Lets start objecting/complaining !

GoFaster · Jul 2, 2016

vintovka said:
1) someone please create a poll of how many feel the buyback values are fair

VW monitors this site as do the the Feds and Carbs et al

2) we should get additonal $$$ just for having our lives disrupted because VW LIED to every one of us

With the caveat that we don't know the Canadian-specific numbers yet ...

Crunching the numbers for the 2011 Golf TDI DSG that my sister has, and pretending that our "Comfortline" trim level is the US mid-level trim, and converting km to mi and converting US$ to CDN$ ... It's more than what we considered to be the fair value of the car in December 2014 when the car last changed hands. The US$ number is in line with what we thought the CDN$ fair value number was at that time. The car has a couple of dents and dings and we know it's not a perfect-condition specimen ... we get that.

We are fine with that, and we're not looking for triple damages because someone hurt our feelings.

historiclady · Jul 2, 2016

high mileage

I think all TDI owners with high mileage should write in protest of using this as a "buyback evaluation" tool. From what I have read there is no consideration of the condition of the cars other than high mileage---why this parameter? I have kept my 2010 JSW in perfect condition hoping for at least 400,000 miles--currently at 237,000-. Why should I be punished for spending money for every maintenance required, paying more for almost every gallon of diesel (as opposed to gas in my area), using the car as it was intended--diesels should last longer miles, only to be punished for something they cannot use as a resale issue. This is not a normal "trade in" . Supposedly these cars cannot be used again.. That being said, if it does not matter what condition it is in, why does it matter how many miles it has?

Is there a lawyer here who could get a petition started for us high milers???

historiclady

senez said:
The only areas I'd really look to contest would be:

- Use Clean Retail Value rather than Clean Trade In Value
- Adjust upward the average miles driven adjustment factor (1024 too low, IMO)

Will have a hard time arguing either point, especially given the average miles driven is industry standard.

bristolvw · Jul 2, 2016

historiclady said:
I think all TDI owners with high mileage should write in protest of using this as a "buyback evaluation" tool. From what I have read there is no consideration of the condition of the cars other than high mileage---why this parameter? I have kept my 2010 JSW in perfect condition hoping for at least 400,000 miles--currently at 237,000-. Why should I be punished for spending money for every maintenance required, paying more for almost every gallon of diesel (as opposed to gas in my area), using the car as it was intended--diesels should last longer miles, only to be punished for something they cannot use as a resale issue. This is not a normal "trade in" . Supposedly these cars cannot be used again.. That being said, if it does not matter what condition it is in, why does it matter how many miles it has?
Is there a lawyer here who could get a petition started for us high milers???
historiclady

I too feel like the mileage adjustment has too large an effect on the buyback offer. I get that they are basing it off of "industry averages" but people buy TDIs for the ability to put lots of miles on them. And many of us that have Gen. 1s with high miles paid full MSRP knowing it would be a long term investment.

For those that feel similar, is there a more effective comment that can be made on the mileage adjustment other than "it's too harsh?" What could be proposed as an alternative or tweak to their method that would be more fair (e.g. cut the mileage deductions in half,...)?

XJTdi · Jul 3, 2016

bristolvw said:
I too feel like the mileage adjustment has too large an effect on the buyback offer. I get that they are basing it off of "industry averages" but people buy TDIs for the ability to put lots of miles on them. And many of us that have Gen. 1s with high miles paid full MSRP knowing it would be a long term investment.

For those that feel similar, is there a more effective comment that can be made on the mileage adjustment other than "it's too harsh?" What could be proposed as an alternative or tweak to their method that would be more fair (e.g. cut the mileage deductions in half,...)?

We also paid more than msrp. Our car was one of the first 10's off the truck and with cash for clunkers going on the options were limited. No regrets about purchasing the car. It has served us well. Our circumstances will change in the next couple of years so mileage will be less of a concern. The problem is what to replace it with.

