Suing VW over emissions scandal... Mod warning post 313

zilog_jones

RedorDead wrote: »

The truth is they probably wouldnt because it has been unveiled that every manufacturer bar none falsifies figures in many subsequent tests.

There are two issues here:

1. The current emissions tests performed on cars in the EU (NEDC) have been proven to have very little bearing on reality, so pretty much all diesels are outputting significantly more NOx and other bad things during real world driving even though they may be legitimately passing the test requirements.
2. VW have been proven to employ "defeat devices" (in reality: software) in their diesel cars to specifically detect when the car is going through an emissions test cycle (US EPA, NEDC and probably others) and reduce emissions accordingly to pass them. I'm not aware of other manufacturers who have been caught for this, and this is a much bigger problem as it is fraud - hence the US EPA fining them for billions.

Special Circumstances

CalamariFritti wrote: »

That kind of reply indicates to me some sort of chip on your shoulder. Hard to take anything seriously after that.

In any case. Why would 'the Germans' push any kind of diesel favourable regulation? Traditionally diesel cars are not popular at all in Germany. The German drivers disliked the CO2 based tax reform just as much as the Irish drivers. And the manufacturers don't care what kind of car they sell as long as they're selling cars.
Also I'm sure now that petrol will become more popular again advances will be made on petrol engines to become cleaner. Which will. be easier to begin with as petrol is cleaner anyways.

Wahey!!!!


Which part do you have the problem with?
The Germans are calling the shots in europe? You're saying that hasn't been borne out at all over the last how many years. Hard to take anything you say seriously after that.

I believe I said EU car manufacturers in terms of EU regulations. Try reading that again. It's hard to take you seriously when you misinterpret very straightforward posts.

Now, assuming you have a normal level of reading comprehension and just misread it in a hurry the first time round... You're now saying that EU manufacturers and regulators would have had no reason to collude? That the eu emissions regs are scientifically a better bet than california or Japan etc?

Petrol engines are becoming dirtier.

Again... Hard to take you seriously based on your understanding of emissions here.


Try again though. You might get through a whole sentence without an error! Although you did get a danke from George Dalton for that last attempt so...

zilog_jones

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Petrol engines are becoming dirtier.

Again... Hard to take you seriously based on your understanding of emissions here.

Well, actually many are. Direct injection petrol engines have become a lot more common in the past 20 years, and although they are more efficient and reduce CO2 emissions they have been proven to be significantly worse for emissions of particulates - 1,000 times worse than traditional indirect injection petrol engines. Particulates and NOx have the biggest effect on local pollution (smog, etc.).

Special Circumstances

zilog_jones wrote: »

Well, actually many are. Direct injection petrol engines have become a lot more common in the past 20 years, and although they are more efficient and reduce CO2 emissions they have been proven to be significantly worse for emissions of particulates - 1,000 times worse than traditional indirect injection petrol engines. Particulates and NOx have the biggest effect on local pollution (smog, etc.).

That's the joke.



The person telling me I couldn't be taken seriously was saying petrols are getting cleaner.


And then I said it has hard to take him seriously here due to his knowledge on emissions.

Shefwedfan

CalamariFritti wrote: »

That kind of reply indicates to me some sort of chip on your shoulder. Hard to take anything seriously after that.

In any case. Why would 'the Germans' push any kind of diesel favourable regulation?

Well let me explain why. VW is huge in Germany and the German government are running the show in Europe for the last few years and since Brexit have more control than ever.

VW make a sh*t load of money for the German Government. A pi**ed off VW is not what a German Government want, especially one that is out of favor with voters and a election is coming up soon. I would expect the current government might need some cash to put together a campaign to make sure they stay in power.

Lets just say the German Government does nothing, doesn't help VW. The competition for Merkels job goes to VW and says "give me some cash to get her out and I will make sure all those pesky smaller countries won't say boo to you"....what happens then?

You might say this is all fantasy...blah blah blah....

But in reality this is how the World works. Are you really telling me when all this blew up the first number VW rang was not Merkels?

CalamariFritti

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Wahey!!!!


