Dieselgate - collapsed solicitors

Use another solicitor. Maybe ask your Father in Law.

Which solicitor? When a law firm goes pop your case will be handed off to another firm to continue work on - if you get in touch with the SRA with your old firm's details they should be able to point you in the direction.

I thought all that dieselgate claim story was a scam? Perhaps I'll give it a go

I never understood the basis of a legal claim for dieselgate. To claim, surely you have to show that you have suffered some damage? But as a driver of a car with a cheat device, you have benefited because the car is more economical than it would have been. It's the people who have to breathe your exhaust who have suffered, not you.

Resale value?

Damage isn't just about money. A feeling of annoyance at not having got what you bargained for will suffice in a contract claim. The court will invent a number for it, just like it does in other cases where actual loss of monetary value is not necessary (eg defamation, the "pain suffering and loss of amenity" element of personal injury claims).

There may also be other (regulatory?) issues involved in the diesel claims.

Eta in legalspeak actual financial loss is often called "special damage" to differentiate it from the other sort.

you have benefited because the car is more economical than it would have been

I don't think the cheat mode made the cars any more economical, it just optimised the engine for low NOx when it detected a test cycle.

Having said that, I don't know where the owner will have suffered damage unless their buying decision was substantially based on the car's low NOx output and they were horribly afflicted by guilt when they found out it had been gamed. I don't think it's damaged the car's resale value (unless anyone knows different?).

edit - saw greyspoke's post. I expect he's right but "feeling of annoyance" sounds pretty nebulous and a bit precious. The manufacturers definitely merit a good caning from Trading Standards or similar outfits though.

I don’t think the cheat mode made the cars any more economical, it just optimised the engine for low NOx when it detected a test cycle.

If low NOx also gave the best power and economy you wouldn't need to do that.

If low NOx also gave the best power and economy you wouldn’t need to do that.

Where does that have any relevance in the U.K. and Europe, though? It’s only in America that they legislate against NOx, they don’t care about CO2, which was why diesels were promoted for environmental reasons in Europe, because of the lower CO2. Even US truck manufacturers were doing the same thing, to cheat the US NOx emissions rules, but oddly enough, they didn’t seem to have been penalised. I wonder why that was…🤔

European regulations have nox limits. Part of Euro 5, Euro 6 etc.  No sliding scale like with CO2 tax bands, just a maximum limit for a given type of vehicle.

.

Despite having one if the cars involved, I didn't bother claiming.

The emissions/ fuel economy did not figure in our decision making process when we bought it, ergo we have suffered no loss.

A couple of mates are chancing it "because they can". I don't think the solicitors need my fees as well.

You can look at the damages thing this way.

VW promised (term of contract) a legally compliant vehicle that would achieve certain performance and economy targets. In fact they were technically unable to do so and delivered something else.

One way of calculating damages is the cost of procuring contract-compliant goods by other means - eg the cost of modifying the the car so that it does do as promised. Even if possible, that cost would be very high. So in cases like this the law fobs the claimant off with some dosh for disappointment. It is doing VW a favour really.

It’s only in America that they legislate against NOx

No, that's what Euro IV/V/VI regs mean.

Re the claims, I think it's ridiculous personally. As if any buyers give a toss about their NOx emissions!

molgrips +1 Most buyers won't have heard of NOx (PS Euro VI is not the same as Euro 6).
Euro 6 is phased in 4 stages but the difference is in the testing regime rather than the Euro 6 emission levels.
The scandal is around defeating the tests so that manufacturers can produce an engine with more power which attracts buyers. Once away from testing the engine uses more fuel and more adblue (if used) than the tests would suggest. Adblue is one method used to reduce NOx emissions, breaking them down into nitrogen and water through Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).
Adblue at c£1.70 per litre and diesel at c£1.80 per litre costs the buyer more than anticipated and leads to lawyers. That's my understanding anyway and on the basis that I bought my diesel after the scandal broke I won't be going to a lawyer because I think that I understood the risk

I bought a VW Touran bought before the scandal broke. It did what I expected in terms of power and particularly fuel consumption. I wouldn't let them make adjustments. I suffered no loss so didn't claim. The regulators are the ones who should be hammering the manufacturers and looking at their testing regime, but we've seen how political that all is.

In the US VW has awarded $5k-$10k per claimant plus buying certain vehicles back (not all).
90% of US claimants took buyback or terminated their lease. A total of $9.8bn has been paid there to owners of diesels so far
VAG settled last month to pay £193mn to UK claimants (solicitors will take a big chunk of that) I'm not sure that we'll reach lawyers estimates here, we'll see 🙂

@timba
...that's only for England.. Scotland's case is still in court..

Thanks Joe, I didn't remember it properly, E&W only 🙂

I thought the ones with the specific cheat devices were pre-SCR? Although it has also been said that the SCR engines don't use enough AdBlue to actually reduce emissions much.

I still think that they should have been fined instead and the money put towards environmental mitigation, rather than into the pockets of motorists who just want free money.