The mileage adjustment does seem to be punitive. Someone else in the forum speculated that the NADA value includes a mileage deduction on its own. With VW taking a second mileage deduction. When I run my numbers through NADA, total clean trade is less and total retail is more than VW's proposed number as it should be. One issue is the numbers at NADA that I ran are todays numbers not 9/15. But their mileage deduction is less than VW's by about a third. They are either double dipping on the mileage or charging more per mile.

In reality mileage should not play an issue at all. The fraud was from the day the car was purchased. We should also not have to pay for VW's foot dragging while they figure this out.

My opinion is they should use clean retail value, no mileage adjustment or freezing the mileage at the 9/15 amount, add $5100 aw shucks money and call it good.

We were considering moving up to an Audi but the better half wants to move on. As she is a car nut and has a thing for cats we will probably get a Jag.

bird67 · Jul 3, 2016

2015vwgolfdiesel said:
That will keep you awake regarding "is there really a FIX"?

Posing a question somehow gets elevated to "keeping me awake at night"? I think you're projecting your own issues.

2015vwgolfdiesel · Jul 3, 2016

vintovka said:
1) someone please create a poll of how many feel the buyback values are fair

VW monitors this site as do the the Feds and Carbs et al

2) we should get additional $$$ just for having our lives disrupted because VW LIED to every one of us

Might come down to the percentage off the road at some point in time.

Believe they are using th 20% "THANG."

If they are bad behind on the 85% issue, wonder if they will either bump the Settlement numbers, or the MOD numbers,

or

Use intensives to get the new cars sold, and the Diesels off to the crusher?

tperretta · Jul 4, 2016

Add tax/title/purchase fees to the list.

I paid taxes on a vehicle that wasn't even eligible for a sale. I bought mine in August 2015, so the thousands that went to taxes/fees definitely hurt me. We should all receiving taxes back as damages, in addition to CLEAN MSRP. This isn't even close to a trade-in situation.

Also add mileage documentation. My tdi has service records documenting mileage at the time of the scandal. I'm driving more than the allowed mileage, but I have proof of the pre scandal mileage. In cases like this, we shouldn't be penalized for driving while VW is borrowing our time.

bird67 said:
That is exactly right.

I would add that the press releases and resulting news reports describe VW as paying MARKET VALUE + 20%. That's just a lie. It does NOT mean it's a bad deal necessarily; but it is, nonetheless, a lie. VW's settlement proposal should be evaluated on its merits, not on inaccurate media reports based on skillfully worded press releases. Trade-in value is NOT market value, but VW's press releases don't make that distinction, so neither have the news reports.

Here's the list:

- Buyback price should remain based on 9/1/15 NADA retail valuation, not trade-in
- Buyback price does not address expensive options like xenon headlights
- warranty for emissions failures pending repair or buyback choice
- mileage driven adjustment should be altered
- settlement should address real world costs of acquiring replacement vehicle, ie taxes/fees
- no compensation to those who spent money pre-9/15 repairing the fraudulent system
- with NO actual "fix", the keep-and-fix option is an illusion

mr_y82 · Jul 5, 2016

^agreed... Is there actually any official word on dealer retail versus trade value being offered or is it still somewhat speculative?

Edit: I know people are saying it's NADA clean trade value, but I have read so much I've lost track... If we are supposed to replace our cars with something, like at a dealer for example, they really should have to give retail value... That just seems logical...

Carphuntin_god · Jul 5, 2016

i intend to mail in objections. currently trade vs retail value, probably mileage adjustment, not sure what else.
But.. .this thread is a good start... but has anyone else run across any other sites with good lists like this ? I ask because it would seem to me, the more similar the complaints, the more likelihood of them being seen and considered.
the tighter the message, the better the chance of action.

GoFaster · Jul 5, 2016

Given that the intent of a buyback is to facilitate buying a replacement vehicle that you will have to pay taxes on, it's a legit complaint that the buyback amount should be sufficient to cover taxes and fees on a replacement vehicle of the same value.

r11 · Jul 6, 2016

Yet to put together a cohesive complaint letter

As a forum with 100s that dont feel good about the proposed settlement, we gotta be able to put together a nice letter. Print it, put in your VIN and mail it to the 3 addresses provided to us already.

