jibberjive
Veteran Member
After single94's post, I PM'd my reply to fookin, so as to not distract from the task at hand.
Last edited:
Can you post the language and reference from the settlement that explicitly says that eligibility hinges on whether a car was bought back from an insurance company or not? I've read the settlement a few times and have never seen that - just wondering if I'm missing something big and obvious.Actually, that is precisely 'here and there' (relevant), as the languaging of the settlement explicitly hinges eligibility on whether it was actually bought back from an insurance company or not. The judge may change his interpretation or implementation of the agreement, but a strict reading of the settlement (which is unambigious, in my opinion) bases salvage title ineligibility on whether or not the car was bought back from an insurance company. Luckily, I don't have to worry about that situation, but it sucks that some do have to worry for something that is so black and white in the settlement.
This is where I am at, except that I drive the car everyday and the miles continue to pile up. My claim meets all of the requirements for buyback (easily documented). I bought the repaired car from a dealer. My claim has been sitting at step 15 with all documents approved for several months. There is nothing questionable, yet my claim is held up. If we ever get to an offer stage, is my offer going to be based on the mileage when I submitted the claim, or the present mileage months after being unduly help up when the offer is finally made?My vehicle in question is a '14 JSW, a gen 2.0 vehicle. What is unambiguous is the definition of operability. The tests are, was the vehicle on the road on Sept 15, 2015; when did the accident occur; and does the engine run and the vehicle move under it's own power? (Yes all the way--at least a year ago it did start and run. I haven't started it for a while, so it may need some help to start)
That's kind of the point. If the claim was handled promptly eight months ago, I could have turned the car in with 10,000 less miles for a higher payback. The car is a daily driver, I can't afford to park it.Don't worry about the offer letter amount, payback will be adjusted according to the mileage on the car at the time of turning. That's how it is for everyone so regardless of this latest hassle you'd be getting the same amount either way unless you stop driving it.
Your value upon return is going down, but there is a value to driving it up and down the road as well.That's kind of the point. If the claim was handled promptly eight months ago, I could have turned the car in with 10,000 less miles for a higher payback. The car is a daily driver, I can't afford to park it.
I don't doubt that there are some legitimate issues, but for the most part, IMO this is just a big stall tactic by VW to save some cash. There is no reason to blanket hold all non-clean title claims.
CCRG law filed suit because of this stall,but VW has 60 days to respond,which is coming up soon.I spoke to Phong at Leif last night and still no update on salvage issue. He said he hopes the CRC will make a decision soon. Of course Leif has been saying this since April of 2017.
It is unconscionable that they (court / vw) keep stalling. I cannot tell if the stalling is by design or incompetence. It is sad the judge does not force a decision. My guess is the judge has been kept in the dark about salvage titles and how many there are out there. Leif has not been helpful (to say the least) on moving this issue along.
I think the judge and public relations are the key. We need to shame VW into buying these salvage cars back.
Any other thoughts?
The speed from discovery to payouts was unprecedented. It's difficult to express how surprising the speed of the settlement process was to people who work in the legal system to people who are affected by the settlement. What you are experiencing now is typical of these kinds of cases...the anomalous portion of this whole catastrophe is that people have already turned their cars in and walked away with a check rather than the other way around.It is unconscionable that they (court / vw) keep stalling. I cannot tell if the stalling is by design or incompetence.
The more likely scenario is that this is just the typical process of these kinds of large-scale settlements rather than deliberate stonewalling. There isn't any incentive to do so and the only reasonable argument that they might be stalling doesn't even make sense as you point out.I think the VW is stalling
In my opinion it's stupid,because the extra money they will have to pay on cars,like mine,that have been sitting over a year now and gaining about $100 a month,because they are not driven and mileage adjustment at the turn it,will be more then what will they save by this.
Miltak - In my opinion, VW does not mind paying $100 extra per car per month because they know that stalling until deadline prevents other people from running to a salvage yard and rehabbing a totalled car. I believe that is why they are dragging their feet.CCRG law filed suit because of this stall,but VW has 60 days to respond,which is coming up soon.
I think the VW is stalling,so all cars that are sold at salvage sale now don't bring much,so they are bought by salvage yard and parted out-therefore they will not be turned it.If VW can stall salvage title until close to end of the deadline,then it would be too late to register any of those,so VW doesn't have to pay.
