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