I've seen some essays here that are simply too watery and way too long. Needs to be half a pager at most.

Key points:

- We're not selling or trading in, cars are being taken away from us
- 99% of us will need another car after trade-in. You can not buy a car at "clean trade-in", you'd have to pay retail. The buyback has to be based at "clean retail" as of Sept '15
- Plenty of people drove these at 20K/Y and more, but precisely of high fuel economy that these were advertised at. There should not be penalty for miles.
- Many of us would have happily driven these for another 10 years. At 50Mpg, we would have saved thousands more. This loss of use and fuel saving needs to be accounted for.
- On top of this, VW must pay to us some damages. It is nice that government is getting 5B, but very little is made available to compensate us, the owners.

Simple calcs for #4. 10Y @ 20K is 200K miles. At $3/gallons and 50Mpg, it is 4000 gallons of fuel, $12000. With gasoline cars, getting avg of 25Mpg, it would have been $24000. We would have saved $12000 - where's reasonable compensation for this ? Those that drive higher miles must actually be paid more, as they stand to loose the most through loss of use of high-mpg car.

r11 · Jul 6, 2016

So far, I've seen plenty of frontier attitude dished out.

Something like "well, y'all got a kick in the nuts, that much is clear. it didnt kill ya, so it oughta make ya stronger. Soldier on, boy. Ain't nobody ows you nuttin. Quit your cryin cause em didnt give a common courtesy of reacharound as they did that thing to ya".

This advice is garbage, plain and simple. How much of it comes from VW shills I dunno. But, if these are real ppl, write your letters too - tell em how much you liked the experience and the money you're gettin.

Airpizz6 · Jul 6, 2016

I can't believe anyone on this forum bought a TDI as an investment, and to expect to get a profit out of this sounds ludicrous. But I agree that there seem to be a number of situations overlooked in the settlement. Those should be aired for consideration and possible inclusion. But at this point one of the most contentious items: retail vs clean trade, may not be fair but I doubt if we will see any change there.

r11 · Jul 6, 2016

As a forum with 100s that dont feel good about the proposed settlement, we gotta be able to put together a nice letter. Print it, put in your VIN and mail it to the 3 addresses provided to us already.

I've seen some essays here that are simply too watery and way too long. Needs to be half a pager at most.

Key points:

- We're not selling or trading in, cars are being taken away from us
- 99% of us will need another car after trade-in. You can not buy a car at "clean trade-in", you'd have to pay retail. The buyback has to be based at "clean retail" as of Sept '15
- Plenty of people drove these at 20K/Y and more, but precisely of high fuel economy that these were advertised at. There should not be penalty for miles.
- Many of us would have happily driven these for another 10 years. At 50Mpg, we would have saved thousands more. This loss of use and fuel saving needs to be accounted for.
- On top of this, VW must pay to us some damages. It is nice that government is getting 5B, but very little is made available to compensate us, the owners.

Simple calcs for #4. 10Y @ 20K is 200K miles. At $3/gallons and 50Mpg, it is 4000 gallons of fuel, $12000. With gasoline cars, getting avg of 25Mpg, it would have been $24000. We would have saved $12000 - where's reasonable compensation for this ? Those that drive higher miles must actually be paid more, as they stand to loose the most through loss of use of high-mpg car.

GoFaster · Jul 6, 2016

... but the hi-milers will have less mileage left before it is considered to be end-of-life.

Any fuel consumption numbers in legal proceedings can't be pulled out of thin air ... you can't use "50 mpg", it would be reasonable to use the EPA number (38 mpg) ... and at that level, you have a number of other choices. The legal system won't care if you hate to drive (or look at) a Toyota Prius. If your objective is to save money, you shouldn't care what something looks like.

Not including a mileage correction is unfair to people who did NOT put high mileage on them.

If you're going to object/complain ... it has to be coherent, factual, and stand up to criticism.

MichVW · Jul 6, 2016

r11 said:
So far, I've seen plenty of frontier attitude dished out.

Something like "well, y'all got a kick in the nuts, that much is clear. it didnt kill ya, so it oughta make ya stronger. Soldier on, boy. Ain't nobody ows you nuttin. Quit your cryin cause em didnt give a common courtesy of reacharound as they did that thing to ya".

This advice is garbage, plain and simple. How much of it comes from VW shills I dunno. But, if these are real ppl, write your letters too - tell em how much you liked the experience and the money you're gettin.

I agree... There are several people that have joined this forum on 6/28 to simply tell the rest of us we should "not be upset with the settlement", "the settlement is more than fair" yada..yada...yada... I can name them.... they jump around from thread to thread looking to start a debate and push an agenda. I have voiced my opinion against the proposed settlement on several ocassions, only to wait 5 minutes, hit the refresh button, and there are the same few guys replying with the same "shake it off, quit your crying" response.

It seems as if they have also come packing witty retorts to every "I feel like VW is being unfair" post that is made. Complete with a very knowledgeable understanding of the settlement and how it was derived. I am not going to go as far as insisting they are "plants", but it does seem odd that several brand new members (or members that haven't posted in years) suddenly appear out of thin air to combat every vehicle owner that feels the settlement proposal isn't fair. Odd.

I have already commented by sending an email to the DOJ address and will continue to voice my opinion and send my comments to the appropriate people.

R11. I think your list is valid and covers many of the "holes" in the settlement proposal. Now just finding someone to compile a letter, written in "legal speak", to address the major items. You may want to add that the NADA valuation methodology does not assign pro-rated dollar figures to some high dollar options. Xenon lamps, Tech Package, Premium alloy wheels, CUP edition Jettas, Spoiler, Splash guards, Monster mats/rear cargo cover etc. All of these manufacture options appear on the window sticker yet are not assigned pro-rated values in the buyback. Are we just expected to "eat" the money we shelled out for these added items while others get compensated for sunroofs and cold weather packages? Seems as if both NADA/VW is doing a bit of "broad brushing" here.

schreibers · Jul 6, 2016

https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/us-v-volkswagen-group-america-et-al

Comment period is Open!

burpod · Jul 6, 2016

r11 said:
So far, I've seen plenty of frontier attitude dished out.

Something like "well, y'all got a kick in the nuts, that much is clear. it didnt kill ya, so it oughta make ya stronger. Soldier on, boy. Ain't nobody ows you nuttin. Quit your cryin cause em didnt give a common courtesy of reacharound as they did that thing to ya".

This advice is garbage, plain and simple. How much of it comes from VW shills I dunno. But, if these are real ppl, write your letters too - tell em how much you liked the experience and the money you're gettin.

based on the amount of time you spend complaining online here and lord knows how many other places...... you really just need a kia, a hobby, a wife, or a *real* volkswagen LOL

dropnosky · Jul 6, 2016

MichVW said:
I agree... There are several people that have joined this forum on 6/28 to simply tell the rest of us we should "not be upset with the settlement", "the settlement is more than fair" yada..yada...yada... I can name them.... they jump around from thread to thread looking to start a debate and push an agenda. I have voiced my opinion against the proposed settlement on several ocassions, only to wait 5 minutes, hit the refresh button, and there are the same few guys replying with the same "shake it off, quit your crying" response.

It seems as if they have also come packing witty retorts to every "I feel like VW is being unfair" post that is made. Complete with a very knowledgeable understanding of the settlement and how it was derived. I am not going to go as far as insisting they are "plants", but it does seem odd that several brand new members (or members that haven't posted in years) suddenly appear out of thin air to combat every vehicle owner that feels the settlement proposal isn't fair. Odd.

I have already commented by sending an email to the DOJ address and will continue to voice my opinion and send my comments to the appropriate people.

R11. I think your list is valid and covers many of the "holes" in the settlement proposal. Now just finding someone to compile a letter, written in "legal speak", to address the major items. You may want to add that the NADA valuation methodology does not assign pro-rated dollar figures to some high dollar options. Xenon lamps, Tech Package, Premium alloy wheels, CUP edition Jettas, Spoiler, Splash guards, Monster mats/rear cargo cover etc. All of these manufacture options appear on the window sticker yet are not assigned pro-rated values in the buyback. Are we just expected to "eat" the money we shelled out for these added items while others get compensated for sunroofs and cold weather packages? Seems as if both NADA/VW is doing a bit of "broad brushing" here.

when people don't agree with you and point out why, including referring to aspects of this deal that they have read to gain a knowledgeable understanding, that is called the other side of the argument.

