www.tdiclub.com

Economy - Longevity - Performance
The #1 Source of TDI Information on the Web!
Forums Articles Links Meets
Orders TDI Club Cards TDIFest 2016 Gone, but not forgotten VAG-Com List Unit Conversions TDIClub Chat Thank You




Go Back   TDIClub Forums > VW TDI Discussion Areas > Dieselgate - VW Group Emission Scandal

Dieselgate - VW Group Emission Scandal Discussion around the VW Dieselgate Emissions scandal. Details and news updates can be viewed here: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=448336 This forum is a work in progress depending on requirements, usage, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 16th, 2018, 07:00   #1561
Nowiser
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Minnesota
TDI(s): 2014 Passat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo70 View Post
Would a Carfax report count as documentation?
They said a receipt or ticket is what they need. The car was on a lot during those days, though still operable by VWs definition. They know this and therefore also know that a receipt or ticket is literally impossible for me to come up with because there are none.
Nowiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2018, 08:10   #1562
Jimbo70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Milford, CT
Fuel Economy: Mid 40's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowiser View Post
They said a receipt or ticket is what they need. The car was on a lot during those days, though still operable by VWs definition. They know this and therefore also know that a receipt or ticket is literally impossible for me to come up with because there are none.
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
__________________
Jim Altemus
Jimbo70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2018, 08:23   #1563
Nowiser
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Minnesota
TDI(s): 2014 Passat
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo70 View Post
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
Nowiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2018, 12:55   #1564
Jimbo70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Milford, CT
Fuel Economy: Mid 40's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowiser View Post
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
That is a pain in the rear with unusual circumstances like yours.
__________________
Jim Altemus
Jimbo70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2018, 16:23   #1565
fookin
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: California
TDI(s): A3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nowiser View Post
I have run a Carfax and other similar reports. Class Council told me that it is documented that the car was on an auction lot during the time period in which they want proof of operability, and that is why VW is assuming it was not operable. I'm not arguing that it was on an auction lot. I am arguing that that, in and of itself, is not proof that the vehicle was inoperable. However, the auction lot has no documents pertaining to the vehicle (I called them) and obviously there are not maintenance receipts or tickets for it during that time. The gentleman I bought it from said it ran just fine when he purchased it at auction, but that the battery was dead. He will not respond to my requests for a handwritten note vouching for its operability.
I think the settlement makes a fairly explicit distinction between salvaged/junk-yard and operable. Those appear, by design, to be mutually exclusive. I can't imagine VW would consider the details of a car running and driving at an auction lot. Good luck but I believe you took a very big risk trying to establish your compliance to the June 2016 requirement.
fookin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 04:03   #1566
jibberjive
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
TDI(s): MK7 GSW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo70 View Post
I think "they know this" is where you lose me. This has always been a process that hasn't dealt well with exceptions to the norm, and while TDI owners tend to be more likely to work on their own cars, the assumption by VW is that people service their cars somewhere - dealer or independent shop - because that is what the vast majority do, at least until the warranty expires and the free oil changes end. Have you run a Carfax or similar report on your car?

I keep a detailed maintenance log for my various vehicles, and have receipts for parts that correspond with the work I did myself.
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).
jibberjive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 04:07   #1567
jibberjive
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
TDI(s): MK7 GSW
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fookin View Post
I think the settlement makes a fairly explicit distinction between salvaged/junk-yard and operable. Those appear, by design, to be mutually exclusive. I can't imagine VW would consider the details of a car running and driving at an auction lot. Good luck but I believe you took a very big risk trying to establish your compliance to the June 2016 requirement.
As opposed to refuting their assertation to the 'receipts' requirement? Have you heard of anyone who successfully opposed VW's effort force them to establish their compliance?
jibberjive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 05:32   #1568
jeffcapp99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: palm beach, FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibberjive View Post
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).

Most 'reasonable' person cannot prove their car was on the road for a 27 day period 2 years ago unless they had it serviced during that period. I would love to ask the judge if he can prove his car was running June 1 - June 27 of 2016. Also, why 27 days? What if a car was running June 1st (and you can prove it) and it was not running June 23rd (because of an accident)? The claim would be denied.

Jibberjive nailed it. VW knows they are in an unsupportable position but they figure people will go away. The ones that persist they will bury in legal motions. If they pay a few holdouts the ends justify the means. Class Counsel (who got $175M) does nothing to help.
jeffcapp99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 08:04   #1569
Jimbo70
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Milford, CT
Fuel Economy: Mid 40's
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibberjive View Post
They wouldn't accept your personal maintenance log, nor would they accept your parts receipts as proof of anything.

The unreasonable thing is that they are asking for receipts of something with the VIN on it, retroactively, for an arbitrary 27 day window. Could you furnish proof, retroactively, that your car was operable for any and every set of 27 days in the timeframe during which you owned your car?

That is unrealistic and unreasonable to ask of someone, and I think they are just setting themselves up for further litigation (though, I assume they've run the estimates and concluded that the money saved from people who throw in the towel will be greater than the money they will have to spend on the future litigation).
I revert to my first paragraph; auctions and salvage titles are exceptions to the norm, as are some of transactions a relatively small number of speculators have been doing. And as they've transition from dealing with the vast majority of cut-and-dry claims to these more unique (or speculative) situations, they're being more particular. It is like when this first started and a few people were field stripping their cars before turning them in.
__________________
Jim Altemus
Jimbo70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 11:43   #1570
chief poncho
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Arizona
TDI(s): Jetta
Default

Exactly what Jimbo70 just said.

I think the main problem you guys have is that not many people, except for folks in the same boat as you are going to support your position. I realize some of the people stuck in this situation didn't buy salvage title cars for the purpose of making money on the buyback, but the fact is the vast majority dealing with this problem did. I don't think many people predicted that VW would be savvy enough to have focused on the operability requirement as a criteria for denial. Unfortunately, I think they have a very good case to state that if a car had a true "salvage" title on the June date (not rebuilt or otherwise put back on the road) and was in the possession of an insurance company, auction house or salvage dealer it was not "operable" from the perspective it was not roadworthy in that condition. The legal problem is the definition of operable stated in the settlement was that the car must simply move on its own 2.0 power. Again, intent of the settlement comes into play. The lawyers probably wrongly concluded that if a car was totaled, it couldn't be driven under its own power and simply assumed it would not meet the criteria. However, most of us on this site know cars can be totaled and still run and drive fine. Proving that a totaled car holding a salvage title and in the possession of a salvage dealer during the June time frame is going to be almost impossible. The only thing I can think of is find an original description of the car for the auction sale. If it says in the description that the car runs and drives, that may at least be legal justification to have your case heard, but even then, might not be enough to move the claim forward.

Saying its unfair to ask for proof of a salvage car being operable while not doing the same for clean title cars is a bit self serving. Again legal intent comes into play. I don't need to prove a car that has been continually registered with a clean title is operable on the date because legally it can be assumed to be operable. But when you have a car with a salvage title that wasn't registered and legally on the road on or near that date, I think it is reasonable to assume it may not have been operable at that time.

Like I said before, good luck. Unfortunately, I think some of you guys are simply SOL.
chief poncho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2018, 13:27   #1571
fookin
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: California
TDI(s): A3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief poncho View Post
Exactly what Jimbo70 just said.

I think the main problem you guys have is that not many people, except for folks in the same boat as you are going to support your position. I realize some of the people stuck in this situation didn't buy salvage title cars for the purpose of making money on the buyback, but the fact is the vast majority dealing with this problem did. I don't think many people predicted that VW would be savvy enough to have focused on the operability requirement as a criteria for denial. Unfortunately, I think they have a very good case to state that if a car had a true "salvage" title on the June date (not rebuilt or otherwise put back on the road) and was in the possession of an insurance company, auction house or salvage dealer it was not "operable" from the perspective it was not roadworthy in that condition. The legal problem is the definition of operable stated in the settlement was that the car must simply move on its own 2.0 power. Again, intent of the settlement comes into play. The lawyers probably wrongly concluded that if a car was totaled, it couldn't be driven under its own power and simply assumed it would not meet the criteria. However, most of us on this site know cars can be totaled and still run and drive fine. Proving that a totaled car holding a salvage title and in the possession of a salvage dealer during the June time frame is going to be almost impossible. The only thing I can think of is find an original description of the car for the auction sale. If it says in the description that the car runs and drives, that may at least be legal justification to have your case heard, but even then, might not be enough to move the claim forward.

Saying its unfair to ask for proof of a salvage car being operable while not doing the same for clean title cars is a bit self serving. Again legal intent comes into play. I don't need to prove a car that has been continually registered with a clean title is operable on the date because legally it can be assumed to be operable. But when you have a car with a salvage title that wasn't registered and legally on the road on or near that date, I think it is reasonable to assume it may not have been operable at that time.

Like I said before, good luck. Unfortunately, I think some of you guys are simply SOL.
Yes. That's what I wrote a few posts up. Operable and sitting in an auction lot are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. The letter of the settlement is quite clear in that regard and matches up with the spirit as well if you consider actions by Judge Breyer recently. The people trying to prove operability of a car while on a IAAI or Copart auction lot are indeed SOL.
fookin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2018, 05:59   #1572
jibberjive
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
TDI(s): MK7 GSW
Default

The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.

Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one, one would have to assume that substantially all people who own a car either get a parking ticket or take their car to the dealer for a repair at a maximum interval of 27 days between parking tickets/repairs. That doesn't happen, and I am sure Judge Breyer didn't intend to exclude all drivers that might have gone 28 days or longer without a parking ticket or repair.

