public - "pour encourager les autres", if nothing else...
My wife has an Audi that is affected by this, as was her previous car. I shall be encouraging her to join the class action, not because I particularly care about the emmisions, sticking it to VAG (fnarr fnarr), depreciation or hurt feelings. No, we have nursery fees to pay which are blooming expensive and this could go towards that should it be succesful
To recover £3,000 in damages you will have to show you have suffered £3,0000 financial loss due to VW's cheating (and also that they cheated in a way that has directly caused the loss). Going to be rather tricky I think to do any of that. And anyone who really believes they have suffered no real loss but want to join the action anyway is in danger of committing perjury. Someone suggested above this is all for the benefit of the lawyers who control it - any litigation where it is undertaken to kick the other side / for the principle of it is doomed to enrich mainly the lawyers.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff