VW Rejecting Non-Clean Titles?

psd1 · Feb 20, 2018

So, no news is...no news then.

Hope everyone has a great week!

dslgate · Feb 20, 2018

jeffcapp99 said:
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?

Mr. Cohen said the FTC was fully abreast of it. I do not recall the level of input he said they had.

He said there were basically two parties to the plaintiff's side of the settlement:

1) FTC

2) EPA + CARB

He said the FTC was focused on the owners that were deceived, so by definition not those that purchased after 9/15/15. This also means the FTC was not particularly concened about protecting the clean title folks that purchased after 9/15/15 (because they were not deceived). These folks have also seen their cars bought back.

He said the EPA + CARB as focused on the emissions cheating and getting the cars fixed or off the road. They would therefore be more interested in applying the settlement to all operable vehicles.

Cue 85% quota mention...

1842 TDI · Feb 20, 2018

bizzle said:
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.

So you want me to believe that VW, who lied and cheated their way to extra profit, didn't think that anyone else would take advantage of the opportunity provided to make some legitimate profit. You must think that VW and their lawyers are really, really dumb.

Branded titles still qualify under the 3.0L settlement. The only additional "operable" requirement added to the 3.0L settlement that wasn't in the 2.0L settlement is the line "is in reasonable condition such that it can be driven lawfully and safely on public roads, even if it has a mechanical issue that can be repaired, under a common-sense understanding of what is an acceptable condition for driving." If a 3.0L vehicle meets this additional requirement it qualifies, branded title or not.

They also disallowed intentional stripping or damaging the vehicles but that does not apply to branded titles any differently than it does to clean titles.

If they really wanted to disqualify branded titles they would have changed the "and" to an "or" like they did in the Canadian settlement.

GoFaster said:
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.

As opposed to VW's profiteering at the world's expense by selling a non-compliant vehicle to an unsuspecting public. What I am doing is legal and the supposed "victim" is fully aware of the situation. Even if you and VW don't like it I am in full compliance with the agreement they made. No cheating here.

Every argument anyone makes as to why I am in the wrong for trying to profit from the agreement at the expense of VW is useless because VW is not the victim here. They are the perpetrator and are being punished for their actions. Saying that I shouldn't be allowed to profit from VW's punishment is like telling a prison guard he has to work for free or he would be profiting from the punishment of the criminal he is guarding. I am helping to remove these cars from commerce and making a profit for doing so. There is nothing wrong with that.

GoFaster said:
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.

Any attempt to change the agreement and make it retroactive to currently filed claims will be met with additional lawsuits. They made an agreement, they bought back branded title cars, and now they decide it isn't a good deal for them. Oh boo-hoo for them. That poor, lying, cheating, polluting, monkey poisoning VW is not happy with the results of their actions. Maybe next time they will think twice before breaking the law.

bizzle said:
Point #2 isn't even relevant. A totaled vehicle, taken off the road through an insurance claim, does not need to be collected by VW. Under normal circumstances, the vehicle would not have been included the vehicle count that VW is required to remove from service. The vehicles are being placed *back into* service in an attempt to force VW to pay the new owner or the government for not hitting their milestones.

You are only partially correct. The settlement is based on all 480,000 or so of the vehicles that VW sold. They have to buyback or fix 85% of these vehicles, roughly 408,000, or they will have to pay the penalties. This number is not reduced for totaled vehicles. True that they do not have to buy them back if they do not meet the "operable" condition, but in-operable vehicles do not reduce the number of vehicles VW has to buyback or fix. An in-operable vehicle is still included in the total count, 480,000, that determines the number of vehicles that VW has to buy back or fix.

dslgate · Feb 20, 2018

bizzle said:
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.
Point #1 could arguably refer to class members selling their totaled cars to insurance companies/salvage yards/auctioneers, but that doesn't mean the relationship works in the opposite way (people buying the vehicles from insurance companies/salvage yards/auctioneers in order to *become* class members).
Point #2 isn't even relevant. A totaled vehicle, taken off the road through an insurance claim, does not need to be collected by VW. Under normal circumstances, the vehicle would not have been included the vehicle count that VW is required to remove from service. The vehicles are being placed *back into* service in an attempt to force VW to pay the new owner or the government for not hitting their milestones.

You make a nice point about #1. I had not read back through enough of what you wrote to see that you were talking exclusively of insurance auto auction "profiteering." I was wrong. My apologies.

This is not related to what bizzle had to say, but I also have to stop to point out that I know of several vehicles that were rebuilt and re-registered before 9/15/15 and are being delayed just like the others with title marks. This is a clear violation of both the settlement terms and common sense and points to VW either being overly cautions of their business position as to damage owners by making them wait, or acting in bad faith to delay. If a car was rebuilt before 9/15/15 it should be treated like a clean title.

As for #2, my point about expediting collection is still quite valid. If you spend some time watching the values that cars bring on IAAI or Copart you will realize that the majority of the cars of all types there are being bought to put back into service. As premium vehicles, most of the relevant 2.0L TDI's that came through would have been put back into service and VW would have had to round them up.

Finally, like any good internet thread there has been a fair bit of moralizing. However, there is a legal document that governs this situation. It defines an eligible vehicle:

V. “Eligible Vehicle” means Model Year 2009 through 2015 Volkswagen light-duty vehicles equipped with 2.0-liter TDI engines that are
(1) in the table immediately below this paragraph;
(2) registered with a state Department of Motor Vehicles or equivalent agency or held by bill of sale by a non-Volkswagen Dealer in the United States or its territories as of June 28, 2016;
(3) for an Eligible Owner, is currently Operable or ceases to be Operable after the date set by the Court for consumers to opt out of the Class Action or the Effective Date, whichever is earlier; and
(4) have not been modified pursuant to an Approved Emissions Modification.
Eligible Vehicle excludes any Volkswagen or Audi vehicle that was never sold in the United
States or its territories.

Where Eligible Owner is defined as:

“Eligible Owner” means the registered owner or owners of an Eligible Vehicle on June 28, 2016, or the registered owner or owners who acquire an Eligible Vehicle after June 28, 2016, but before the deadline to submit a claim under the Settlement Program, except that the owner of an Eligible Vehicle who had an active lease issued by VW Credit, Inc. as of September 18, 2015 and purchased the Eligible Vehicle previously leased by that owner after June 28, 2016 shall be an Eligible Lessee. For avoidance of doubt, an Eligible Owner ceases to be an Eligible Owner if he transfers ownership of the Eligible Vehicle to a third party on or after June 28, 2016; and a third party who acquires ownership of an Eligible Vehicle on or after June 28, 2016 thereby becomes an Eligible Owner if that third party otherwise meets the definition of an Eligible Owner.

And Operable is defined as:

“Operable” means that the vehicle so described can be driven under its own 2.0-liter TDI engine power. A vehicle is not Operable if it had a branded title of “Assembled,” “Dismantled,” “Flood,” “Junk,” “Rebuilt,” “Reconstructed,” or “Salvaged” on September 18, 2015, and was acquired by any person or entity from a junkyard or salvage yard after September 18, 2015

We can say what should happen or how we feel, but the issue is about what the settlement language said, still says, and the language about which hundreds of thousands of people made buying, selling, and buyback decisions.

Note: All quotes are from the Approved FTC Consent Order which can be found here.

ujames · Feb 20, 2018

1842 TDI said:
Branded titles still qualify under the 3.0L settlement. The only additional "operable" requirement added to the 3.0L settlement that wasn't in the 2.0L settlement is the line "is in reasonable condition such that it can be driven lawfully and safely on public roads, even if it has a mechanical issue that can be repaired, under a common-sense understanding of what is an acceptable condition for driving." If a 3.0L vehicle meets this additional requirement it qualifies, branded title or not.

They also disallowed intentional stripping or damaging the vehicles but that does not apply to branded titles any differently than it does to clean titles.

If they really wanted to disqualify branded titles they would have changed the "and" to an "or" like they did in the Canadian settlement.

Great summary. Glad you'd also noticed the slight differences in the US 3.0L and the Canadian versions. I've wondered why VW didn't try to change their US 3.0L settlement also to an "or". Is it possible that the EPA/CARB/FTC denied the request?

drsven · Feb 20, 2018

ujames said:
Great summary. Glad you'd also noticed the slight differences in the US 3.0L and the Canadian versions. I've wondered why VW didn't try to change their US 3.0L settlement also to an "or". Is it possible that the EPA/CARB/FTC denied the request?

This likely has something to do with the Clean Air Act. VW is still responsible for emissions systems on salvage title vehicles.

ujames · Feb 20, 2018

drsven said:
This likely has something to do with the Clean Air Act. VW is still responsible for emissions systems on salvage title vehicles.

You're right, here it is. It seems this is why salvage title vehicles cannot be excluded from the US settlement.

The EPA notice is specific to emissions warranty but the civil penalty for non-compliance is:

"EPA would like to remind manufacturers that failing or refusing to comply with the terms
and conditions of the emissions warranties is a prohibited act under §203(a)(4)(D) of the
Clean Air Act and may be subject to a civil penalty of to up $37,500 for each offense. "

jeffcapp99 · Feb 20, 2018

ujames said:
You're right, here it is. It seems this is why salvage title vehicles cannot be excluded from the US settlement.

The EPA notice is specific to emissions warranty but the civil penalty for non-compliance is:

"EPA would like to remind manufacturers that failing or refusing to comply with the terms
and conditions of the emissions warranties is a prohibited act under §203(a)(4)(D) of the
Clean Air Act and may be subject to a civil penalty of to up $37,500 for each offense. "

Thanks for sharing ujames. This is first I have seen of this document. It is written in 2015.

VW is out of compliance by punting on all salvage titles. I wonder why FTC does not do more? No teeth?

ujames · Feb 20, 2018

jeffcapp99 said:
Thanks for sharing ujames. This is first I have seen of this document. It is written in 2015.
VW is out of compliance by punting on all salvage titles. I wonder why FTC does not do more? No teeth?

Don't think this is a case for FTC to enforce. We need to bring this to the EPA.

drsven · Feb 20, 2018

jeffcapp99 said:
Thanks for sharing ujames. This is first I have seen of this document. It is written in 2015.

VW is out of compliance by punting on all salvage titles. I wonder why FTC does not do more? No teeth?

I believe the agencies are keeping an eye on the situation and will intervene if necessary. I can sort of see VW's position on *CERTAIN* salvage vehicles, whereas, a particular vehicle may be damaged beyond a point to where it could not possibly be road-legal. *OR* a situation where VW couldn't possibly apply the emissions fix to a particular vehicle because emissions components, engine management, or wiring is damaged from the accident.

For vehicles which are registered and have been repaired and rebuilt to road-legal status; I don't see how VW won't be responsible.

psd1 · Feb 20, 2018

jeffcapp99 said:
Thanks for sharing ujames. This is first I have seen of this document. It is written in 2015.
VW is out of compliance by punting on all salvage titles. I wonder why FTC does not do more? No teeth?

We are all assuming that VW is still up to their dirty tricks, maybe they really are trying to work through the issues like legal definitions, multiple claims and varying "brands" between states. A bit of honest communication would go a long way though.

I'm still of the belief that VW will end up paying for any vehicle that fits the description we all know so well by now.

Lightflyer1 · Feb 20, 2018

They can be excluded from buy back probably but not from doing the required fix on them. IIRC anyone can get the fix. They may or may not qualify for any payment though. So that document has no teeth unless they are refusing to do the fix itself.

jeffcapp99 · Feb 20, 2018

psd1 said:
We are all assuming that VW is still up to their dirty tricks, maybe they really are trying to work through the issues like legal definitions, multiple claims and varying "brands" between states. A bit of honest communication would go a long way though.
I'm still of the belief that VW will end up paying for any vehicle that fits the description we all know so well by now.

UJAMES - YES - I meant EPA not FTC. I just wrote EPA (again). Thank you for sharing the memo.

PSD1 - Honest communication would go a long way. We get zero feedback from VW, Counsel, FTC, EPA, CRC, website, etc. I do think VW is looking not to pay these claims. I would give them a bit of slack but they have not paid a salvage claim in 10 months. Some claims are cut and dried. Some are more complicated. It is a very unfair situation to those affected.

drsven · Feb 20, 2018

Lightflyer1 said:
They can be excluded from buy back probably but not from doing the required fix on them. IIRC anyone can get the fix. They may or may not qualify for any payment though. So that document has no teeth unless they are refusing to do the fix itself.

I think it's fair to say the CAA was taken into consideration when releasing the final settlement. I also feel what makes this situation uniquely different, is that we're not just taking about a failed or recalled sensor causing a CEL.

On July 27, 2017, EPA and the California Air Resources Board approved an emissions modification proposed by Volkswagen (VW) that will reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from model year 2009 – 2014 diesel Jetta, Golf, Beetle, and Audi A3 vehicles.
With the approval, VW will offer owners of these vehicles the choice to keep and fix their car, or to have it bought back. To obtain this approval, VW submitted test data and technical information that demonstrates that the modification will reduce emissions without negatively affecting vehicle reliability or durability. VW will thoroughly identify any differences in vehicle attributes (such as fuel economy) so owners may make an informed choice.

Lightflyer1 · Feb 20, 2018

I am talking about the Judge amending the agreement, not what is already in place. He may amend it to exclude these vehicles from buyback and only eligible for the fix. He could also exclude them from the payment as well, leaving the fix by itself as the only alternative.

andytdiland · Feb 20, 2018

The only reason people want to FIX any TDI is because of the payment from VW.

Not many TDi would be fixed otherwise.

SO, VW if you are listening !? no payment on salvage no FIX either then pay your FINE!

psd1 · Feb 20, 2018

andytdiland said:
The only reason people want to FIX any TDI is because of the payment from VW.

Not many TDi would be fixed otherwise.

SO, VW if you are listening !? no payment on salvage no FIX either then pay your FINE!

Oh they are listening alright, bet your bank on it!

miltak · Feb 20, 2018

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/virg...gen-bid-delay-first-u-195343408--finance.html

Maybe things will start moving once they will loose and will have to pay way more then the settlement amounts.

bizzle · Feb 20, 2018

andytdiland said:
The only reason people want to FIX any TDI is because of the payment from VW.

Not many TDi would be fixed otherwise.

SO, VW if you are listening !? no payment on salvage no FIX either then pay your FINE!

The warranty, as well.

Those of us who sold back our previous gen TDIs and bought 2015 with phase 1 already done aren't likely to be eligible for the 2nd phase payout but if we don't get it done we won't get the extended warranty.

andytdiland · Feb 20, 2018

you dont need a warranty on stuff the car wont have any more, aka del everything em wise.

CalGuy · Feb 20, 2018

Letters / Calls to CARB

I've emailed and called all people posted by johtdi - thanks. Is there a contact at CARB that should be interested in this?

jeffcapp99 · Feb 20, 2018

CalGuy said:
I've emailed and called all people posted by johtdi - thanks. Is there a contact at CARB that should be interested in this?

Thanks Calguy.

I think the basic problem with this settlement is everyone got their money already and thus no one is inclined to help people with issues like us. Cabraser got $175M already paid. CARB got their funds. The federal government collected a big fine. VW has no incentive to move things along other than the 85% bar and they are bullying plaintiff counsel and CRC.

johtdi · Feb 20, 2018

Email Contacts

The report by ankura are coming up soon, please do what you can so this issue is addressed. We are getting off topic focusing on one claim repeatedly.

Default Email contacts
Here are all of the emails addresses again, if you haven't already please write a quick note advise you are delayed or no response, anything is better than nothing. If anyone else has other email address of others to include on this please let me know i will update this post. Numbers Come out after February 26th lets make sure our cases are documented.

If you haven't received a response from all on this list, email them again, they have to know we will not go away if they keep ignoring us with bs deadlines, time frames that pass.

Vw willfully accepted all brands of titles with accident history early last year, many made purchases because of this, the smoke show, delay game has gone on long enough. Lets all do our part in any way we possibly can.

Thanks for all who have, we have to do something, prior to all the emails the epa didn't have a vw email address dedicated to this issue now they do, i believe our efforts have been noticed. With all of the press about hard knox maybe this will also get attention make vw enforce the settlement as they were earlier last year.

LEAD ATTORNEY Class Counsel
ecabraser@lchb.com
pgnguyen@lchb.com
t 415.956.1000 ext. 2236

FTC Email: jcohen2@ftc.gov
(202) 326-2551

DOJ
bethany.engel@usdoj.gov
po box 7611
washington Dc 20044-7611

COURT APPOINTED CLAIMS SUPERVISOR
terrence.brody@ankura.com
john.hays@ankura.com
1.202.481.1337 Direct

EPA Emails:
OTAQ@epa.gov
Iddings.Brianna@epa.gov
VW_settlement@epa.gov
734-214-4428

THE CRC
crc@vwcourtsettlement.com
1-844-98-CLAIM or 1-844 982-5246

__________________________________________________ _________________
Claims Supervisor Reports:

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl/claims-reports

Updates:
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdl

CalGuy · Feb 20, 2018

jeffcapp99 said:
Thanks Calguy.
I think the basic problem with this settlement is everyone got their money already and thus no one is inclined to help people with issues like us. Cabraser got $175M already paid. CARB got their funds. The federal government collected a big fine. VW has no incentive to move things along other than the 85% bar and they are bullying plaintiff counsel and CRC.