Which part do you have the problem with?
The Germans are calling the shots in europe? You're saying that hasn't been borne out at all over the last how many years. Hard to take anything you say seriously after that.

I believe I said EU car manufacturers in terms of EU regulations. Try reading that again. It's hard to take you seriously when you misinterpret very straightforward posts.

Now, assuming you have a normal level of reading comprehension and just misread it in a hurry the first time round... You're now saying that EU manufacturers and regulators would have had no reason to collude? That the eu emissions regs are scientifically a better bet than california or Japan etc?

Petrol engines are becoming dirtier.

Again... Hard to take you seriously based on your understanding of emissions here.


Try again though. You might get through a whole sentence without an error! Although you did get a danke from George Dalton for that last attempt so...

I actually don't care enough to get into a tit for tat. You win. Enjoy, no hard feelings.

Special Circumstances

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I actually don't care enough to get into a tit for tat. You win. Enjoy, no hard feelings.

You cared enough to say I couldn't be taken seriously.

It's hard to take your "I don't care" weaseling seriously after that.

Shefwedfan

Just to follow up, I contacted the solicitor 2 days ago, sent all the information requested on website and have heard nothing back....

I guess they are in no rush either

zilog_jones

In the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/vw-emissions-scandal-has-enough-diesel-to-run-and-run-1.2934296

Some info about the Irish and UK lawsuits near the end.

Henry Ford III

This scandal is hitting VAG hard financially in the US and also in terms of new sales here.

The cheat doesn't seem to have be replicated by other manufacturers either despite widespread earlier claims that "everyone would be at it - just wait and see".

If and when it starts to affect residual values is when the sh1t will really hit the fan.

Their reputation has taken a battering without doubt, and this is still far from over.

Dial Hard

Henry Ford III wrote:

The cheat doesn't seem to have be replicated by other manufacturers either despite widespread earlier claims that "everyone would be at it - just wait and see".

Fiat Chrysler collared for it yesterday.

bazz26

Oh and don't forget the outrage! Outrage is good.

suitseir

zilog_jones wrote: »

In the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/manufacturing/vw-emissions-scandal-has-enough-diesel-to-run-and-run-1.2934296

Some info about the Irish and UK lawsuits near the end.

Saw that today. Think we will wait and see what happens.;)

Del2005

Looks like Renault are in trouble also, with their 1.5DCi being in loads of other manufactures cars it could be interesting to see who else gets caught.

Water John

The best option is for the EU to put in place real tests and limits.

Tractors and Lorries already have such cleaner engines.

zilog_jones

The proposals for better emissions tests have been around for years - the problem is the European motor industry has too much of an influence on the EU to allow them to make any changes that would make it harder for them. The current limits are essentially impossible during real world driving with current technology, for diesels anyway.

And if the government really cared about pollution they would change the tax to be based on a combination of NOx + particulate emissions, but will need to do this in a way that won't unnecessarily penalise all those who moved to diesels in the past 9 years (which was mostly the government's fault anyway). Maybe changing VRT first?

Special Circumstances

zilog_jones wrote: »

The proposals for better emissions tests have been around for years - the problem is the European motor industry has too much of an influence on the EU to allow them to make any changes that would make it harder for them. The current limits are essentially impossible during real world driving with current technology, for diesels anyway.

And if the government really cared about pollution they would change the tax to be based on a combination of NOx + particulate emissions

You'll get sent to the naughty step if you keep talking common sense in here!

Fiskar

With Renault and Fiat -Chrysler getting focus on diesel I can see manufacturers walking away from production of diesel passenger cars. To me, with the focus on introduction of new emissions testing in EU countries it would be a brave man going out to buy a diesel car now. I am holding off for scrappage on my near 10 year old (with 2 year NCT) in the next 2 years. I won't be buying a diesel (new or 2nd hand) as by then petrol -electric hopefully will be in vogue.

The day is not far away when one will be able to drive by that petrol station and not have to fill up! The only question is how the grubby hands of government will get their motor tax , by the Kilowatt!

grogi

Fiskar wrote: »

With Renault and Fiat -Chrysler getting focus on diesel I can see manufacturers walking away from production of diesel passenger cars. To me, with the focus on introduction of new emissions testing in EU countries it would be a brave man going out to buy a diesel car now. I am holding off for scrappage on my near 10 year old (with 2 year NCT) in the next 2 years. I won't be buying a diesel (new or 2nd hand) as by then petrol -electric hopefully will be in vogue.

Aren't you a bit hysterical?

The governments will not do anything to upset the existing owners, they are in majority with big investments. Taxes (motortax) and pricing (VRT) will change, but only on newly registered vehicles.

I would applaud you for not buying one because you don't agree with diesel in general.

grogi

zilog_jones wrote: »

And if the government really cared about pollution they would change the tax to be based on a combination of NOx + particulate emissions, but will need to do this in a way that won't unnecessarily penalise all those who moved to diesels in the past 9 years (which was mostly the government's fault anyway). Maybe changing VRT first?

That is the only sensible option long term. What's more, if the VRT was rolled out gradually, like 1-2% a year, it would not involve any major disruption into the second hand market. Exising owners would not burn tires in the street either.

Fiskar

grogi wrote: »

Aren't you a bit hysterical?

The governments will not do anything to upset the existing owners, they are in majority with big investments. Taxes (motortax) and pricing (VRT) will change, but only on newly registered vehicles.

I would applaud you for not buying one because you don't agree with diesel in general.

Don't think I am getting hysterical, more a realist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057694180

BoatMad

mickdw wrote: »

I actually do understand quite well. They admitted to co2 irregularities in Europe and that was where the point arose re vw paying any lost taxes directly to government as opposed to reclassifying cars already on the road.

Compensated for being sold a car that is nowhere near as clean as a customer would have believed whether it be nox or co2.
Compensated for loss due to reduced valuation on open market. May not be the case but needs assessing at least.
Compensated for time required to take car into vw for recall. Would amount to a days work missed for me.
Compensated for perhaps purchasing a car based on knowingly false advertising.

lets try and returns to the facts

All the VW diesels on sale in Europe passed the relevant NEDC tests . No testing house to my knowledge has come out and publicly stated that the engines did ( a) not pass the test or (b) that the test was rigged by any software . All vw admitted in Europe is that the defeat software is present. IN the US that software was tailored to deafen the EPA tests , there was no necessity to defeat the NEDC tests, the engines passed with or without it


Its worth bearing mind that the USA test are twice as stringent as Europe for NOX , which is why VW had the issue in the first place.

Compensated for being sold a car that is nowhere near as clean as a customer would have believed whether it be nox or co2.

you can only be compensated if you suffered a loss ( physical mental or monetary ),

Can you substantiate that the car is less clean , where is the data ( the US data is not relevant )

Can you substantiate any " loss" based on the criteria

Compensated for loss due to reduced valuation on open market. May not be the case but needs assessing at least

wells thats close to a nonsense argument, wed all be in court every day if that was the case, imagine the recent loss of value of houses,!!

Compensated for time required to take car into vw for recall. Would amount to a days work missed for me.

to date that has never been a compensatable activity, its worth noting that the recall is not mandatory

Compensated for perhaps purchasing a car based on knowingly false advertising.

in the US , yes,in Europe with the much higher NOX limits , no . No test house has publicly said the VW figures are fraudulent ( unlike in the US)

There is no method whereby a car already taxed can be reassessed for Co2 and hence have that justified as compensation. in My view in that case ( and only that case) , there would be a valid case for compensation but Ive seen no evidence that such an action is being considered or is even legally possible

Shefwedfan

BoatMad wrote: »

lets try and returns to the facts

All the VW diesels on sale in Europe passed the relevant NEDC tests . No testing house to my knowledge has come out and publicly stated that the engines did ( a) not pass the test or (b) that the test was rigged by any software . All vw admitted in Europe is that the defeat software is present. IN the US that software was tailored to deafen the EPA tests , there was no necessity to defeat the NEDC tests, the engines passed with or without it


Its worth bearing mind that the USA test are twice as stringent as Europe for NOX , which is why VW had the issue in the first place.




you can only be compensated if you suffered a loss ( physical mental or monetary ),

Can you substantiate that the car is less clean , where is the data ( the US data is not relevant )

Can you substantiate any " loss" based on the criteria



wells thats close to a nonsense argument, wed all be in court every day if that was the case, imagine the recent loss of value of houses,!!



to date that has never been a compensatable activity, its worth noting that the recall is not mandatory



in the US , yes,in Europe with the much higher NOX limits , no . No test house has publicly said the VW figures are fraudulent ( unlike in the US)

There is no method whereby a car already taxed can be reassessed for Co2 and hence have that justified as compensation. in My view in that case ( and only that case) , there would be a valid case for compensation but Ive seen no evidence that such an action is being considered or is even legally possible

All valid points, but to be honest I want Money Money Money:P

BoatMad

Shefwedfan wrote: »

All valid points, but to be honest I want Money Money Money:P

buy a lotto ticket , more reliable then a court case and a whole lot cheaper

Water John

Well it looks like these 3 judges in a court in Germany have taken a different and grim view to some of the posters here.
They are for forcing VW to do a buy back.
They compare VW's actions to the horsemeat scandal in terms of missellling.

http://www.carscoops.com/2017/01/german-court-compares-dieselgate-to.html

Shefwedfan

BoatMad wrote: »

buy a lotto ticket , more reliable then a court case and a whole lot cheaper

You would be better off learning what sarcasm is

grogi

Water John wrote: »

Well it looks like these 3 judges in a court in Germany have taken a different and grim view to some of the posters here.
They are for forcing VW to do a buy back.
They compare VW's actions to the horsemeat scandal in terms of missellling.

http://www.carscoops.com/2017/01/german-court-compares-dieselgate-to.html

The posters in this thread don't agree with suing FOR MONETARY COMPENSATION. Suing VW to buy back the vehicle is a completely different story.

Kashmeer

Ok, so I took my time to read the whole thread. Very interesting conversation. I too, got a famous letter and you know what… I am not going to bother to get it done because I didn’t fork out ten thousand euros on a lower spec engine. If I wanted to do so in first place, I’d spend 1/3 less.

Let me quote a few replies…

alongwaytotipp wrote: »

This whole emissions scandal doesn't bother me in the slightest but I'd be dammed if I was going to miss a chance of a payout... They are paying out in the US so why not elsewhere ?
grounds for compensation include: buying deceptive goods, the stress and worry of not having a car that was as environmentally friendly as I thought, wasting my time to have the ca fixed...etc. I'd say 10k should cover

I agree, if they pay out elsewhere, then I am entitled to it, too, no?

zilog_jones wrote: »

The cars are not "as described" so arguably go against the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act - there is the expectation that the emissions in normal driving would be somewhat similar to what is produced in the standardised tests, but obviously they don't do that. I don't know how well that argument would work in court though, especially considering the failings of the NEDC tests.

Some people (apparently no one here) do actually care about the environment and would buy a car based on their low emissions. NOx emissions are one of the biggest causes of local pollution and contribute to respiratory problems, i.e. it has a direct effect on people unlike the wishy-washy vagueness of CO2 emissions. Air quality in cities in Europe are getting worse partially due to the increase in diesel car sales with their "chape tax" - taxing based on CO2 was a mistake IMO.

And yes, there's no way VW can "fix" these cars to make them compliant without either reducing performance or increasing fuel consumption - those are tangible losses. But I don't think we'll really know until the recalls are done.

Has anybody brought their car for a recall and is there really a performance loss? Or BHP loss?
Because in the quotation below I feel like I have a 1.6 TDI A3 and will end up with a Polo myself.

cfuserkildare wrote: »

If you paid for a high-spec / high performance diesel, then VW downgrade it to NCT spec, then you will find that the engine is now substancially lower in performance.

Therefore, the car is no longer the highest spec version , but a pretty standard TDI giving perhaps 110BHP, not the 130-150 bhp that you paid for, which means that the extra 10'000-15'000 that the car cost is now pointless over-cost!

Like paying for a Scirocco and getting a Polo.

shietpilot wrote: »

I find it funny nobody really even knows how much MPG they are getting. I've heard plenty of people tell me their diesel car gets 60 MPG because it's what they saw on the brochure. In reality these cars achieve a lot less.

If you log onto Fuelly and have a look at some 1.6 TDI Golfs you will see the average fuel consumption across a range of different drivers is a lot lower.

For example:
2012 1.6 TDI Golf - 47.9 MPG
2011 1.6 TDI Golf - 48.6 MPG
2010 1.6 TDI Golf - 46.0 MPG

You don't see anyone making a fuss about it though!

s15r330 wrote: »

My girlfriends 2011 1.6 TDI gets 58mpg, and I calculated that over 3 tanks, not using the trip computer.
My 99 AFN a4 got 65mpg out of a tank recently.

Mine does 57mpg, calculated over 12 months of owning the car. Of course if I don’t bring her on longer runs she drinks more. So if I were to go and “fix” her, she might never be the same in terms of mpg and power, is that right!

Muahahaha wrote: »

Good point, iirc VW have set €13.5bn aside to pay compensation worldwide.

A mate of mine is a solicitor in Dublin who has a good few VW cases on his books at the moment and he tells me they will be paying out to Irish drivers. They've already admitted liability so now he says its just a matter of processing paperwork and getting customers their compensation. He reckons it might take about 12 months from now before payouts arrive but hes certain that they will be coming. So those thinking this will be thrown out of court are going to find themselves to be very wrong on this one.

Also I really dont understand why some on here are getting in a tizzy over this, VW themselves have told their shareholders to expect a multi-billion euro payout which is as good as saying we were wrong and now have to pay the costs of the emissions cheating.

Its no different from buying any product to later find out you've been mis-sold it. And the whole case itself will concentrate the minds of other car manufacturers thinking of pulling the same stunt. If there is no punishment for doing so then they're free to do it again and again till we cant trust any car companies in what they're selling.

Now, tell me, any news on those payouts? I am ready to sue if I know others got money. Why the hell not! 

robtri wrote: »

I believe the answer is that in Ireland you cannot bring a class action suit...


I also believe the money isnt to compensate but reserved to potentially buy back vehicles.

Whether people care or not about emissions, the fact is VW sold a product under false pretenses... you buy anything and its not as stated you should be entitled to your money back on return of the product.

Agreed.

So to conclude….
1) Are there any successful court cases in Ireland?
2) What exactly happens to the car after it being “fixed”?
3) Shall I even bother doing it, I am sure other cars have high NOx and no one cares, sure we all will be dead soon enough anyway!

grogi

Kashmeer wrote: »

Ok, so I took my time to read the whole thread. Very interesting conversation. I too, got a famous letter and you know what… I am not going to bother to get it done because I didn’t fork out ten thousand euros on a lower spec engine. If I wanted to do so in first place, I’d spend 1/3 less.

Can I sue you? Because you are DELIBERATELY driving in a car that is polluting.

Sam Russell

grogi wrote: »

Can I sue you? Because you are DELIBERATELY driving in a car that is polluting.

All cars pollute. The VW ones pollute more than the manufacturer said, but less than older cars and about the same as other, more honest, manufacturers claimed.

So. no, you cannot expect to win such a claim. [Of course, you can sue anyone for anything - just you may not win without a good case.]

Special Circumstances

Sam Russell wrote: »

The VW ones pollute more than the manufacturer said, but less than older cars and about the same as other, more honest, manufacturers claimed.

What measure of pollution are we using here, and what "older" generation of engine are we comparing them to? There's a whiff of fake news off this tbh.

Kimbot

Anyone have the link to see if your car is one of the ones affected?? I had a look and maybe I missed it but I just cant find it.

Sam Russell

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What measure of pollution are we using here, and what "older" generation of engine are we comparing them to? There's a whiff of fake news off this tbh.