I never understood the basis of a legal claim for dieselgate. To claim, surely you have to show that you have suffered some damage? But as a driver of a car with a cheat device, you have benefited because the car is more economical than it would have been. It’s the people who have to breathe your exhaust who have suffered, not you.

Yeah, I'm kind of feeling this. All those poor accountants that bought a Passat apparently concerned about Gaia and harmful emissions seem to be getting a little bonus for a thing they didn't really give two turds about previously

Damage isn’t just about money. A feeling of annoyance at not having got what you bargained for will suffice in a contract claim.

And yet moneys is how they restore "balance" to the world...

I'm annoyed, as a regular consumer of air through my mouth hole, VW upped the amount of nasties I didn't even know I was huffing in, where's my payout? And don't tell me the government fined them on my behalf, that's probably paying for downing Street wallpapers and more roads for people to drive their filthy Diesel cars along...

[Looks out of window, remembers Diesel car on drive]

I don’t think the solicitors need my fees as well.

The numbers quoted for compensation (roughly £2100 per claimant) compared to the expected payout via the lawyers ( NDA’s all round but apparently roughly £1700-1800) would suggest the fees are about 10-15%? Someone has made a good living from this
And yes I did have an affected vehicle and no I didn’t join in the class action.

I still think that they should have been fined instead and the money put towards environmental mitigation, rather than into the pockets of motorists who just want free money.

Very much this.

VW settled out of court, so the claim for loss etc was never tested properly.

Greedy lawyers getting richer shock

As per the numerous comments already made, any payout to the buyers is frankly absurd, I’m the guy riding behind them breathing in their fumes, where is my 2 k?

It's not that they use more fuel and ad blue outside tests, they cheated by detecting tests and using more fuel and ad blue to reduce nox. This was good for the individual consumer as they were able to buy a car that had a better combination of upfront cost and real world fuel economy/ad blue consumption. Of course that came at a cost of nox emissions that shouldn't have been legal.

To me, it feels more like the compensation should be to the government to reflect the impact on the whole population rather than individual owners.

Were they (consumers) not made to get free 'new' factory remaps from the dealerships to correct the issue?

I could see there's a case for false advertising there if you bought a 150bhp car and after it being 'fixed' it's then only 120bhp?

But presumably the more ambulance chasing solicitors have already explored that?

Early tranches of cars "fixed" after the scandal broke in 2015 used more fuel and some lost engine power.
The loss of fuel consumption wasn't expected by VW who then delayed the Passat "fix". I don't know when this was resolved, but in 2017 independent testing still showed problems with updated cars

The modern way of regulatory enforcement is to put it in the hands of consumers via litigation. Saves money on regulators. DieselGate illustrates how this works, though it may not be typical for the motor industry.

Obviously not appropriate where safety is concerned, but that doesn't stop regulation being underfunded in areas where it shouldn't be (eg building cladding materials).

"Light touch", "outcomes based" and other buzzwords tend to end up meaning "low cost let people regulate themselves" kind of systems.

I could see there’s a case for false advertising there if you bought a 150bhp car and after it being ‘fixed’ it’s then only 120bhp?

To be fair, I did test drive a 120bhp Passat fairly recently that would.have been subject to the fix. My previous Passat was 140bhp so it should have only felt a bit slower but it was absolutely completely gutless in a way that made me feel a little bit vulnerable. Maybe that was down to the fix.

That said there are clearly people on the make. I keep getting FB ads about claiming against Mercedes. However, all their fix does is change the warmup process slightly and there is no discernible affect on driving.

Were they (consumers) not made to get free ‘new’ factory remaps from the dealerships to correct the issue?

There was no compulsion to modify in the UK. If you didn’t want the ‘fix’ you could decline, even though the dealers were quite keen on you doing it as it gave them income. Mine was still unmodified when I sold it. My father had his Touran done and strangely had to have a new set of injectors and an EGR valve in the next twelve months ( at about 45k miles). Complete coincidence according to his VW dealer.

Complete coincidence according to his VW dealer.

And that was rubbish info. VW knew full well the fix was damaging cars as loads of people had similar problems and VW were paying for many peoples repairs to keep them quiet. Happened to a couple of friends of mine and many more examples on the forums.

VW knew full well the fix was damaging cars as loads of people had similar problems and VW were paying for many peoples repairs

Yes, indeed, and after we pushed them a bit he got the EGR and injectors done for about 30% (the labour?) of the original invoice as a ‘goodwill gesture’ as it had a full VWSH. To be fair, it ( the engine that is) has been no trouble since and still manages close to 60mpg on a run.

Well I’ll hold my hand up to being a money chasing low-life. I’ll be putting my £1,700 of ill gotten gains towards the £6,000 I spent on an engine replacement for my current VAG car.

@timmys who did you go via if you don’t mind me asking?

@timmys who did you go via if you don’t mind me asking?

Slater & Gordon

I kinda wish we had been a money chasing low-life. Ended up flogging the bloody car for a pittance when its gearbox lunched itself. Didn't bother claiming, which would have now paid back the cost of repairs. Poo.