VW Rejecting Non-Clean Titles?

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
It is terrible, and it looks like we must keep the pressure campaign going, as the 'solution' to the salvage cars is really a cop-out for a blanket denial.

I think we need to keep sending the letters to the EPA, FTC, Ankura, Senators, etc. Ankura should be honest and, if they receive a ton of complaints about the erroneously denied claims, then they should register these complaints in their next status report.

Did an article ever get written about the plight of the 'should be eligible' salvage cars in the automotive media (Jalopnik, etc.)? One of us here could do the heavy lifting for them and write a nice summary with the complaints, their legal justification (with links to the legal documents that the quotes are being pulled from), links to VW's responses, etc., so that they don't have to put too much effort in the research for the article. Maybe that would help get someone motivated enough to cover this.

I think ultimately the salvage people with a real case are going to have to sue with a 3rd party attorney, outside of the settlement.


How can you prove something from BEFORE you owned the car? For that matter, any clean title car would have the same issue. If I buy a clean title car today and turn it in I will get paid. But I cannot 'prove' it was operating on 6/28/16.
This may be the crux of a law case. The clean cars have that same 'operability' requirement hurdle to get over in the settlement language, yet they have not required similar arbitrary operability proof requirements (parking ticket, etc. June 1 - June 28) to return the clean title cars. They are discriminating against the salvage cars by imposing these unreasonable and arbitrary 'proof' requirements that they did not (and still do not) require of the clean title cars. If that is not blatant evidence of a bias in their documentation requirements that applies only to salvage title claims, as an obvious excuse for denying otherwise eligible claims, then I don't know what is.

This might be the argument to talk with a 3rd party attorney about, to get their opinion of the strength of that argument.
 
Last edited:

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
It is terrible, and it looks like we must keep the pressure campaign going, as the 'solution' to the salvage cars is really a cop-out for a blanket denial.

I think we need to keep sending the letters to the EPA, FTC, Ankura, Senators, etc. Ankura should be honest and, if they receive a ton of complaints about the erroneously denied claims, then they should register these complaints in their next status report.

Did an article ever get written about the plight of the 'should be eligible' salvage cars in the automotive media (Jalopnik, etc.)? One of us here could do the heavy lifting for them and write a nice summary with the complaints, their legal justification (with links to the legal documents that the quotes are being pulled from), links to VW's responses, etc., so that they don't have to put too much effort in the research for the article. Maybe that would help get someone motivated enough to cover this.

I think ultimately the salvage people with a real case are going to have to sue with a 3rd party attorney, outside of the settlement.




This may be the crux of a law case. The clean cars have that same 'operability' requirement hurdle to get over in the settlement language, yet they have not required similar arbitrary operability proof requirements (parking ticket, etc. June 1 - June 28) to return the clean title cars. They are discriminating against the salvage cars by imposing these unreasonable and arbitrary 'proof' requirements that they did not (and still do not) require of the clean title cars. If that is not blatant evidence of a bias in their documentation requirements that applies only to salvage title claims, as an obvious excuse for denying otherwise eligible claims, then I don't know what is.

This might be the argument to talk with a 3rd party attorney about, to get their opinion of the strength of that argument.

I think there is solid case for a lawsuit. Here is the problem. Most law firms will not take the case (on contingency). VW will tie them up with motions and cross complaints for years. I think (correct me if I am wrong) the judge ruled VW does not have to reimburse legal fees because the plaintiffs already had an avenue (the class). This is a bit different but most law firms do not want to work hard, they just want to get paid. VW knows this and does not honor the agreement. We are in a tough spot.
 

Jimbo70

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
New Milford, CT
TDI
None currently
I'm in your boat and am still trying to figure this out. I tried to contact a previous owner to get a note that it was operable but they refuse to call me back. From everything I was told when I bought it, the vehicle was operable in June of 2016, though it was still at an auction lot. I'm completely stuck. It's very convenient for VW to require a document that is impossible to get. My guess is that 4/1 is the date your vehicle was in the accident.
Would a Carfax report count as documentation?
 

Nowiser

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Location
Minnesota
TDI
2014 Passat
Would a Carfax report count as documentation?
They said a receipt or ticket is what they need. The car was on a lot during those days, though still operable by VW’s definition. They know this and therefore also know that a receipt or ticket is literally impossible for me to come up with because there are none.
 

Jimbo70

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
New Milford, CT
TDI
None currently
They said a receipt or ticket is what they need. The car was on a lot during those days, though still operable by VW’s definition. They know this and therefore also know that a receipt or ticket is literally impossible for me to come up with because there are none.
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
 

Nowiser

Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Location
Minnesota
TDI
2014 Passat
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
 

Jimbo70

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
New Milford, CT
TDI
None currently
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
That is a pain in the rear with unusual circumstances like yours.
 

fookin

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Location
California
TDI
A3
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
I think the settlement makes a fairly explicit distinction between salvaged/junk-yard and operable. Those appear, by design, to be mutually exclusive. I can't imagine VW would consider the details of a car running and driving at an auction lot. Good luck but I believe you took a very big risk trying to establish your compliance to the June 2016 requirement.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
I think the settlement makes a fairly explicit distinction between salvaged/junk-yard and operable. Those appear, by design, to be mutually exclusive. I can't imagine VW would consider the details of a car running and driving at an auction lot. Good luck but I believe you took a very big risk trying to establish your compliance to the June 2016 requirement.
As opposed to refuting their assertation to the 'receipts' requirement? Have you heard of anyone who successfully opposed VW's effort force them to establish their compliance?
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).

Most 'reasonable' person cannot prove their car was on the road for a 27 day period 2 years ago unless they had it serviced during that period. I would love to ask the judge if he can prove his car was running June 1 - June 27 of 2016. Also, why 27 days? What if a car was running June 1st (and you can prove it) and it was not running June 23rd (because of an accident)? The claim would be denied.

Jibberjive nailed it. VW knows they are in an unsupportable position but they figure people will go away. The ones that persist they will bury in legal motions. If they pay a few holdouts the ends justify the means. Class Counsel (who got $175M) does nothing to help.
 

Jimbo70

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
New Milford, CT
TDI
None currently
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).
I revert to my first paragraph; auctions and salvage titles are exceptions to the norm, as are some of transactions a relatively small number of speculators have been doing. And as they've transition from dealing with the vast majority of cut-and-dry claims to these more unique (or speculative) situations, they're being more particular. It is like when this first started and a few people were field stripping their cars before turning them in.
 

chief poncho

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Location
Arizona
TDI
Jetta
Exactly what Jimbo70 just said.

I think the main problem you guys have is that not many people, except for folks in the same boat as you are going to support your position. I realize some of the people stuck in this situation didn't buy salvage title cars for the purpose of making money on the buyback, but the fact is the vast majority dealing with this problem did. I don't think many people predicted that VW would be savvy enough to have focused on the operability requirement as a criteria for denial. Unfortunately, I think they have a very good case to state that if a car had a true "salvage" title on the June date (not rebuilt or otherwise put back on the road) and was in the possession of an insurance company, auction house or salvage dealer it was not "operable" from the perspective it was not roadworthy in that condition. The legal problem is the definition of operable stated in the settlement was that the car must simply move on its own 2.0 power. Again, intent of the settlement comes into play. The lawyers probably wrongly concluded that if a car was totaled, it couldn't be driven under its own power and simply assumed it would not meet the criteria. However, most of us on this site know cars can be totaled and still run and drive fine. Proving that a totaled car holding a salvage title and in the possession of a salvage dealer during the June time frame is going to be almost impossible. The only thing I can think of is find an original description of the car for the auction sale. If it says in the description that the car runs and drives, that may at least be legal justification to have your case heard, but even then, might not be enough to move the claim forward.

Saying its unfair to ask for proof of a salvage car being operable while not doing the same for clean title cars is a bit self serving. Again legal intent comes into play. I don't need to prove a car that has been continually registered with a clean title is operable on the date because legally it can be assumed to be operable. But when you have a car with a salvage title that wasn't registered and legally on the road on or near that date, I think it is reasonable to assume it may not have been operable at that time.

Like I said before, good luck. Unfortunately, I think some of you guys are simply SOL.
 

fookin

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Location
California
TDI
A3
Exactly what Jimbo70 just said.

I think the main problem you guys have is that not many people, except for folks in the same boat as you are going to support your position. I realize some of the people stuck in this situation didn't buy salvage title cars for the purpose of making money on the buyback, but the fact is the vast majority dealing with this problem did. I don't think many people predicted that VW would be savvy enough to have focused on the operability requirement as a criteria for denial. Unfortunately, I think they have a very good case to state that if a car had a true "salvage" title on the June date (not rebuilt or otherwise put back on the road) and was in the possession of an insurance company, auction house or salvage dealer it was not "operable" from the perspective it was not roadworthy in that condition. The legal problem is the definition of operable stated in the settlement was that the car must simply move on its own 2.0 power. Again, intent of the settlement comes into play. The lawyers probably wrongly concluded that if a car was totaled, it couldn't be driven under its own power and simply assumed it would not meet the criteria. However, most of us on this site know cars can be totaled and still run and drive fine. Proving that a totaled car holding a salvage title and in the possession of a salvage dealer during the June time frame is going to be almost impossible. The only thing I can think of is find an original description of the car for the auction sale. If it says in the description that the car runs and drives, that may at least be legal justification to have your case heard, but even then, might not be enough to move the claim forward.

Saying its unfair to ask for proof of a salvage car being operable while not doing the same for clean title cars is a bit self serving. Again legal intent comes into play. I don't need to prove a car that has been continually registered with a clean title is operable on the date because legally it can be assumed to be operable. But when you have a car with a salvage title that wasn't registered and legally on the road on or near that date, I think it is reasonable to assume it may not have been operable at that time.

Like I said before, good luck. Unfortunately, I think some of you guys are simply SOL.
Yes. That's what I wrote a few posts up. Operable and sitting in an auction lot are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. The letter of the settlement is quite clear in that regard and matches up with the spirit as well if you consider actions by Judge Breyer recently. The people trying to prove operability of a car while on a IAAI or Copart auction lot are indeed SOL.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.

Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one, one would have to assume that substantially all people who own a car either get a parking ticket or take their car to the dealer for a repair at a maximum interval of 27 days between parking tickets/repairs. That doesn't happen, and I am sure Judge Breyer didn't intend to exclude all drivers that might have gone 28 days or longer without a parking ticket or repair.

Also, the fact that they are imposing this stricter, unduly burdensome, requirement of 'proof' only on a specific segment of the class (they are not imposing it uniformly across the board in spite of the operability clause in the settlement pertaining to the entire class, without distinction), is clear evidence that they are intentionally trying to exclude a specific segment of the class.

Can you imagine if they had imposed this 'proof' requirement universally on the entire class, including the clean title cars? The number of 'eligible' cars would drop closer to 0, and the judge would undoubtedly rule that it wasn't in the spirit of the agreement to exclude someone just because they didn't get a parking ticket or dealer repair for 27 days when they owned the car.

The spirit of the settlement also obviously intended to include people who purchased their car after June 2016, and most people don't necessarily get past records when purchasing a car (and they definitely don't get copies of the previous owner's parking tickets). This 'proof' requirement, if it were to have been applied uniformly to the entire class, would have effectively excluded the majority of owners who purchased their cars after June 2016. But of course they didn't apply this new-found 'proof' requirement uniformly, because VW knows that it is not in the spirit of the settlement, and that it would not hold up to the scrutiny that would surely follow if were to have applied it to everyone.
 
Last edited:

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.

Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one, one would have to assume that substantially all people who own a car get a parking ticket or take their car to the dealer for a repair at a maximum interval of 27 days between parking tickets/repairs. That doesn't happen, and I am sure Judge Breyer didn't intend to exclude all drivers that might have gone 28 days or longer without a parking ticket or repair.

Also, the fact that they are imposing this stricter, unduly burdensome, requirement of 'proof' only on a specific segment of the class (they are not imposing it uniformly across the board in spite of the operability clause in the settlement pertaining to the entire class, without distinction), is clear evidence that they are intentionally trying to exclude a specific segment of the class.

Can you imagine if they had imposed this 'proof' requirement universally on the entire class, including the clean title cars? The number of 'eligible' cars would drop closer to 0, and the judge would undoubtedly rule that it wasn't in the spirit of the agreement to exclude someone just because they didn't get a parking ticket or dealer repair for 27 days when they owned the car.

jibberjive is correct. I am curious about why VW put that date in the agreement. It makes no sense. In theory, they can trip up ANY clean title car. Here is the next question WHY would plaintiff counsel agree to this? Malfeasance?
 

psd1

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
OR
TDI
2006 Jetta 2013 Passat SE 6Man
Yes. Operable and sitting in an auction lot are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. The letter of the settlement is quite clear in that regard and matches up with the spirit as well if you consider actions by Judge Breyer recently. The people trying to prove operability of a car while on a IAAI or Copart auction lot are indeed SOL.
op·er·a·ble
ˈäp(ə)rəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
able to be used.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one...

Your argument that salvage cars are being held to a discriminatory or prejudicial standard is extremely interesting. I am trying to work out in my own mind whether it is valid. I am trying to think of a suitable analogy. Two applicants for a job, perhaps. Aren’t there legitimate cases where one type of ID card would lead to an assumption of validity for the job and another type (or the lack of it) would lead to resistance and requests for proof of eligibility? Maybe there are better analogies out there.

In short, the argument may boil down to whether the discrimination is being applied “without cause” or “with cause.” And that just returns us to the letter vs spirit of the law debate.
 

Jimbo70

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
New Milford, CT
TDI
None currently
The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.

Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one, one would have to assume that substantially all people who own a car get a parking ticket or take their car to the dealer for a repair at a maximum interval of 27 days between parking tickets/repairs. That doesn't happen, and I am sure Judge Breyer didn't intend to exclude all drivers that might have gone 28 days or longer without a parking ticket or repair.

Also, the fact that they are imposing this stricter, unduly burdensome, requirement of 'proof' only on a specific segment of the class (they are not imposing it uniformly across the board in spite of the operability clause in the settlement pertaining to the entire class, without distinction), is clear evidence that they are intentionally trying to exclude a specific segment of the class.

Can you imagine if they had imposed this 'proof' requirement universally on the entire class, including the clean title cars? The number of 'eligible' cars would drop closer to 0, and the judge would undoubtedly rule that it wasn't in the spirit of the agreement to exclude someone just because they didn't get a parking ticket or dealer repair for 27 days when they owned the car.

The spirit of the settlement also obviously intended to include people who purchased their car after June 2016, and most people don't necessarily get past records when purchasing a car (and they definitely don't copies of the previous owner's parking tickets). This 'proof' requirement, if it were to have been applied uniformly to the entire class, would have effectively excluded the majority of owners who purchased their cars after June 2016. But of course they didn't apply this new-found 'proof' requirement uniformly, because VW knows that it is not in the spirit of the settlement, and that it would not hold up to the scrutiny that would surely follow if were to have applied it to everyone.
"Spirit" is an irrelevant term. The purpose of the buy back is to get operating non-compliant TDIs fixed or off the road. The buyback is a means to an end, period. As is the repair regimen. I'm guessing here, but a year and a half or so after the program started, a vast majority of eligible vehicles have been repaired or taken off the road, the volume of claims being handled has slowed down, and they're looking at these non-standard (speculative) claims more closely.

As far as the 27 days are concerned, without going through all the case documentation I have no idea other than to say that the dates weren't chosen in a vacuum; they either represent actions relating to the ongoing case or were negotiated.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
"Spirit" is an irrelevant term. The purpose of the buy back is to get operating non-compliant TDIs fixed or off the road.

This is a very long thread, but you might want to go back and read it. Your statement above has been thoroughly debunked at this point, by others much more eloquent than myself, so I won’t try to restate their arguments here.

I do agree with your other point, to the effect that VW has developed this strategy of delay, delay, delay because, to use another analogy, they see the end zone is close enough, and they are kneeling with the football to run off all the remaining time before kicking their field goal.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
"Spirit" is an irrelevant term. The purpose of the buy back is to get operating non-compliant TDIs fixed or off the road. The buyback is a means to an end, period. As is the repair regimen. I'm guessing here, but a year and a half or so after the program started, a vast majority of eligible vehicles have been repaired or taken off the road, the volume of claims being handled has slowed down, and they're looking at these non-standard (speculative) claims more closely.

As far as the 27 days are concerned, without going through all the case documentation I have no idea other than to say that the dates weren't chosen in a vacuum; they either represent actions relating to the ongoing case or were negotiated.
"Spirit" is legal phrasing, and it is indeed relevant. It is essentially synonymous with the word 'purpose,' as used in your second sentence.

Also, if you think my last post is concerned with which specific date they chose, then re-read my post. I don't care what specific date they chose or why, as which specific date they chose is irrelevant to the argument that I made in my last post. That's why I use the word 'arbitrary' in the post, as you could plug in any date that you want. Independent of what the specific date is, my argument is still: what they are requiring is unreasonable, unrealistic, not in the spirit of the settlement, and is being applied discriminatorily.
 

chief poncho

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Location
Arizona
TDI
Jetta
In response to Jibberjive

The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.
I wasn't referring to only cars that were on an auction lot in June of '16, but rather any that held a salvage title on that date, precluding it from being legally registered and on the road. Salvage titled vehicles by definition are not fit for operation on the road, unless they are repaired and inspected. As previously discussed, each state handles title branding differently, but all have a mechanism for issuing a new title for repaired salvage vehicles.

I don't believe the courts would think it is unreasonable for an owner of a "salvage" vehicle on the date designated in the original settlement be required to provide some evidence that the vehicle was "operable."

Also when you talk about "spirit" of the law, what is at issue is even assuming you are correct in that the settlement's intent was to remove or repair polluting vehicles, the lawyers screwed up by not excluding cars that were already off the road at the time the settlement was made public in June of '16, (ie salvage vehicles). I do believe they tried to word the settlement to provide protection for owners who's cars were totaled after the settlement was made public, yet before their car was fixed or sold back. In doing so they created the loophole with regard to buying salvage title cars after June 2016, and selling them back. I do believe the updated agreement does reasonably address the situation. Unfortunately, it pushed VW to be more thorough with regard to proving a vehicle was operable. Given the definition of operable was simply being able to move under its own 2.0 power, I honestly think the courts have let VW off the hook a bit on this one, and have expanded the definition to also exclude salvage title vehicles. But I believe they did so due to what was essentially an error in the original settlement language.
 

fookin

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Location
California
TDI
A3
In response to Jibberjive
"Salvage titled vehicles by definition are not fit for operation"
.
Wrong. Stop the madness! If a vehicle has a title it is legal, driving on US roads and highways. It matters not that it is a salvage title. Please distinguish between salvage title, or anything with a "title", like "rebuilt title", and a vehicle that is salvage/salvaged/wrecked/total-loss/junked/salvage-yard/Copart/IaaI/junk-yard/etc.. Lets be clear. One is driving on the road legally with whatever brand is shown on the vehicle title and the other is not legally driving on US roads and has NO title.
I don't believe the courts would think it is unreasonable for an owner of a "salvage" vehicle on the date designated in the original settlement be required to provide some evidence that the vehicle was "operable."
Wrong. Believe what you want but you haven't convinced that "operable" could also mean "operable in a junk yard".
Given the definition of operable was simply being able to move under its own 2.0 power, I honestly think the courts have let VW off the hook a bit on this one, and have expanded the definition to also exclude salvage title vehicles. But I believe they did so due to what was essentially an error in the original settlement language.
Again you miss the point that "xxx title" is a legit, boni fide vehicle driving on US roads. That was not an error as it is extremely explicit in the settlement.
Finally, for those who don't understand how a total loss, salvage, rebuilt title works be clear that when an insurance company submits a total loss to a dmv it means THEY cannot repair it for an economical cost. It does not mean someone else can't repair it for an economical cost.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
I wasn't referring to only cars that were on an auction lot in June of '16, but rather any that held a salvage title on that date, precluding it from being legally registered and on the road. Salvage titled vehicles by definition are not fit for operation on the road, unless they are repaired and inspected. As previously discussed, each state handles title branding differently, but all have a mechanism for issuing a new title for repaired salvage vehicles.
What you say here regarding the titles is incorrect, and I'm not sure if it is because of imprecise languaging, and you're using the word 'Salvage' as a catch-all for cars that haven't yet been rebuilt and inspected, or if you simply don't know. Either way, as you allude to in your last sentence in the quote, each state handles titling differently; in many states a 'Salvage' brand on a title can be the equivalent of a 'rebuilt/restored' title in others (for example, as discussed earlier in this thread, in CA rebuilt cars are simply issued a 'Salvage' Title once they are rebuilt and inspected. A 'Salvage Title' in CA explicitly means that is rebuilt and can be registered to be on the road).

Either way with the technicalities on the language though, I will assume your post prior to this one was referring exclusively to 'yet-to-be-repaired' salvage title vehicles.

Even using this context (expanding your thoughts to include not just cars on the insurance lot at the time, but to also include cars which had been totaled but not repaired by that time), my comment from my previous post still stands: I would wager that the majority of people here in this situation do not have cars that were 'totaled but not yet repaired' on June 28, 2016. I'm sure many people have cars that weren't even crashed until after that date, yet they are caught up in this unique 'proof' requirement. There are other people, like me, who have a car that was crashed, rebuilt and daily driven since being rebuilt, and it all happened before the Sept. 2015 date when the scandal even broke out.

Again though, as I said to the other guy, my argument is independent of the date of the accident, independent of the title status of the vehicle, and independent of the specific date that VW selected for the 'proof.' Their newfound 'proof' requirement is (in my contention) unreasonable for any car owner of any make/model/title status, and it is being applied discriminatorily to only a small segment of the class, while the operability clause itself applies to the entire class uniformly.
 
Last edited:

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
Wrong. Stop the madness! If a vehicle has a title it is legal, driving on US roads and highways. It matters not that it is a salvage title. Please distinguish between salvage title, or anything with a "title", like "rebuilt title", and a vehicle that is salvage/salvaged/wrecked/total-loss/junked/salvage-yard/Copart/IaaI/junk-yard/etc.. Lets be clear. One is driving on the road legally with whatever brand is shown on the vehicle title and the other is not legally driving on US roads and has NO title.
Just because a car has a title, does not mean that it is rebuilt/restored/legal to drive/etc. There are many title types which specifically mean it cannot be driven unless/until it is rebuilt (ie. 'junk' title, and in many states 'salvage title' specifically means it is not rebuilt yet, whereas in other states 'salvage' specifically means it is rebuilt and inspected). This is the difficulty with the inconsistency of titling definitions state-to-state.

The only car that has a legitimate excuse to have no title is a stolen car (or one that is issued a salvage 'certificate' instead of a 'title', like in CA).
 
Last edited:

fookin

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Location
California
TDI
A3
What you say here regarding the titles is incorrect, and I'm not sure if it is because of imprecise languaging, and you're using the word 'Salvage' as a catch-all for cars that haven't yet been rebuilt and inspected, or if you simply don't know. Either way, as you allude to in your last sentence in the quote, each state handles titling differently; in many states a 'Salvage' brand on a title can be the equivalent of a 'rebuilt/restored' title in others (for example, as discussed earlier in this thread, in CA rebuilt cars are simply issued a 'Salvage' Title once they are rebuilt and inspected. A 'Salvage Title' in CA explicitly means that is rebuilt and can be registered to be on the road).

Either way with the technicalities on the language though, I will assume your post prior to this one was referring exclusively to 'yet-to-be-repaired' salvage title vehicles.

