VW Rejecting Non-Clean Titles?

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
There's no provision in the 2-liter settlement about anyone splitting restitution with anyone else.
I knew that didn't sound right:
"Because a car may have more than one owner during the relevant period, for those cars that changed hands after September 18, 2015 and during the claims period, the settlement equitably divides the Owner Restitution payment approximately 50/50 between the owner as of September 18, 2015 who later sold the car (“Eligible Seller”) and the current owner (“Eligible Owner”). To qualify for an Eligible Seller restitution payment, you must identify yourself with 45 days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. If preliminary approval is granted by the Court on July 26, 2016 (the date of the preliminary approval hearing), you will have until September 16, 2016 to identify yourself. Note that if you sell your car after June 28, 2016, you will not be an Eligible Seller (or an Eligible Owner)."
 

VWMark

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Location
Mount Kisco, NY
TDI
2010 Golf TDI 6M RIP, 2015 GSW SE TDI 6M, 2015 Q7 TDI
I knew that didn't sound right:
"Because a car may have more than one owner during the relevant period, for those cars that changed hands after September 18, 2015 and during the claims period, the settlement equitably divides the Owner Restitution payment approximately 50/50 between the owner as of September 18, 2015 who later sold the car (“Eligible Seller”) and the current owner (“Eligible Owner”). To qualify for an Eligible Seller restitution payment, you must identify yourself with 45 days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order. If preliminary approval is granted by the Court on July 26, 2016 (the date of the preliminary approval hearing), you will have until September 16, 2016 to identify yourself. Note that if you sell your car after June 28, 2016, you will not be an Eligible Seller (or an Eligible Owner)."
Yes, in that case the restitution gets split. But what we are talking about here is something completely different here.

Take my case for example. I owned a 2010 Golf since new. The car was in an accident and deemed totaled by the insurance company (Note that had to happen before June 26 2016 and September 18th 2016 or so). I sign the title over to the insurance company and take my payout(which is nowhere near what the buyback would have been). I file for and am eligible for the VW restitution money($5100 or so). That part is what happened, below is what could happen: In the mean time, the insurance company sells the car to a junkyard/salvage yard. Someone sees the car there and decides they can fix it for not too much, so they buy it from the salvage yard, fix it up, and apply for a salvage title. Then they start the buyback process with VW. Are they also eligible for the restitution money? I think not.

I have no idea if that's what's happening here, just throwing out a theoretical case.
 

DanB36

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Location
Savannah, GA
TDI
2014 Q5 Prestige TDI, Monsoon Gray
"Because a car may have more than one owner during the relevant period, for those cars that changed hands after September 18, 2015 and during the claims period, the settlement equitably divides the Owner Restitution payment approximately 50/50 between the owner as of September 18, 2015 who later sold the car (“Eligible Seller”) and the current owner (“Eligible Owner”).
This is an oversimplification and doesn't accurately reflect the way that post-9/18/15 buyers were treated. Yes, I know that it's part of the court-approved notice, but it's still an oversimplification. It doesn't help that the FTC consent order and the class action settlement agreement are inconsistent on this point.

Under both agreements, there was a pool of money set aside for Eligible Sellers. Eligible Sellers who filed timely and complete claims were paid out of that pool, and received half the restitution that an owner would have received.

For at least some post-9/18/15 buyers (and this is where the FTC and the CAS differ), restitution is 50% plus a proportion of the remaining 50% equal to the proportion of the Sellers' pool that remained after all the sellers were paid. There was 56% of that pool left, 56% of 50% is 28%, so post-9/18/15 buyers* received 78% of the total restitution amount.

I repeat that there's no scenario under any of the 2-liter settlement agreements where the owner of a car splits the restitution with the former owner of that car. There just isn't. The notice makes it sound like there is, but to that extent, it's wrong.

* Actually, 9/18/15-6/28/16 buyers--buyers after 6/28/16 have been receiving full restitution, which is what the FTC consent order requires. Under the CAS, they'd receive the same as any other post-9/18/15 buyers.
 

ujames

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
YES
^^^ Maybe you never actually read the court approved Notice.....

I may be stuck, but rebuilt and salvage title cars are included in the claims.....

(See question #9 and #11 of the Approved Exhibit 3 - Long Form Notice)

They have bought other salvage/rebuilt cars in the past.

BTW: I started this post to see if there are others who are having similar responses from VW.
Let's get this thread back on topic.

I haven't received the same letter but also have problems getting branded titles approved the past several weeks. Perhaps we should do a roll call here on who else is experiencing the same problem. One recourse is to collectively pursue legal action...
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
You guys should hold off on creating too much of a stink for like 2 days, until the 3.0 settlement gets final approval, before they toss something new into the 3.0 settlement about salvage title cars in the 3.0:D
 

psd1

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
OR
TDI
2006 Jetta 2013 Passat SE 6Man
Let's get this thread back on topic.
I haven't received the same letter but also have problems getting branded titles approved the past several weeks. Perhaps we should do a roll call here on who else is experiencing the same problem. One recourse is to collectively pursue legal action...
Once again, there is legal counsel to serve these needs. You are the victim of VW's negligence. Get on vwcourtsettlement.com and get the number.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
The problem is people are now digging up totaled cars to fix and sell them back. If there was no buyback, most of the cars would not be brought back on the road.

^^^ Incorrect.

The real problem is that VW cheated when they made the cars to start with.
One of the hallmarks of a guilty conscience is lapsing into logical fallacies to prop up a justification. If the above reasoning was a valid defense, no one might ever be at fault for anything as long as they could point to another wrong that was done earlier in the causal chain, or one that was deemed worse. In simpler words, I say, "two wrongs don't make a right."

Look, it's clear that OP and others are operating within a legal window unanticipated by the settlement negotiators. But what is permissible in law and what is right are two different things. You can think you are doing a public good by helping make sure evil VW pays every last cent that they were liable to pay, and more. I say these kinds of ideas and this type logic is just a handy way of disguising from oneself an opportunism and potentially, a lack of moral core.
 

duratitus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Location
Watertown NY
TDI
Several different models. Selling them back to VW
Look, it's clear that OP and others are operating within a legal window unanticipated by the settlement negotiators...........
You are entitled to your opinion, however I think you are mistaken in assuming that the "Legal Window" as you call it was "Unanticipated" by negotiators.

I believe the "Window" was put there on purpose, because the intent of the settlement was to address any car that was on the road as of 9/18/2016, and is still operable, or could still be made operable.

I find it hard to believe that the brightest legal minds in the country would have made such an obvious mistake in their "Negotiation", especially when such a mistake would potentially cost VW millions of dollars.

It comes down to what the intent of the settlement was to address. - I think it was to address the number of cars that were driving down the road on a certain date, regardless of ownership; whereas, I believe you think it was to repay the owners of said vehicles, who owned them on a certain date for the loss of value, and misleading advertising.

- Actually, I think it was a mixture of both ideas.

What I find really interesting under the light of me "Gouging the system", is that non VW dealers, are included in the settlements, and receive full restitution for each affected vehicle on their lots.

- I've heard of dealers who were holding 200 cars or more, to send back to VW. In the light of that, you'd have a hard time convincing me that this was some oversight on the part of the settlement negotiators.
 
Last edited:

DanB36

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Location
Savannah, GA
TDI
2014 Q5 Prestige TDI, Monsoon Gray
Look, it's clear that OP and others are operating within a legal window unanticipated by the settlement negotiators.
I don't think this is at all clear, and aside from the points raised by @duratitus, you should consider that the the 3-liter settlement is worded the same way with respect to branded titles. If VW were seeing a significant number of these cars coming back using a loophole they didn't expect, don't you think they would have fought for further clarity in the 3-liter settlement, the way they did for the definition of "operable"?
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
You are entitled to your opinion, however I think you are mistaken in assuming that the "Legal Window" as you call it was "Unanticipated" by negotiators.

I believe the "Window" was put there on purpose, because the intent of the settlement was to address any car that was on the road as of 9/18/2016, and is still operable, or could still be made operable.

I find it hard to believe that the brightest legal minds in the country would have made such an obvious mistake in their "Negotiation", especially when such a mistake would potentially cost VW millions of dollars.

It comes down to what the intent of the settlement was to address. - I think it was to address the number of cars that were driving down the road on a certain date, regardless of ownership; whereas, I believe you think it was to repay the owners of said vehicles, who owned them on a certain date for the loss of value, and misleading advertising.

- Actually, I think it was a mixture of both ideas.

What I find really interesting under the light of me "Gouging the system", is that non VW dealers, are included in the settlements, and receive full restitution for each affected vehicle on their lots.

- I've heard of dealers who were holding 200 cars or more, to send back to VW. In the light of that, you'd have a hard time convincing me that this was some oversight on the part of the settlement negotiators.


I'm pretty sure it wasn't to create a group of people trolling junkyards looking for zombie cars to redeem, or online hucksters, like greasy old timers on a beach with metal detectors, feeding vin numbers into computers looking to get a hit. If not you, apologies in advance.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
I don't think this is at all clear, and aside from the points raised by @duratitus, you should consider that the the 3-liter settlement is worded the same way with respect to branded titles. If VW were seeing a significant number of these cars coming back using a loophole they didn't expect, don't you think they would have fought for further clarity in the 3-liter settlement, the way they did for the definition of "operable"?


Not necessarily. Apples and oranges comparing the "operable" issue and this activity.
 

surfstar

Veteran Member
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
SB, CA
TDI
2014 Golf & Passat - sold | 2016 GSW TSI
I'm pretty sure it wasn't to create a group of people trolling junkyards looking for zombie cars to redeem, or online hucksters, like greasy old timers on a beach with metal detectors, feeding vin numbers into computers looking to get a hit. If not you, apologies in advance.
Is it also morally reprehensible to you that people buy junked Hondas, Toyotas, etc, in order to fix them up and put them back on the road, FOR A PROFIT?!?
The horror!
What about people who buy and sell stocks for a living! OMG - what scum! They find market inefficiencies, buying low and selling high. How can they live with themselves!!!
I'm happy with the one or two hits I've gotten :D and again, I am disappointed in myself that I had not looked into the settlement when first announced. Not being a TDI owner at the time, I was on the sidelines and assumed it would only apply to current owners.
 

bmwM5power

Veteran Member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Location
Rochester NY
TDI
15 GSW TDI S 6MT / 02 JETTA TDI GLS 5MT 15 GOLF TDI 6MT
Is it also morally reprehensible to you that people buy junked Hondas, Toyotas, etc, in order to fix them up and put them back on the road, FOR A PROFIT?!?
The horror!
What about people who buy and sell stocks for a living! OMG - what scum! They find market inefficiencies, buying low and selling high. How can they live with themselves!!!
I'm happy with the one or two hits I've gotten :D and again, I am disappointed in myself that I had not looked into the settlement when first announced. Not being a TDI owner at the time, I was on the sidelines and assumed it would only apply to current owners.
I totally agree with you, after reading through this topic I sense a lot of ENVY from some members who say " you do it for a profit? :eek: OMG!" The whole capitalistic society is based on a principle that someone smarter, or luckier is gonna make profit somewhere and someone is gonna lose on the other hand, cmon people, get a life. The OP put a lot at stake here, money, sleepless nights, worrying. The salvage cars is still a grey area here, Ive seen cars that should have been rejected according to the wording in the settlement passing with no problems, and the other rejected for no reason, I think it depends on a mood of the worker who handles each individual case. Dont get envious.
 
Last edited:

740GLE

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Location
NH
TDI
2015 Passat SEL, 2017 Alltrack SE; BB 2010 Sedan Man; 2012 Passat,
It may be zero sympathy, but I think its also 100 on the jealousy scale.
I know I wish I read the settlement docs when they first came out - could have made a nice side business out of finding market inefficiencies.

IMO it'd be the same as being jealous for those approved social security disability for "stress induced anxiety" and not having to work the rest of their lives.

I'm anxiously awaiting what the outcome of the OP situation is.

On a side note, the wife and I submitted all paper work on a clean titled no lien holder 2012 Passat last week, still haven't received a formal offer, this is over 5 days longer than when I submitted paperwork for the Jetta back in January. We did pay off the Passat and received the title the week before.
 
Last edited:

maybe368

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Location
Phoenix
TDI
Happily none
IMO it'd be the same as being jealous for those approved social security disability for "stress induced anxiety" not having to work the rest of their lives.
Yeah, it would be sweet living on 800 bucks a month, for life :rolleyes:...Mark
 

linux_author

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Location
Fahrvergnügen
TDI
Phase II Emissions modified 2015 Golf TDI S SportWagen
IMO it'd be the same as being jealous for those approved social security disability for "stress induced anxiety" not having to work the rest of their lives.
there's plenty of SSD fraud out there and i wouldn't term my response to that as being 'jealous' ... but more on topic for this forum's discussion area thread, i do find this whole shrieking moral outrage by a certain number of aggrieved VW owners quite laughable...

and if there are folks that can legally sell back TDIs and reap settlement money, who am i to say whether or not it is 'right'? those folks are putting out their own money and time and effort!

i'm just a satisfied TDI owner - i certainly don't feel cheated at all

[rolling eyes]

willie
on the Gulf of Mexico
 

DanB36

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2003
Location
Savannah, GA
TDI
2014 Q5 Prestige TDI, Monsoon Gray
Apples and oranges comparing the "operable" issue and this activity.
I think it's fairly comparable. VW didn't like getting stripped cars or rolling wrecks back, so the definition of "operable" was changed in the 3-liter settlement to mean (1) not stripped, and (2) roadworthy. Well, people have been trolling the junkyards since the settlement was announced too, but the language in the 3-liter settlement about branded titles is exactly the same as it is in the 2-liter settlement. A car is excluded for the branded title only if the branded title was present on 9/18/15, and the car was sold by a junkyard or salvage yard after 9/18/15. If the title was clean on 9/18/15, and the car only got the branded title after that date, it doesn't fall under that exclusion.

It's an odd exclusion, and I honestly have no idea why it's worded the way it is. But irrespective of why, it is worded that way, people have been taking advantage of it since the beginning, and VW has to know that. So even if this "legal window" was "unanticipated" during the 2-liter settlement negotiations, it was known by the time of the 3-liter settlement negotiations. And in a second settlement agreement released eight months later, they didn't do anything to try to prevent or limit it.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
Is it also morally reprehensible to you that people buy junked Hondas, Toyotas, etc, in order to fix them up and put them back on the road, FOR A PROFIT?!?
The horror!
What about people who buy and sell stocks for a living! OMG - what scum! They find market inefficiencies, buying low and selling high. How can they live with themselves!!!
I don't think you work with analogies much. These need work.

I totally agree with you, after reading through this topic I sense a lot of ENVY from some members who say " you do it for a profit? :eek: OMG!" The whole capitalistic society blah blah blah
This is an even better example of poor argumentation based on guilty conscience than the one that I first commented on. Wrap yourself in the flag next, fella...

if there are folks that can legally sell back TDIs and reap settlement money, who am i to say whether or not it is 'right'? those folks are putting out their own money and time and effort!
My whole point was that, beyond the laws, it is the job of moral people to decide what is right and what is opportunistically making a second wrong.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
I think it's fairly comparable. VW didn't like getting stripped cars or rolling wrecks back, so the definition of "operable" was changed in the 3-liter settlement to mean (1) not stripped, and (2) roadworthy. Well, people have been trolling the junkyards since the settlement was announced too, but the language in the 3-liter settlement about branded titles is exactly the same as it is in the 2-liter settlement. A car is excluded for the branded title only if the branded title was present on 9/18/15, and the car was sold by a junkyard or salvage yard after 9/18/15. If the title was clean on 9/18/15, and the car only got the branded title after that date, it doesn't fall under that exclusion.

It's an odd exclusion, and I honestly have no idea why it's worded the way it is. But irrespective of why, it is worded that way, people have been taking advantage of it since the beginning, and VW has to know that. So even if this "legal window" was "unanticipated" during the 2-liter settlement negotiations, it was known by the time of the 3-liter settlement negotiations. And in a second settlement agreement released eight months later, they didn't do anything to try to prevent or limit it.
Dan, I am happy to concede your point that this action could have been expressly prohibited in the second (3.0) settlement. Why it wasn't prohibited is not completely clear. From the EPA's point of view, one can argue it was because they wanted to keep non-conforming cars from polluting, however they might make it to the road. There was no national news story on the scale of the Jalopnik stripped VW story. Maybe VW didn't fight for an exclusion of junkyard cars in part because they didn't want to promote more activity of this kind. The thing is, we just don't know. My main point has been a bit different. I think the whole affair invited folks to turn off their moral compasses. There's nothing like being wronged to create a propensity to do wrong.
 

duratitus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Location
Watertown NY
TDI
Several different models. Selling them back to VW
Well I think it's wrong for our government to make Volkswagen destroy perfectly fine cars, thereby making unknown amounts of pollution to recycle them and make new ones.