Tough to handle, but thats called reality.

lets refer to your points about the following items-

Xenon lamps, Tech Package, Premium alloy wheels, CUP edition Jettas, Spoiler, Splash guards, Monster mats/rear cargo cover etc

I bought a used 2012 passat. This passat had everything on your list apart from obviously the cup edition business, and spoiler.

I bought this from a used car dealer immediately before dieselgate. Not a single one of these options you refer to made the slightest difference in the used price of the car. Those are premium choices for buying a new car, that are effectively valueless within a few years.

My 2012 passat was priced the same as several bare bones jettas right next to it. The options were features worth considering on which one to choose, but had little value when it came to the used car price.

this is the reality of the next stage of ownership and has been for years. What has changed that all these options retain full value suddenly?

MrWrench · Jul 6, 2016

schreibers said:
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decree/us-v-volkswagen-group-america-et-al

Comment period is Open!

How do you leave a comment on the website? Is it not mobile friendly?

MichVW · Jul 6, 2016

This message is hidden because dropnosky is on your ignore list.

Ahh... sweet relief from the thread troll that thinks he can tell everyone how THEY can feel...

Wrench... There is an email address to send comments to. It is floating around in a few of these threads, I will try and dig it up.

jims2321 · Jul 6, 2016

Here is what I am mailing to the Court.

RE: [FONT=&quot]VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, SALES [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION [/FONT]

As a Class Member, I object to the settlement in [FONT=&quot]VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, SALES [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, [/FONT]MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC). I will address only the part of the settlement for original owners, as I am a member of that group.

I find the proposed settlements as I understand them:

[FONT=&quot]Current original purchasers of affected Volkswagen 2.0L diesel are offered the following options for redress of fraudulent claims by Volkswagen and violations of EPA ‘Clean Air Act’ and CARB air standards the following[/FONT]
a. [FONT=&quot]VW will at the owner’s discretion either buyback the vehicle at NADA ‘Clean Trade In’ plus remediation of 20% of the car value plus $2983.73.[/FONT]
b. [FONT=&quot]Offer to fix the noncompliant vehicle at VW’s expense plus remediation of 20% of the car value plus $2983.73. Additional warranty of the fixed and affected parts to be applied. The approved fix would need to be completed before January, 2019.[/FONT]
c. [FONT=&quot]Opt out of the Class Action Settlement any time before January 2019. Receiving neither compensation or a fix.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]to be inadequate given that Volkswagen knowingly and freely admits to have committed a criminal act of fraud. This act was not a single one-time event, but a systematically attempt to deceive customers with marketing, technical sly of hand and outright lying. I believe that Volkswagen has breach the public trust.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I also believe that Volkswagen will ultimately benefit and profit from this settlement through warranty work and reselling of cars brought back to countries with less stringent environmental laws. Alternately they can part the cars out for resell to the aftermarket for repairs of their similar vehicles that will essentially cover the total cost of this settlement, thus making them whole at the expense of consumers.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In May 7, 2008. Toyota Motors offered to buy back vehicles that could not be repair to make them compliant for 1.5 times the suggest retail value (as calculate by Kelley Blue Book) as part of their settlement for a safety recall.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]While this case is not necessarily about vehicle safety, it is about environmental safety and affects people way beyond just the vehicle owners affected. And as generally recognized, special damages should be award to victims for replacement of property to mitigate the cost of replacing our vehicles and the cost of operating a non-compliant vehicle.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Finally, punitive damages should be award to the claimants to deter Volkswagen from future fraudulent practices.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I would hope the Court would review the settlement and recommend the following adjustments.[/FONT]
1. [FONT=&quot]Volkswagen will compensation owners of record as of September 15, 2015 the following[/FONT]
a. [FONT=&quot]Full Kelley Blue Book Private sale price of their car considered in Excellent condition (including all options on the vehicle)[/FONT]
b. [FONT=&quot]Punitive award of 50% of the Full Kelley Blue Book Private sale price of their car considered in Excellent condition (including all options on the vehicle).