Even using this context (expanding your thoughts to include not just cars on the insurance lot at the time, but to also include cars which had been totaled but not repaired by that time), my comment from my previous post still stands: I would wager that the majority of people here in this situation do not have cars that were 'totaled but not yet repaired' on June 28, 2016. I'm sure many people have cars that weren't even crashed until after that date, yet they are caught up in this unique 'proof' requirement. There are other people, like me, who have a car that was crashed, rebuilt and daily driven since being rebuilt, and it all happened before the Sept. 2015 date when the scandal even broke out.

Again though, as I said to the other guy, my argument is independent of the date of the accident, independent of the title status of the vehicle, and independent of the specific date that VW selected for the 'proof.' Their newfound 'proof' requirement is (in my contention) unreasonable for any car owner of any make/model/title status, and it is being applied discriminatorily to only a small segment of the class, when the operability clause itself applies to the entire class uniformly.
Wrong again. If a vehicle has a title, it does not matter if it's salvage title, rebuilt title, squirrel-monkey title. It's a title. It's registered. Done. I thought I made that quite clear. Cars on an auction lot or in a junk yard do not have a title and they are not registered. If a car is registered it has a title. They go together. If you're a junk dealer or an auction lot you don't have title or registration you have a bill of sale and maybe some other salvage certificate issued by that state dmv, but not a title or registration.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
Wrong again. If a vehicle has a title, it does not matter if it's salvage title, rebuilt title, squirrel-monkey title. It's a title. It's registered. Done. I thought I made that quite clear. Cars on an auction lot or in a junk yard do not have a title and they are not registered. If a car is registered it has a title. They go together. If you're a junk dealer or an auction lot you don't have title or registration you have a bill of sale and maybe some other salvage certificate issued by that state dmv, but not a title or registration.
I'm not sure where you're getting this, or why you are so adamant about it as a blanket statement, but there are many states outside of CA where a 'salvage title' is the equivalent of a CA 'salvage certificate.' I'll provide one example from a state's DMV website that proves this.

https://dmv.utah.gov/titles/salvage-vehicles

"A vehicle that has been “salvaged” or “rebuilt/restored” will be issued a different kind of Utah title, referred to as a “branded” title. A salvage vehicle’s Utah title will state: “Salvage.” If the vehicle has been rebuilt, the title will say “rebuilt/restored.”"

In Utah, for example, a 'salvage titled' car cannot be registered/driven, but does indeed have a title. Once the car has been rebuilt and inspected, the car is issued a 'rebuilt/restored' title and can be registered and driven. In both cases the car has a title, but only in the latter can it be registered and driven.

You are correct in saying that "all cars that can be registered have a title,"
but you are incorrect in saying that "all cars that have a title can be registered." Google "the fallacy of illicit conversion."
 

psd1

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
OR
TDI
2006 Jetta 2013 Passat SE 6Man
So many people here that haven't a clue on the subject seem to want to impart wisdom. Sad.

There are many cars in this country that are being legally operated with some sort of "branded" title. It occurs DAILY! I've seen vehicles receive a brand simply because the interior was trashed and the insurance "totaled" it because it wasn't economically viable to repair it.

VW continues to try to avoid making legal payments by denying and delaying claims, it's sad that they are allowed to behave like this.
 

chief poncho

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2016
Location
Arizona
TDI
Jetta
Wrong. Stop the madness! If a vehicle has a title it is legal, driving on US roads and highways.
Umm...not wrong. I'm not talking about a vehicle that has been repaired and now has whatever your state considers to be a valid roadworthy title (regardless of the verbage used for the title brand). If your car was legally registered and on the road in September of '15, regardless of title brand, you're probably eligible. What I'm talking about is a car that was damaged beyond economical repair and deemed so by an insurance company and thus written off as a total loss. There is no state in the country that I'm aware of that will allow you to walk into the DMV with such a branded title and legally register the vehicle without some inspection and proof of road worthiness. After the car is inspected by the DMV, the title is updated and the car may be registered. I understand some states still use the same "salvage" brand, but the car is still inspected and legally registered. There is a big difference in a "restored" salvage car and one with simply a salvage title.