Also, the fact that they are imposing this stricter, unduly burdensome, requirement of 'proof' only on a specific segment of the class (they are not imposing it uniformly across the board in spite of the operability clause in the settlement pertaining to the entire class, without distinction), is clear evidence that they are intentionally trying to exclude a specific segment of the class.

Can you imagine if they had imposed this 'proof' requirement universally on the entire class, including the clean title cars? The number of 'eligible' cars would drop closer to 0, and the judge would undoubtedly rule that it wasn't in the spirit of the agreement to exclude someone just because they didn't get a parking ticket or dealer repair for 27 days when they owned the car.

The spirit of the settlement also obviously intended to include people who purchased their car after June 2016, and most people don't necessarily get past records when purchasing a car (and they definitely don't get copies of the previous owner's parking tickets). This 'proof' requirement, if it were to have been applied uniformly to the entire class, would have effectively excluded the majority of owners who purchased their cars after June 2016. But of course they didn't apply this new-found 'proof' requirement uniformly, because VW knows that it is not in the spirit of the settlement, and that it would not hold up to the scrutiny that would surely follow if were to have applied it to everyone.

Last edited by jibberjive; April 18th, 2018 at 07:52.
jibberjive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2018, 06:04   #1573
jeffcapp99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: palm beach, FL
Default

A bit off topic ...

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...waits-for-what


I am seeing VW sell a lot of the late model low mileage ones at auctions. As an example, VW corporate is selling 31 at Adesa Jacksonville tomorrow. I do not blame VW for trying to resell them, but it will KILL the resale value of these cars (supply and demand).
jeffcapp99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2018, 06:26   #1574
jeffcapp99
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: palm beach, FL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jibberjive View Post
The 3 previous replies assume that salvage title cars were at an auction lot during that month (unless you guys were limiting your response to just that one person's case). I would dare to guess that the majority of the people here with salvage titled cars have a car that was not at an auction lot in that 27 day timeframe, yet there is not a single person chiming in with a confirmation of a positive outcome and an offer on their car.

Furthermore, the title status or location of any single car is irrelevant to the overarching argument that:

It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a car owner (any car owner, of any make of car with any title status [clean or rebuilt]) to be able to retroactively prove operability in an arbitrary 27 day period by submitting an intentionally restrictive choice of documents that must contain the VIN.

Pretend that we are talking about clean title cars. In order to make VW's 'proof of operability' request a reasonable one, one would have to assume that substantially all people who own a car get a parking ticket or take their car to the dealer for a repair at a maximum interval of 27 days between parking tickets/repairs. That doesn't happen, and I am sure Judge Breyer didn't intend to exclude all drivers that might have gone 28 days or longer without a parking ticket or repair.

Also, the fact that they are imposing this stricter, unduly burdensome, requirement of 'proof' only on a specific segment of the class (they are not imposing it uniformly across the board in spite of the operability clause in the settlement pertaining to the entire class, without distinction), is clear evidence that they are intentionally trying to exclude a specific segment of the class.

Can you imagine if they had imposed this 'proof' requirement universally on the entire class, including the clean title cars? The number of 'eligible' cars would drop closer to 0, and the judge would undoubtedly rule that it wasn't in the spirit of the agreement to exclude someone just because they didn't get a parking ticket or dealer repair for 27 days when they owned the car.

jibberjive is correct. I am curious about why VW put that date in the agreement. It makes no sense. In theory, they can trip up ANY clean title car. Here is the next question WHY would plaintiff counsel agree to this? Malfeasance?
jeffcapp99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2018, 07:12   #1575
psd1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: OR
Fuel Economy: See Fuelly link
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fookin View Post
Yes. Operable and sitting in an auction lot are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both. The letter of the settlement is quite clear in that regard and matches up with the spirit as well if you consider actions by Judge Breyer recently. The people trying to prove operability of a car while on a IAAI or Copart auction lot are indeed SOL.
operable
ˈp(ə)rəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
1.
able to be used.
__________________

psd1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
salvage titles sooner Ontario 5 June 1st, 2011 20:38
CLEAN CLEAN 02 VW Jetta GLS TDI Silver w/black leather interior ctd2001 TDI Cars for Sale/Wanted 7 July 14th, 2009 17:51
link titles runonbeer TDIClub and TDIClub Forum News, Issues, Problems and Suggestions 2 January 31st, 2006 19:28
Titles kabatc TDIClub and TDIClub Forum News, Issues, Problems and Suggestions 1 September 4th, 2004 19:43
LOOK AT YOUR TITLES. LMIST1 VW MKIV-A4 TDIs (VE and PD) 23 September 3rd, 2002 15:01


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 19:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright - TDIClub Online LTD - 2017
Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Forum Rules | Disclaimer
TDIClub Online Ltd (TDIClub.com) is not affiliated with the VWoA or VWAG and is supported by contributions from viewers like you.
1996 - 2017, All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.18930 seconds with 13 queries
[Output: 145.56 Kb. compressed to 124.76 Kb. by saving 20.80 Kb. (14.29%)]