[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]
[/FONT]

autdi · Jul 6, 2016

MrWrench said:
How do you leave a comment on the website? Is it not mobile friendly?

Comment is via email or USPS (pdf cut-n-paste stinks from FR postings)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To submit comments: Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email............................pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov
.
By mail............................. Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
Washington, D.C. 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it all here https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...hments/2016/07/06/federal_register_notice.pdf

Remember, everything you send in becomes public record, select words carefully.

dropnosky · Jul 6, 2016

MichVW said:
This message is hidden because dropnosky is on your ignore list.

Ahh... sweet relief from the thread troll that thinks he can tell everyone how THEY can feel...

Wrench... There is an email address to send comments to. It is floating around in a few of these threads, I will try and dig it up.

the point stands. Because you refuse to discuss it really doesn't make much of an argument.

MichVW · Jul 6, 2016

Thanks autdi... That is what I was looking for. Appreciate it.

Wrench... the above email address is what you need..

BuyMeBackSoon · Jul 6, 2016

1. I am not particularly unhappy, more than I expected. However I've read enough complaints to know that some people are not getting as good a deal.

2. OP your list is pretty good, and in fact a bulleted list is probably better than a long winded letter.

3. One of the realities of it all is that a few internet based forum members don't really make much of a dent in 480,000 potential class members.

4. Come up with a good form letter and independently folks should mail them in.

5. Chances are they are expecting some complaints and would probably come back with something better if enough people complain.

6. Good luck, I await a good letter to send!

dropnosky · Jul 6, 2016

r11 said:
As a forum with 100s that dont feel good about the proposed settlement, we gotta be able to put together a nice letter. Print it, put in your VIN and mail it to the 3 addresses provided to us already.

I've seen some essays here that are simply too watery and way too long. Needs to be half a pager at most.

Key points:

- We're not selling or trading in, cars are being taken away from us
- 99% of us will need another car after trade-in. You can not buy a car at "clean trade-in", you'd have to pay retail. The buyback has to be based at "clean retail" as of Sept '15
- Plenty of people drove these at 20K/Y and more, but precisely of high fuel economy that these were advertised at. There should not be penalty for miles.
- Many of us would have happily driven these for another 10 years. At 50Mpg, we would have saved thousands more. This loss of use and fuel saving needs to be accounted for.
- On top of this, VW must pay to us some damages. It is nice that government is getting 5B, but very little is made available to compensate us, the owners.

Simple calcs for #4. 10Y @ 20K is 200K miles. At $3/gallons and 50Mpg, it is 4000 gallons of fuel, $12000. With gasoline cars, getting avg of 25Mpg, it would have been $24000. We would have saved $12000 - where's reasonable compensation for this ? Those that drive higher miles must actually be paid more, as they stand to loose the most through loss of use of high-mpg car.

I posted the below in the other thread, but it makes more sense in this thread as a point of discussion. If the letter would hold water, it needs a good and reasonable retort for every question thrown at it like below.

lets chat about some of your points-

Quote:
Originally Posted by r11
As a forum with 100s that dont feel good about the proposed settlement, we gotta be able to put together a nice letter. Print it, put in your VIN and mail it to the 3 addresses provided to us already.

I've seen some essays here that are simply too watery and way too long. Needs to be half a pager at most.

Key points:
- We're not selling or trading in, cars are being taken away from us

Click to expand...

How are they being taken away? If you have the choice to opt out, how can you prove this point?

Quote:
- 99% of us will need another car after trade-in. You can not buy a car at "clean trade-in", you'd have to pay retail. The buyback has to be based at "clean retail" as of Sept '15

Click to expand...

This I agree with your argument

Quote:
- Plenty of people drove these at 20K/Y and more, but precisely of high fuel economy that these were advertised at. There should not be penalty for miles.