In my opinion it's stupid,because the extra money they will have to pay on cars,like mine,that have been sitting over a year now and gaining about $100 a month,because they are not driven and mileage adjustment at the turn it,will be more then what will they save by this.
this^^miltak - in my opinion, vw does not mind paying $100 extra per car per month because they know that stalling until deadline prevents other people from running to a salvage yard and rehabbing a totalled car. I believe that is why they are dragging their feet.
Bizzel -It's not $100 per month. That's the average but it's not how it works in reality. So while you think it makes sense that they'd deliberately stall in light of the relatively low cost to do so, the payments don't work out like that and it changes the equation...that's assuming VW would deliberately conspire to slow the buybacks to minimize the financial impact of unscrupulous profiteers.
That's a complicated scenario that ignores a whole lot of variables in order to reach your a priori conclusion rather than the much simpler explanation that neither party anticipated profiteering in this way so didn't explicitly limit it in the settlement and now are working within the court structure to limit profiteering without harming actual customers with branded titles. The fact that this is the more likely scenario versus some complicated conspiracy is supported by the 3.0 settlement terms where a myriad of grey areas were clarified.
As I wrote earlier, this is the first settlement of this kind in the US and I think in vehicle manufacture history worldwide. The settlement was concluded in abnormally record time and the fact that people had checks in their hands within a year of the scandal coming to light was the anomaly not the fact that now some specific buybacks are taking longer. The reason participants in this thread need to understand this reality is because to get to the settlement process as quickly as they did meant that a lot of circumstances were unforeseen and unexplored. Again, you can look to the 3.0 settlement to see the extent of this. It's blatantly clear the 2.0 settlement was akin to a rough draft and the 3.0 was an edited version after all participants had a much clearer idea of what was going to happen during this process.
No one anticipated customers would literally strip body panels off their cars before turn in, yet they did. In retrospect, pretty much everyone is more surprised that anyone was surprised by customers doing that. It was so surprising, in fact, that it became the reason everyone was so sure VW would't regulate it. The bottom line is the court settlement wasn't ever intended to facilitate profiteering, which is separate point regarding the ethics of doing so.
This is what I anticipate, as well, with the added caveat of people who totaled their vehicles through their insurance company for a full market value payout and are attempting to double dip with a full VW payout. The same principle applies to people who claimed just below the totaled threshold and turned their cars in for full buyback value with the difference being no official record for VW to quickly assess. That is, it's much more difficult to weed out the latter than the former so expect the former to be excluded even if the theoretical difference between the two situations is all but absent.IF there is any sort of clarification or resolution in the near future, I would expect it to take the form of some way of filtering out the legitimate owners from the flippers, perhaps expediting the process for anyone who owned the vehicle prior to a certain date and ever since ... but anyone who bought after a certain date (and thus knew, or ought to have known, what they were getting into) will be hung out to dry.
Bizzel -It's not accurate to conclude class counsel isn't doing their job or that VW is conspiring to screw people out of payments due.
To say that these cars under normal circumstances would have mostly been parted out and never seen the road again is false. Some? Yes. But most? Nope.People buying these cars at auction, wrecked, with the sole intention of putting them back together just enough to be able to profit by putting the car through buyback, are exploiting the terms of the settlement, and profiting at VW's expense. Those cars would under normal circumstances have mostly been parted-out and would have never seen the road again.
Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong.Originally Posted by bizzle
...neither party anticipated profiteering in this way...
Your post does nothing to refute what I wrote. Clearly the examples you provided are in regards to private sales and speak nothing about salvage auctions.Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong.
I have spoken with Johnathan Cohen, lead counsel for the FTC over the phone. On multiple occasions he has stated that the idea of arbitragers (his term) entering the market was well known during settlement discussions and that the parties saw arbitragers as serving a couple of beneficial purposes to the settlement process.
1) Providing a way for class members to get out of their position much faster if they were willing to accept reduced payment
2) Collecting cars that may not have been collected, and doing it faster than would have happened if VW were left to do all of it themselves
DSLGATE - do you think FTC has a seat at the table in these discussions? I know Counsel is claiming CRC is making the decision but I cannot believe CRC is doing this in a vacuum. What influence does FTC have in your opinion based on your discussion with Mr. Cohen?Unfortunately, this assumption is wrong.
I have spoken with Johnathan Cohen, lead counsel for the FTC over the phone. On multiple occasions he has stated that the idea of arbitragers (his term) entering the market was well known during settlement discussions and that the parties saw arbitragers as serving a couple of beneficial purposes to the settlement process.
1) Providing a way for class members to get out of their position much faster if they were willing to accept reduced payment
2) Collecting cars that may not have been collected, and doing it faster than would have happened if VW were left to do all of it themselves