Thanks. I agree. All along I have felt that CARB just wanted $ to build bike paths and HOV lanes....along with Jerry's 'high speed' rail. I suppose off topic so I won't go on.

jeffcapp99 · Feb 20, 2018

CalGuy said:
Thanks. I agree. All along I have felt that CARB just wanted $ to build bike paths and HOV lanes....along with Jerry's 'high speed' rail. I suppose off topic so I won't go on.

Off topic - but the people that caught VW were not CARB. Carb was clueless. Some little lab. Those meddling kids.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/business/vw-wvu-diesel-volkswagen-west-virginia.html

drsven · Feb 20, 2018

@johtdi

Thanks for keeping the contacts list updated. I do believe discussing some of these claims in-depth and debating is actually positive. It keeps people engaged in the process and you can bet the PSC is having similar discussions.

@CalGuy

The AG’s office represented the environmental interests of the State of California.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Lightflyer1 · Feb 20, 2018

This is an interesting turn of events:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=5383102&postcount=4

Motodude said:
I was on the phone w class counsel just now. She said they are in negotiations w vw currently about the spirit of the settlement and people trying to profit instead of real people being damaged. They may not do buybacks on cars purchased in late 2017 or 2018 or do fixes on cars( she said you could get fix done if they allowed it but would not pay you) on people deemed to be profiteers. They are putting them all on hold and have no date for next hearing. May go to the end of the settlement in 2019. She sid same w salvage titles. There is no timeline at all.

jeffcapp99 · Feb 20, 2018

Lightflyer1 said:
This is an interesting turn of events:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=5383102&postcount=4

Will not do buybacks on cars purchased in late 2017 for clean titles? HA. That would be a breach on contract with a capital B.

I have called class counsel many times. Once in a while I get real light weights on the phone. Paralegals. Dumbasses. etc. These lost souls give you BS just like VW claims line.

Yet, do not believe everything to read on the internet. Maybe this person just wants people to sell their clean titles.

fookin · Feb 20, 2018

bizzle said:
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.
Point #1 could arguably refer to class members selling their totaled cars to insurance companies/salvage yards/auctioneers, but that doesn't mean the relationship works in the opposite way (people buying the vehicles from insurance companies/salvage yards/auctioneers in order to *become* class members).
Point #2 isn't even relevant. A totaled vehicle, taken off the road through an insurance claim, does not need to be collected by VW. Under normal circumstances, the vehicle would not have been included the vehicle count that VW is required to remove from service. The vehicles are being placed *back into* service in an attempt to force VW to pay the new owner or the government for not hitting their milestones.

The "profiteer" concept brought it this forum (not brought in the post I quoted but is related to it) is MOOT.

What's the difference between buying a clean title used car from a private party and buying a used car at an auction? Both are very well known and established markets and there is a buyer, a seller, a market value, and a price. Whether someone profits or not is moot. If you think cars at auction lots are just dead cars or should be dead cars you are ignorant of a well known market. Thus, there is no such thing as a profiteer. An auction lot is just another used car lot. The settlement very specifically describes new eligible owners once they buy an eligible car so it makes no difference what lot or driveway you bought it from.

fookin · Feb 20, 2018

Lightflyer1 said:
This is an interesting turn of events:

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=5383102&postcount=4

If the settlement was only to help people that were harmed they wouldn't allow new owners, they would just compensate existing owners for damages, or they could test to see if you were actually harmed, or any other myriad of tests, but none of that is in the settlement.

This talk of harmed owners assumes VW is not being punished for certifying non-compliant cars, hence the EPA and FTC involvement.

Whoever said that is just blowing smoke or is a trained VW parrot. I know I'm speculating but the direction of discussion loses context at times.

Again, don't forget per the settlement VW is required to pay restitution twice when a car is totaled - one to the totaled car owner, and again in the buyback to the new owner who bought it at auction, fixed, and re-registered the car. This is clearly a problem I can understand VW would have issue with. At the same time I have an excruciatingly difficult time reconciling how they could have missed that if they indeed did not expect it.

VW Rejecting Non-Clean Titles?

Veteran Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member