This is the definition directly from DMV.org about a car that is issued a salvage title after an accident, flood, etc. While not necessarily a one stop legal source for information, it does explain exactly what I said.

"Once this designation has been assigned (salvage), the registration is canceled, and the vehicle cannot be driven on public roads. From this point, reregistering the vehicle requires repairing the damage and passing the state-authorized inspection. Vehicles that pass this inspection can then be reregistered as either rebuilt or revived salvage, depending on the terminology used by the state."

Wrong. Believe what you want but you haven't convinced that "operable" could also mean "operable in a junk yard".
I don't have to be convinced and neither do you. The judge the lawyers and folks reviewing the branded titled vehicles need to be convinced. Apparently they seem to think my opinion is reasonable, since that is the way they have ruled. I don't expect you to have read my previous comments, but I already said that it might be helpful for people stuck in this position to get some description or other written document from the place where the vehicle was purchased stating it would run and drive. Copart does this in their vehicle description as do many other auction houses and even junkyards selling restorable cars.

Again you miss the point that "xxx title" is a legit, boni fide vehicle driving on US roads. That was not an error as it is extremely explicit in the settlement. Finally, for those who don't understand how a total loss, salvage, rebuilt title works be clear that when an insurance company submits a total loss to a dmv it means THEY cannot repair it for an economical cost. It does not mean someone else can't repair it for an economical cost.
No sir, you are missing the point. The car cannot be operated on US roads until the car is repaired, regardless of who repairs it or what the cost is. And that my friend is the reason that anyone holding a salvage title car (not a restored salvage title car) is being deemed ineligible by VW and the courts. If a car could not be legally registered it was by definition off the road, thus meeting the "intent" and "spirit" of the agreement.

I don't need to be a lawyer to understand three simple things about the settlement.

1. The court intended to make any 2009-2015, 2.0 TDI, vehicle that was legally registered and on the road (ie operable) on June of '16 eligible for a fix, or buyback.
2. The court intended to make people with cars that were totaled after the settlement was announced (June of '16), but before having the car bought back or repaired, whole by providing them with a minimum of the restitution amount and perhaps even the entire buyback value if the vehicle was deemed operable per the settlement definition.
3. The court intended to exclude any branded title vehicles totaled before September of '15 but purchased after June of '16. The reason for this is what I have already stated, they were technically off the road at this time.

What the court didn't take into consideration is this:
1. Branded title vehicles that were totaled after September of '15 could be purchased from junk yards, salvage yards, auction houses, etc and be considered both eligible and operable under the settlement definition of "could move under it's own 2.0 power" without being repaired or having a new "restored salvage" title issued.
2. Some states use the brand "salvage" for restored salvage vehicles which creates tons of confusion for the reviewers and also undue burden on you folks.
3. Vehicles could be totaled after June of '16, owner given restitution payment, vehicle purchased from auction house/salvage yard by another person, restored to driving condition and turned back in for buyback or fix.

I'm not judging anyone in this position, but I have to say IMO both VW and the courts are not wronging you guys by deeming a branded titled car as not eligible under certain circumstances. I honestly believe the settlement documents should have been worded in a way to clearly define how to handle each and every type of branded title without ambiguity. I do think the courts frown on people they consider to be profiteering from the settlement. To me, that is irrelevant. If the settlement allows folks to earn some money due to VW's fraud, then so be it, as long as the law isn't being broken in the process.

One last point on title and registration. The two do not necessarily go together. Without getting too technical, you can have a vehicle with a title but not valid registration. You can most likely also have a valid registration in some states without a title, for example a '57 chevy kept in the same family for 61 years may only have a bill of sale and no title depending on the state, and could have potentially been continually registered the whole time. Then again, maybe bureaucracy has ended this practice. Also junkyard and auction vehicles even if totaled do certainly have a title, a BRANDED title precluding the vehicle from being REGISTERED and driven on the road (IE INOPERABLE). Many junkyards won't even take a vehicle if it doesn't have a title because it may be stolen.

Let me be clear in my above post, when using the term salvage by itself I was referring to vehicles that had not yet been repaired, inspected and put back on the road.
 
Last edited:
Top