The whole thing is a crying shame, if you want my honest opinion.

I'm wondering if anyone is still getting their claims processed in the last week or two? - I personally know 6 other TDI owners who have claims paperwork submitted, and all of them have not seen any movement in their claims portal since 2-3 weeks ago.
 

duratitus

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2016
Location
Watertown NY
TDI
Several different models. Selling them back to VW
IMO VW should have just had to pay individual owners a restitution payment, and let the cars stay on the road the remainder of their lives. This would have no doubt been the most environmentally friendly way to reduce emissions, and repay owners for the fraudulent advertising.

The fact that this is not what happened makes me believe that the whole lawsuit was more about money that concern about the environment.

I respect you for not trying to profit from the whole settlement, but I don't think you are in the right place to accuse others of doing something morally wrong by profiting from the settlement just because your conscience would bother you if did so.

If VWhad been ordered to give you more money than you thought they should have to give, would have you rejected the extra funds?
 

kjclow

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Location
Charlotte, NC
TDI
2010 JSW TDI silver and black. 2017 Ram Ecodiesel dark red with brown and beige interior.
IMHO, the whole lawsuit, stop sales crap, and the buyback are more about punishing VWAG for sneaking one past the EPA and CARB and then not confessing when originally caught.

If I had the time, knowledge, and place to work on cars, I would have joined these ranks. I even considered picking up a JSW I saw for sale at a price below the buyback amount I should be getting for mine. Cash flow did not allow it though.
 

ujames

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
YES
I think it's fairly comparable. VW didn't like getting stripped cars or rolling wrecks back, so the definition of "operable" was changed in the 3-liter settlement to mean (1) not stripped, and (2) roadworthy. Well, people have been trolling the junkyards since the settlement was announced too, but the language in the 3-liter settlement about branded titles is exactly the same as it is in the 2-liter settlement. A car is excluded for the branded title only if the branded title was present on 9/18/15, and the car was sold by a junkyard or salvage yard after 9/18/15. If the title was clean on 9/18/15, and the car only got the branded title after that date, it doesn't fall under that exclusion.
It's an odd exclusion, and I honestly have no idea why it's worded the way it is. But irrespective of why, it is worded that way, people have been taking advantage of it since the beginning, and VW has to know that. So even if this "legal window" was "unanticipated" during the 2-liter settlement negotiations, it was known by the time of the 3-liter settlement negotiations. And in a second settlement agreement released eight months later, they didn't do anything to try to prevent or limit it.
The word "AND" you've highlighted is the key word. Interestingly, that word was changed to "OR" in the Canadian settlement agreement which makes a big difference. It appears VW is trying to uphold that change in agreement for US claims.
O. CAN I RECEIVE BENEFITS IF MY CAR IS NOT OPERABLE?
In order for eligible Settlement Class Members to receive a Buyback, Trade-In or
Approved Emissions Modification under the Settlement, their Eligible Vehicle must be
operable—i.e., can be driven under the power of its own 2.0L TDI engine—when brought
in to a Volkswagen or Audi dealership to participate in the settlement program. A vehicle
is not considered operable if, among other reasons, it had a branded title of “Dismantled”,
“Junk”, “Salvage” or “Mechanically Unfit” on September 18, 2015, or was acquired from
a junkyard or salvage yard on or after September 18, 2015.
Excerpt from PAGE 13
 

bmwM5power

Veteran Member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Location
Rochester NY
TDI
15 GSW TDI S 6MT / 02 JETTA TDI GLS 5MT 15 GOLF TDI 6MT
I respect you for not trying to profit from the whole settlement, but I don't think you are in the right place to accuse others of doing something morally wrong by profiting from the settlement just because your conscience would bother you if did so.