Just look at the CO2 figures for cars from any manufacturer by year. The figures have tightened over the last decade.

It is obvious from the link that either manufacturers have been successful in reducing the figures or have been cheating.

Kashmeer

grogi wrote: »

Can I sue you? Because you are DELIBERATELY driving in a car that is polluting.

Let's compare mine and yours and see whose is worse...?
I am driving a car which I bought before the whole scandal was revealed, so keep stupid comments to yourself.

Sam Russell

jonnycivic wrote: »

Anyone have the link to see if your car is one of the ones affected?? I had a look and maybe I missed it but I just cant find it.

Is it a VAG manufactured car 2010 onwards? VW, Audi, Seat, Skoda (not Bentley or Bugatti)

Is it a diesel?

Then it is likely. Ask VW.

Kimbot

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is it a VAG manufactured car 2010 onwards? Is it a diesel?

Then it is likely. Ask VW.

Thanks, the actual link is here: http://campaigncheck.ie/

Was linked on the page you had in your post

Special Circumstances

Special Circumstances wrote: »

What measure of pollution are we using here, and what "older" generation of engine are we comparing them to? There's a whiff of fake news off this tbh.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just look at the CO2 figures for cars from any manufacturer by year. The figures have tightened over the last decade.

It is obvious from the link that either manufacturers have been successful in reducing the figures or have been cheating.

Ah you're one of the "less CO2 at any expense, less CO2 is less pollution overall" types.

This proposed VW fix is quite unlikely to reduce the CO2 emissions. It may actually increase them. So you'd be completely opposed to it as it won't reduce pollution... right?

grogi

Kashmeer wrote: »

Let's compare mine and yours and see whose is worse...?
I am driving a car which I bought before the whole scandal was revealed, so keep stupid comments to yourself.

What you're doing is exactly the same what VW was doing:

You decide, in a deliberate, willing and fully aware way, to pollute more than allowed and break the law, only to achieve your private goals.
Not only selfish, but hypocritical.

I'd love to see lads like you being brought in front of the judge. And then, when you loose, you could sue VW for losses you suffered - but again you'd loose that one, because it is ONLY YOURS decision now to pollute. Before you could say you did not know, but not anymore.

Kashmeer

grogi wrote: »

What you're doing is exactly the same what VW was doing:

You decide, in a deliberate, willing and fully aware way, to pollute more than allowed and break the law, only to achieve your private goals.
Not only selfish, but hypocritical.

I'd love to see lads like you being brought in front of the judge. And then, when you loose, you could sue VW for losses you suffered - but again you'd loose that one, because it is ONLY YOURS decision now to pollute. Before you could say you did not know, but not anymore.

Every car pollutes mate, sorry to break the news to you. I decided to purchase a car, based on my own preference, nothing to do with emissions. I didn't pick this model because I want the atmosphere to suffer... So not exactly sure what your problem is.

If you're on about the fact I said I don't want to get it fixed - I surely emit less waste than those beamers with blue smoke coming out of them, and boy, there's tons of them around. Or older, 15 year old cars which have malfunctioning cats and failed NCTs. If you so care about the emissions, I suggest you walk from today onwards. Be sure not to breathe though - what if you inhale too much of CO2 and NOx from my car?

Special Circumstances

I find your tone very uncivil and unhelpful tbh but you've lost me here:

Kashmeer wrote: »

Or older, 15 year old cars which have malfunctioning cats and failed NCTs.

Are you saying that diesels pollute less because they pass a farcical emissions test that some petrol cars fail a much more stringent version of?

jimgoose

Kashmeer wrote: »

...Or older, 15 year old cars which have malfunctioning cats and failed NCTs. If you so care about the emissions, I suggest you walk from today onwards. Be sure not to breathe though - what if you inhale too much of CO2 and NOx from my car?

My particular 18-year old, 175,000-mile car has two perfectly functional cats and a valid NCT, as always. It also blows no discernible CO and trace amounts of HC. Lambda is bang-on 1.00, as it should be.