Click to expand...

why? every car every where is penalized on mileage when resold. Why should this truth change for this situation?

Quote:
- Many of us would have happily driven these for another 10 years. At 50Mpg, we would have saved thousands more. This loss of use and fuel saving needs to be accounted for.

Click to expand...

How will you prove what people might have done with these cars and how that should be monetarily rewarded? Whats to stop every single VW owner from saying they would keep the car for 30 years and put 600k on it? How would you prevent a judge from reaching that same conclusion and just tossing the argument?

Quote:
- On top of this, VW must pay to us some damages. It is nice that government is getting 5B, but very little is made available to compensate us, the owners.

Click to expand...

Damages for what? they are going to want to know why damages should be paid out on top of this buyback package. What damage has been done to the individual owner that requires money?

Quote:
Simple calcs for #4. 10Y @ 20K is 200K miles. At $3/gallons and 50Mpg, it is 4000 gallons of fuel, $12000. With gasoline cars, getting avg of 25Mpg, it would have been $24000. We would have saved $12000 - where's reasonable compensation for this ? Those that drive higher miles must actually be paid more, as they stand to loose the most through loss of use of high-mpg car.

Click to expand...

again, the question of how you prove what people might have done with the car if they weren't selling it back remains outstanding. I could see the argument for cars that already have high mileage on them, but there a likely retort is those owners already benefited from the fuel savings the cheat provided, so again you would need to prove some kind of hardship or fiscal damage to gain ground. What examples can you demonstrate?

coloradogolftdi · Jul 6, 2016

dropnosky said:
Damages for what? they are going to want to know why damages should be paid out on top of this buyback package. What damage has been done to the individual owner that requires money?

I deserve to be compensated for NOT being able to trade my TDi about 6 months ago and having to buy another car to suit my need for a family car now that I have a baby. I had/have to carry insurance and pay two car payment over this time and into the foreseeable future. Right now my TDi is parked in the garage because if it gets totaled I get nothing but the reduced value from my insurance or go through some HUGE hassle. They defrauded me and now I have paid for two cars and insurance for a significant period of time. In the past I have said I am happy with the payout. But I do deserve a very good buy out. Not some attitude from VW or one of their operatives about how I was really not damaged at all.

dropnosky · Jul 6, 2016

coloradogolftdi said:
I deserve to be compensated for NOT being able to trade my TDi about 6 months ago and having to buy another car to suit my need for a family car now that I have a baby. I had/have to carry insurance on two cars over this time and into the foreseeable future. Right now my TDi is parked in the garage because if it gets totaled I get nothing but the reduced value from my insurance or go through some HUGE hassle. They defrauded me and now I have paid for two cars and insurance for a significant period of time. In the past I have said I am happy with the payout. But I do deserve a very good buy out. Not some attitude from VW or one of their operatives about how I was really not damaged at all.

ok, lets quantify this unique situation. You couldn't sell the TDI, you were going to buy a new car. You had to buy a new car without selling the TDI. What are your insurance costs for 2 cars? what would your trade in value been on the TDI? How different is it from what they now offer you for a buyback (if you so choose)?

If the buyout offer is similar to the trade in offer you might have had going forward with the new car, how do you quantify the bother you had to endure?

The reason I ask these questions is we have numerous posters that thing that simply because they say something was annoying, it automatically equals money. well how much? this all needs to be figured out when you send in a letter. Just how much money are you shorted on the deal?

coloradogolftdi · Jul 6, 2016

Paying a extra $400 a month give or take. That over possible a year of time by the time this thing is over. Not being able to use the garage. My poor wife hearing me complain. The simple answer is $4800. It should be more. The way I see it I deserve $4800 more then the next guy who got to keep driving his car and really didn't get that much inconvenience.

For the record. I never complained about the buyout amount till I saw your very narrow minded post about how we really have not been damaged. I just want out and to move on. This is like a internal cancer if you let it get to you.

Lets start objecting/complaining !

Moderator at Large

Member

Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Top Post Dawg

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Moderator at Large

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Moderator at Large

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

teh stallionz!!1

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Active member