If VWhad been ordered to give you more money than you thought they should have to give, would have you rejected the extra funds?
.
IMO Mythdoc is the one with the " guilty conscience " , this word dominates almost his every post, just get it over with bud. Mythdoc IMHO it was not morally right to buy the TDI for you in the first place and pollute the environment, then take advantage of the settlement and got more money for your car than you would have ever gotten otherwise.
 

ujames

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
YES
I'm wondering if anyone is still getting their claims processed in the last week or two? - I personally know 6 other TDI owners who have claims paperwork submitted, and all of them have not seen any movement in their claims portal since 2-3 weeks ago.
Last offer received mid April. Since then, no additional offers. Only progress since this point in time are for some claims to get through doc approval. However, once approved several approvals have been reversed and the titles have become "rejected" again. Explanation given is that a clean title needs to be submitted as proper documentation.

I've escalated to the Legal Council @ LCHB and their response to me is below. I'm a bit disappointed they're not offering more support.

My update on this is that you are going to have to go through the Claims Review Committee review process, the decision on your car is final at this point. The Review process is still being developed by the Court and the members of the committee. More information on the process will be forthcoming in the months ahead but for now simply send one email detailing why you disagree with the eligibility determination on this vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
IMO Mythdoc is the one with the " guilty conscience " , this word dominates almost his every post, just get it over with bud. Mythdoc IMHO it was not morally right to buy the TDI for you in the first place and pollute the environment, then take advantage of the settlement and got more money for your car than you would have ever gotten otherwise.
You missed the boat on me, big time. But nice try with the "that describes you, but what am I?" game.

But here, let me ask you something. Business A has a strict, written policy on employee use of business property, whereas Business B does not. Worker X works for both companies. She takes pencils home from Business A, directly violating her employment terms. She takes Business B's company car out on weekends for the 450 mile round trip to see her grandmother, not a business use, but not violating her employment terms as written. She excuses herself for this action, because she doesn't like the way Business B has treated their employees.

Are you going to argue that her actions are wrong with respect to Business A, but not with respect to Business B, simply because she is following the agreement as written? Or, do you think, as I do, that she has not committed any meaningful offense to Business A, but has in fact done wrong to Business B? How do you know this? Is it because you are supposed to have an inner sense of what is right?

Maybe I am taking the trouble to write this reply to you because I still have some belief that you will be open to a reasonable exchange of views.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
^^OP: thanks for keeping to the high ground, when I wasn't making it easy to do so. I don't agree with your choice, but I can tell that you have thought and are still thinking about the issues presented. Aloha
 

surfstar

Veteran Member
Joined
May 3, 2017
Location
SB, CA
TDI
2014 Golf & Passat - sold | 2016 GSW TSI
Maybe I am taking the trouble to write this reply to you because I still have some belief that you will be open to a reasonable exchange of views.
Reasonably, what is wrong with people making some extra money buying and selling VWs? Again, how is that different than finding an under priced Honda and flipping it? Or is making any money morally reprehensible to you?

By-the-way, you wouldn't happen to be posting to an online forum from work, would you?
 

psd1

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
OR
TDI
2006 Jetta 2013 Passat SE 6Man
Last offer received mid April. Since then, no additional offers. Only progress since this point in time are for some claims to get through doc approval. However, once approved several approvals have been reversed and the titles have become "rejected" again. Explanation given is that a clean title needs to be submitted as proper documentation.

I've escalated to the Legal Council @ LCHB and their response to me is below. I'm a bit disappointed they're not offering more support.
Ugh, please keep us advised. I have one Salvage Titled Touareg.
 

Mythdoc

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Location
Tennessee
TDI
2011 Touareg, 2015 Q5, 2015 Golf
Reasonably, what is wrong with people making some extra money buying and selling VWs? Again, how is that different than finding an under priced Honda and flipping it? Or is making any money morally reprehensible to you?
By-the-way, you wouldn't happen to be posting to an online forum from work, would you?
To your second question: no, I am not, heh, but I wouldn't consider it much of a fault if you were. You are helping me make my point, see?

First question: of course making money is not reprehensible, that's a silly takeaway from my comments. We have been talking about exploiting loopholes, and the scale of what is done in these loopholes, do you not see that?
 
Top