Special Circumstances

jimgoose wrote: »

My particular 18-year old, 175,000-mile car has two perfectly functional cats and a valid NCT, as always. It also blows no discernible CO and trace amounts of HC. Lambda is bang-on 1.00, as it should be.

You're a disgrace jim and you know it. Swanning around killing indiscriminately with your >15 year old car, and those you don't kill you set them up so you can make fraudulent insurance claims against them.

Robbing poor children of all that vital NOx and particulate goodness they need to grow up to be Green party members.

A CO2 THUNDERING disgrace is what you are.

jimgoose

Special Circumstances wrote: »

You're a disgrace jim and you know it. Swanning around killing indiscriminately with your >15 year old car, and those you don't kill you set them up so you can make fraudulent insurance claims against them.

Robbing poor children of all that vital NOx and particulate goodness they need to grow up to be Green party members.

A CO2 THUNDERING disgrace is what you are.

You forgot reinventing myself after a career hitherto as a Bulgarian identity-theiver person, and probably some sort of Fronting as well.

Sam Russell

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Ah you're one of the "less CO2 at any expense, less CO2 is less pollution overall" types.

This proposed VW fix is quite unlikely to reduce the CO2 emissions. It may actually increase them. So you'd be completely opposed to it as it won't reduce pollution... right?

Not at all.

I am merely pointing out a source of UK Gov data showing CO2 figures for cars dating back quite a few years. CO2 is one pollutant that governs our crazy tax system. If NOx was included, that would be better. Tyres are another pollutant that is not counted at all. There are lots of pollution caused by cars, not all measured.

I actually suspect that VW will reduce the power output of the engine and increase the fuel consumption.

everlast75

My bro lives in the US.

His mate drives a Passat and had paid it off in full.

VW contacted him and offered to buy the car back off him for what he paid for it.

He agreed and walked away with a large check, having had a couple of years free motoring.

Would anyone here do anything different?

Water John

But we have some posters on here saying, there is nothing to see here, move on. Then why are VW paying out in the USA?

Shefwedfan

Water John wrote: »

But we have some posters on here saying, there is nothing to see here, move on. Then why are VW paying out in the USA?

After reading back over the thread the majority of the people saying there is nothing to see here are not actual VW drivers and are not affected at all....

There is also a lot of posts attacking people asking about the claims saying they don't deserve anything, also mostly made by unaffected drivers.

The thread itself was started by someone looking for more information about the court case.....

Shefwedfan

everlast75 wrote: »

My bro lives in the US.

His mate drives a Passat and had paid it off in full.

VW contacted him and offered to buy the car back off him for what he paid for it.

He agreed and walked away with a large check, having had a couple of years free motoring.

Would anyone here do anything different?

I made this point already but what is the difference between me buying a car off VW/Audi in Ireland and someone in the US buying the same car?

The US owner has already got a 100 doller reward card to start with and then given option to hand back car etc etc

I get a letter from Audi without an apology telling me to bring the car to them so they can fix it.....

zilog_jones

In the US, the EPA proved that VW were cheating on tests and their cars were non-compliant. The issue of whether they cheated the EU NEDC tests is less clear, and the EU have not really taken action on this.

Also, there are no class action suits over here; and as blackwhite said earlier, most US courts can award punitive damages which can also not be done here.

blackwhite

Water John wrote: »

But we have some posters on here saying, there is nothing to see here, move on. Then why are VW paying out in the USA?

Because the USA law of tort is very different to the UK and Irish systems.

It's been explained, but when people see the $$$$$ signs they tend not to want to listen to anything that doesn't support their perceived chance of cashing in.

Simply put - in Ireland (or the UK), you will only received compensation if you can prove you have suffered an actual financial loss, and the compensation will be no more than the value of that loss.

In the USA, there is the possibility for punitive damages, which means that there is no upper limit on the compensation that a defendant may be order to pay.

Hence, there's every incentive for VW to pay customers in the USA not to sue - because the potential court awards could be huge.

Here, there's no incentive for them to settle anything, because 1) nobody has (as of yet) demonstrated an actual financial loss in court and 2) even if somebody does successfully sue them, any award is likely to be very small.