VW Rejecting Non-Clean Titles?

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
After single94's post, I PM'd my reply to fookin, so as to not distract from the task at hand.
 
Last edited:

halbert

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Location
Pennsylvania
TDI
2014 sportwagen
All interesting interpretation...and it gains nothing. Personally, if they offered me terms that was essentially "full buyback minus insurance payout" sorry for the confusion and inconvenience, I'd take it a walk away.

I had two buyback appointments (March and April last year) that were cancelled at the last minute, then I spent 6 months in step 14 limbo with them asking for a correct title document. Most recently they did accept the salvage certificate and asked for the vehicle purchase document which is all under review.

What is maddening is that if, a year ago December, I had been clearly told, "your best course of action is to take the full insurance payment plus the original owner restitution", I would have done so. I WAS clearly told by the good folks and Lief Cabraser that my full buyback WOULD be granted as long as the engine ran and the vehicle could move under it's own power. Which, of course, still remains to be seen. So far, it all appears to me that they have been making it up as they go along for the last 15 months or so.
 

lvrpl

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2017
Location
Texas
TDI
Passat TDI
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.
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.
 

jibberjive

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2016
Location
USA
TDI
MK7 GSW
Edited Again, as I still do not want to clog up the momentum of this thread with unnecessarily detailed discussion of the minutiae.

I've PM'd lvrpl, but the "transfer to insurance company" language is from the 3.0 Long Form Notice, FAQ #32 (though, the details there are about the eligibility of the owner who owned the car when it was crashed. The Notice doesn't definitively say anything about the eligiblity of the car itself, or about the eligibility of the next owner of the salvaged or rebuilt car).
 
Last edited:

drsven

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Location
Bay Area
TDI
2011 JSW - DG Buyback
We are aware that some of Volkswagen’s chat agents may have been providing incorrect information to consumers with respect to Ankura’s role in the process, particularly as it relates to claims associated with vehicles with a branded title. We have made Volkswagen aware of these incorrect statements.

As we previously have reported, Volkswagen has placed certain of these claims on hold while it works with the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee to address how they should be processed. We will provide updated information in our public report, which will be submitted to the court later this month.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Sincerely,

Ankura Consulting Group, LLC
 

halbert

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Location
Pennsylvania
TDI
2014 sportwagen
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)
 

johtdi

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Location
USA
TDI
Jetta
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
 
Last edited:

mirtdi

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Location
Illinois
TDI
10 Jetta
message april or ?

Im guessing like everyone else its a crap shoot who you get in chat and that is why some are getting mid april as i just got or nothing just a further review from other agents.

Natasha @

If your vehicle has a branded title and you have not yet received an eligibility decision, your claim is undergoing additional review because of your vehicle’s branded title. Volkswagen and the Claims Supervisor are reviewing your claim and will issue a decision regarding your eligibility. Volkswagen is currently processing claims for branded title vehicles and anticipates that it will complete its review of branded title vehicle claims by approximately mid-April 2018.

btw my car has a clear title but car was in an accident prior to my purchase.
 
Last edited:

jhuber

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Location
Arlington, TX
TDI
2016 Touareg Lux, 2015 Passat SEL, 2015 Audi Q7
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)
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?
 

bizzle

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Location
Southern California
TDI
2015 GSW SEL (totaled), 2013 Touareg Executive
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.
 

jhuber

Active member
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Location
Arlington, TX
TDI
2016 Touareg Lux, 2015 Passat SEL, 2015 Audi Q7
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.
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.
 

Cliff Clavin

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Location
Wisconsin
TDI
Many
They way the buyback formula works, you get a bit over 1,000 miles a month for free, so you have not lost anything. If people have cars parked , they are going up in value as time marches on. Approximately every 5 months a parked car back calculates to change to a lower mileage band in the NADA guide and increases in value. A vehicle worth $25,000 will change around $500 when it hits a new band. A vehicle worth $12,000 changes around $150.
 

psd1

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
OR
TDI
2006 Jetta 2013 Passat SE 6Man
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.
Your value upon return is going down, but there is a value to driving it up and down the road as well.
 

Jkhalil123

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Location
new york
TDI
golf
We are still waiting for the CRC to issue its decision on the branded titles.

Phong-Chau G. Nguyen
pgnguyen@lchb.com<mailto:pgnguyen@lchb.com>
t 415.956.1000 ext. 2236<tel:415.956.1000;2236>
f 415.956.1008<tel:415.956.1008>

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery St., 29th Floor<x-apple-data-detectors://1/1>
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339<x-apple-data-detectors://1/1>
www.lieffcabraser.com<http://www.lieffcabraser.com>

On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:11 PM, <......<mailto:wrote:

vw.claims.** salvage titles.*** please
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
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?
 

miltak

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Location
Iowa
TDI
passat,jetta
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?
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.
 

bizzle

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Location
Southern California
TDI
2015 GSW SEL (totaled), 2013 Touareg Executive
It is unconscionable that they (court / vw) keep stalling. I cannot tell if the stalling is by design or incompetence.
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.

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.
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.
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
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.
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.
 

halbert

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Location
Pennsylvania
TDI
2014 sportwagen
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.
this^^
 

johtdi

Active member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Location
USA
TDI
Jetta
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
 

bizzle

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Location
Southern California
TDI
2015 GSW SEL (totaled), 2013 Touareg Executive
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.
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
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.
Bizzel -

How do you classify profiteer? Someone who buys clean titles and turns them in? Salvage titles? Dealers that take trades?

The first time I read the agreement I was surprised to see the 'operable' definition. An 8th grader could see that definition was ripe for exploitation.

I have made many bad agreements in my life. Unfortunately, when you sign your name to an agreement you are bound to it. Courts can clear ambiguity but there in nothing ambiguous with this agreement. VW just did not think through the salvage title issue ( or operable definition) when then signed the agreement. It is not like VW was poorly represented; they had the best law firms and of course their internal legal folks to try to find any soft areas. As someone mentioned, people relied on this document when making purchases, why should VW be allowed to move the goalpost?
 

GoFaster

Moderator at Large
Joined
Jun 16, 1999
Location
Brampton, Ontario, Canada
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
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.

At this point my opinion is that VW and the lawyers all realise that they can't completely exclude people from doing this ... but they can minimmise the number by delaying the process until the last moment, long enough that people proposing to do this, won't have enough time to react to buy up any more such vehicles.

Unfortunately, a whole lot of other owners, who legitimately owned these cars through the settlement process and legitimately were involved in a collision in the affected time period, are caught up in this.

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.
 

bizzle

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Location
Southern California
TDI
2015 GSW SEL (totaled), 2013 Touareg Executive
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.
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.

@jeffcapp99 I'm going to simply echo Justice Stewart here and simply reiterate that rather than define profiteering or exploitation of "operability" I think reasonable people will recognize it when they see it.

The problem with your analysis of how settlements are reached is that the law doesn't operate in those black and white realities that various courtroom procedurals have unfortunately taught the lay-public. Generally speaking, Judges don't appreciate it when counselors pull "gotchas" in their courtroom. The loopholes that exist are there because both parties didn't anticipate unscrupulous behavior--not because one party was able to get one over on the other. That's why the class counsel is advising people that their desires are outside the scope of the spirt of the agreement.

I understand that people feel they purchased certain vehicles based on how the settlement was written. That position, however, fails to take into account the fact that VW entered into it based on how the agreement was reached.

That is, all parties sat around a table and put their wishlist in front of the other parties. Everyone had something in mind when they voiced and wrote their wishlist. Language is an imperfect vehicle and out of court settlements are not necessarily written in stone. If you choose not to trust my professional opinion on this, look no further than the historical fact that the judge has already modified this settlement.

I'll give you an example from a criminal adjudication, which would normally be much more black and white than an out of court settlement. A client, 20 years after a felony conviction, was seeking expungement. The DA requested the client submit to a series of expensive and exhaustive evaluations and risk assessments before agreeing to the expungement. After doing so, the DA supported the request, the judge granted the request, and the client was relieved of the felony record. Nearly a year later, the state's Attorney General filed a lateral attack on the judgement (directed the state police not to remove the felony from their system and refused to forward the paperwork to the FBI), claiming the judge lacked statutory authority to expunge the offense. A few things became clear: this position sets precedent that problematizes all future out of court settlements (it's probably difficult to imagine what would happen if all plea agreements were unenforceable if they could be attacked by a third party after the fact, but suffice to say it's a significant understatement that our criminal justice system would come to a screeching halt), the DA is an agent of the state and is authorized to function on behalf of the state, which at this point the DA and AG were at odds with one another on the law--a theoretical implausibility, and the most black and white issue being that all motions to set aside a judgement must be filed within 90 days according to the rules of procedure this state's laws operated within.

Interesting legal theories and troubling precedent aside (judges don't generally like complexities and circuit courts aren't a likely venue to raise such complex legal theories that I'm barely scratching in this anecdote), the 90 day procedural rule was both a clear violation of the written rule and relatively simple to articulate. The judge saw no other choice than to grant the motion, over the objection of the DA and the fact that he was overturning his own judgement. The client now has a lifetime felony that can never be expunged (unless the federal system has something to say on the matter...).

Anyway, the point is that something that is seen as black and white in the law or in a settlement does not mean everyone will agree or follow the terms. My point earlier in this thread regarding the fact class counsel are not this thread's participants' personal representatives, but rather represent the interests of the class which may or may not align with each individual's interests. When they indicate such demands are not within the spirt of the agreement, they are signaling they are not willing to fight for that particular aspect primarily because they know it was not part of the conversation (or acknowledged by all parties to be excluded from acceptable behavior even if it wasn't explicitly stated in absolute terms for what can only be inferred as an accidental omission). 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.
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
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.
Bizzel -

Here is VW's 'problem'. They are experts in automotive and could have easily excluded salvage titles just like they did in 3L settlement. They starting paying salvage claims and then stopped. It will be difficult to tell one person they are paying their salvage claim and another they are not.

What is interesting is the 'class' (correct me if I am wrong) is del facto the collection of 480,000 (or so) VIN numbers (eligible vehicles). Salvage titles are not specifically excluded thus are included.


To think some yahoos (like us) can out think VW, VW counsel, the court system, and anyone else that wrote the agreement seems outlandish. There was not one person that did this; many figured it out. Are we smarter than VW et al?

I think VW needs to pay these salvage claims and move on. VW should not benefit everytime a car is totalled.
 

lvrpl

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2017
Location
Texas
TDI
Passat TDI
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.
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.

No offense, but you're making a big assumption there based on faulty logic. You'd likely be surprised at the wide range of damage on cars going through a salvage auction, and that a very high number are actually fixable at the right price. And that's what the auction does - finds the right price.

What follows then is that many, many salvage title cars will/can actually legitimately make it back on the road as a rebuilt title. Which is why I would guess that the original settlement language explicitly included them, flipper or not.
 

dslgate

Active member
Joined
Jun 14, 2017
Location
Des Moines, Iowa
TDI
'04 Jetta
Originally Posted by bizzle
...neither party anticipated profiteering in this way...
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
 

bizzle

Veteran Member
Joined
May 21, 2013
Location
Southern California
TDI
2015 GSW SEL (totaled), 2013 Touareg Executive
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
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.
 

jeffcapp99

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Location
palm beach, FL
TDI
Audi Q7 TDI & VW Passat TDI
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?
 
Top