just got a settlement info packet from VW

[DanB36]

The only deadline this month is if (1) you want to opt out, or (2) you are an Eligible Seller. In both cases, you must take appropriate action by 16 September.

 

[k1xv]

Sales tax loss because you have to sell your car? At this point, nobody is being forced to do anything. You are being given AN OPPORTUNITY to sell your car AT THE SETTLEMENT PRICE. Plus, whether you sell or have it fixed, you will get a minimum of $5100 liquidated damages. And if you choose to neither sell or fix, well, you are no worse off than if the scandal never occurred at all.

 

[Rudyjo]

I am a "Eligible Seller". I filed a claim on 8-17-2016 and was given an estimate on what I was to receive as a settlement. I was given a "Claim Reference Number and set up a vehicle nickname for any future email logins.
VW said they would contact me within two weeks and would want more information. I still have not heard from them.
Even though I did all this, it was mentioned on the application that I must register before Sept.16th.
Do I still have to "Register" or is having been given a claim number considered being registered?

 

[chadbag]

Sales tax loss because you have to sell your car? At this point, nobody is being forced to do anything. You are being given AN OPPORTUNITY to sell your car AT THE SETTLEMENT PRICE. Plus, whether you sell or have it fixed, you will get a minimum of $5100 liquidated damages. And if you choose to neither sell or fix, well, you are no worse off than if the scandal never occurred at all.

LOL

"Opportunity"


The $5100 is for future loss of value, inconvenience, etc. It is not making one whole on the current value (9/15) of the car. It has been claimed that the NADA Clean Trade is used because it allows one to buy an equivalent replacement. Except it doesn't because of sales tax/whatever-tax applied to the purchase of a car. One that most people were not expecting to be making except for the malfeasance of VW. If the "Clean Trade" value were to really represent the ability to buy a replacement "equivalent" car then you'd have to take into account the other costs besides purchase that go into buying a car, the biggest of which is sales tax, which was already paid on the original car and which would have been amortized over a much longer period by most people.

Again, spare me the "it is your choice" bit. That is BS from the standpoint that through VWs actions the cars I bought from them will have lost value, are "damaged goods" etc. through no fault of my own.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I think you're parsing words here. The "clean trade in value" is the current value of the car. Actually it's better than the current value. That alone is intended to allow you to replace the car. However, since you're being asked to consider turning the car in on VW's (and the court's) timetable, not yours, they're also offering you a minimum of $5,100 to make you "whole," to use your word. That should cover sales tax, transfer costs, etc. Or make up some of the difference between the trade in and private party value of the car.

And it is your choice. You have three options. Sell it back, get it fixed, or do neither. Entirely your choice.

 

[k1xv]

For the people who bought the car with the intention of driving it "until the wheels fell off", the rate of depreciation is of little relevance. They will only get rid of the car when it has only salvage value.

And as for "loss of resale value", a bunch of people here think that the buyback will make the cars scarce, driving up the resale value. I don't necessarily agree with them, but the point is, there are differences in opinion as to what the ultimate affect of this debacle will be on resale value of cars that are not turned in and remain in private hands.

 

[chadbag]

I think you're parsing words here. The "clean trade in value" is the current value of the car. Actually it's better than the current value. That alone is intended to allow you to replace the car. However, since you're being asked to consider turning the car in on VW's (and the court's) timetable, not yours, they're also offering you a minimum of $5,100 to make you "whole," to use your word. That should cover sales tax, transfer costs, etc. Or make up some of the difference between the trade in and private party value of the car.

And it is your choice. You have three options. Sell it back, get it fixed, or do neither. Entirely your choice.

A choice that we did not ask for but are being asked to make due to the malfeasance of VW.

There is a class of people who do not buy sell every couple years, but also do not drive them until they die. They drive them for 7-10 years and then trade in. However, VW is forcing us to make a choice before 7-10 years is up (for me I hit 3 years in June). I could have expected $X value after 7-10 years, but due to this "scandal" that value is no longer reasonable to expect. That is the "lost value" to me.

The $5100 is compensation/restitution for the scandal, not making one whole in value of the car. This is born out by the fact that those who get the "fix" get the same restitution. So it is not intended to make up for sales tax, or other extra expenses incurred.

Since they expect one to be able to buy an equivalent replacement car (I believe "equivalent" is the word in the settlement), then they should be using retail value as I am expected to pay retail value in buying the replacement. They should also cover a reasonable doc fee and sales tax costs on that value for the domicile of the buy-back. Since they are buying it back, it is not a trade, they should pay the retail value -- the same price I would have to pay if I was buying it.

 

[grawk]

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

A choice that we did not ask for but are being asked to make due to the malfeasance of VW.
There is a class of people who do not buy sell every couple years, but also do not drive them until they die. They drive them for 7-10 years and then trade in. However, VW is forcing us to make a choice before 7-10 years is up (for me I hit 3 years in June). I could have expected $X value after 7-10 years, but due to this "scandal" that value is no longer reasonable to expect. That is the "lost value" to me.
The $5100 is compensation/restitution for the scandal, not making one whole in value of the car. This is born out by the fact that those who get the "fix" get the same restitution. So it is not intended to make up for sales tax, or other extra expenses incurred.
Since they expect one to be able to buy an equivalent replacement car (I believe "equivalent" is the word in the settlement), then they should be using retail value as I am expected to pay retail value in buying the replacement. They should also cover a reasonable doc fee and sales tax costs on that value for the domicile of the buy-back. Since they are buying it back, it is not a trade, they should pay the retail value -- the same price I would have to pay if I was buying it.

Nothing's stopping you from keeping your car from 7-10 years as planned. Resale at that point is a bit of a wild card, but probably no more than it would be if fuel prices skyrocket or plummet. And you have the option (oops, almost wrote "opportunity") to get the fix and the money if you want, which should erase any possible fall in vehicle value in a 10 year life.

Call the restitution whatever you want: It's still a pretty good deal.