Lets start objecting/complaining !

[jeff0093]

Good point Bird67

Let's get this organized and sent off. The trade in value is a joke. I'm not trading in the car they are purchasing it back. I didn't buy the car at a trade in value ? We bought it at retail (new) All the other points VW proposing I agree with and don't have a problem with. I also wish that had away to add in additional options that were included with the car when purchased. My father car had about $4k with of factory options that we are not getting credit for

 

[MichVW]

Let's get this organized and sent off. The trade in value is a joke. I'm not trading in the car they are purchasing it back. I didn't buy the car at a trade in value ? We bought it at retail (new) All the other points VW proposing I agree with and don't have a problem with. I also wish that had away to add in additional options that were included with the car when purchased. My father car had about $4k with of factory options that we are not getting credit for

That is my biggest gripe as well. Clean Trade in Value vs. Retail/Replacement value. No one is asking for a brand new vehicle, but most will be replacing their TDI with a vehicle from a used car lot AT RETAIL PRICING!

The option thing also burns my butt. $700.00 xenon lamps - Not even considered. I paid $700.00 for the option and also 6% sales tax!

I too do not have a problem with the "compensation part" of the settlement offer or even the deduction for mileage. But, the compensation has nothing to do with the value of my car. Also, hoping VW didn't double dip in the mileage category. Notice that NADA already makes deductions for mileage and those deductions are much LESS than the deductions on the VW charts.

 

[MrWrench]

Most of us who purchased a TDI, prolly bought it knowing we were gonna rack up the miles. Isn't that point of buying a TDI? 45MPG*. Notice the asterisk. VW should be using the retail value and not the trade in value. That's is short changing owners at least 2000 dollars not including the 20 percent.

 

[MrSprdSheet]

..And I'd ask people to recognize the difference between complaining about details, and mostly the inequity within the class, and whether you feel your individual settlement is acceptable as it exists between you, and VW. This is where they will approach 85%.

Bear in mind that by the time you actually HAVE to turn in the car (mid-2018) it will have actually depreciated 2 more years from wherever it is now ....."Trade-in" as of Sept 2015 is probably bigger than "retail" as of May 2018

^This is the biggest inequity, on top of payouts which are higher among the $5,100-10,000. Later owners are getting no less than ~$20k of value, here, as 2015 "trade" could easily be DOUBLE 2018 retail.

It might make this thread (even) more useful if you started a menu of objection points for thread users to raise during the comment period.

+1, maybe within the first post either enabling wiki editing, or by OP, or Mod.

The amount is satisfying, in my own head, but the methodology invites complaint from older owners:
-Who paid up to several thousand over MSRP, as CR's began arriving
-Who have service receipts, that easily reach 3-6k, for 'fraud'zaust' parts
-Who ate the 10-20k depreciation, the later owners are being handed
-Who can't pass inspection, because P0401 still plagues the cars. $3-6k

These systems, especially for people beholden to state inspections (like CARB) are failure $$$ prone. I get the conundrum. EPA won't have VW recall emissions parts, that they know will be replaced by ineffective ones. Unfortunately, that doesn't help owners being told by VW's engine lights that it's time to be defrauded, again.

 

[bird67]

Here's an update to the list of objections raised in this thread:
- 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 an actual "fix", the keep-and-fix option is an illusion

 

[buzzo]

I have a strong objection to the clause that removes you from the Class Settlement if your vehicle gets totaled between June 28 and September 16. Those owners should still be eligible to receive Owner Restitution to cover at least part of the gap between insurance value and buyback amount. Instead, this clause is forcing owners to choose between risking a substantial financial loss or stop using their car for a couple of months.

 

[2015vwgolfdiesel]

^^^^^


Add to that the weird mileage and buy back numbers for 2015 (Golf)

 

[2015vwgolfdiesel]

I have a strong objection to the clause that removes you from the Class Settlement if your vehicle gets totaled between June 28 and September 16. Those owners should still be eligible to receive Owner Restitution to cover at least part of the gap between insurance value and buyback amount. Instead, this clause is forcing owners to choose between risking a substantial financial loss or stop using their car for a couple of months.

^

Agreed

 

[2015vwgolfdiesel]

2015 Golf

My car there is no consideration for Chrome exhaust tips ($150) nor spoiler ($500)

 

[VeeDubTDI]

Here's an update to the list of objections raised in this thread:
- 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 an actual "fix", the keep-and-fix option is an illusion

Thanks for the summary.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the valuation based on trade-in PLUS 20%? That would put it closer to the NADA retail value.

 

[tdiDreaming]

I agree to objection of the average miles driven. VW knows our mileage at time of registration of Goodwill Package and can determine miles per month based on when we signed up and when/if we turn cars in. However, I understand that this calculation needs to be done the same for ever vehicle so it is unlikely to change from industry standard average. The should consider that TDi's are not purchased by the average driver though.

THIS. I was thinking the same thing. I don't think it is fair to penalize TDI drivers for driving their car more than some national average (or wherever their figure came from) when the cars were specifically marketed for "going the distance". I am a first time diesel purchaser who bought the car to drive it more than an average car and the sales staff (not their fault) and marketing catered to my intents. They should have to go back and look at the average TDI mileage, and pick the higher value between the two (National average vs TDI average). This seems more fair AND REALISTIC TO DETERMINE for the calculations.

Other things that I think might be worth thinking about (sorry for the length):

-I actually don't see why the 'Fix it' figures should be associated to the mileage adjustment at all. If VW expected there to be a fix available and approved day 1 of the consumer action period then maybe I would be ok. However, since that does NOT seem to be the case - I do not deem it fair to continue penalizing those of us that might actually want to get the fix and keep/drive our car while we wait. I'm also assuming that, even when a fix is available, the 'approved' dealerships will be overwhelmed with requests which means even more waiting/depreciation.

-To expand on the upsell/mods compensation idea: I think it would be fair to have a generic rule in which, if a buyer paid more than some threshold dollar figure for a factory upgrade (maybe $1k?) that mod should have to automatically factored into the adjustments.

-To also expand on the idea of protecting any of us that might unfortunately have to total our vehicles before the September date, I think it should be fair for VW to still be responsible for providing the owner with compensation equal to whatever they end up calling the "retail" value of the car less the monetary restitution provided by the insurance claim. I understand why that person (unfortunately) might not be entitled to any of the additional compensation funds, but I think they should have to save us the headache of hiring lawyers to file individual claims/suits to recoup money in those situations.

-I think there should be more definition and possibly explicit speech surrounding what would happen should owners wait for a fix that never comes. From what I can tell, the expectation at that point would be that the buyout option would still be available, but I do not think it is fair for that particular segment of drivers (who genuinely want the fix) to wait around and likely diminish the value of their buyback.

-I would really like to combine the above idea (fix never comes) with my no mileage penalty for a fix idea. I think those of us wanting to fix our cars should be able to choose that option in advance and lock in our current mileage adjustment and date of acceptance. From that point on, our mileage should not count against us and in the event that a fix never comes we should be offered the locked in value of the buyback whether its 6 months or 2 years down the road.

 

[nwtim]

I bought my JSW TDI for its passenger/cargo versatility, a torquey engine, nifty handling, great distance-per-tankful, and a relatively quiet highway ride - all in one package. I THOUGHT I had hit paydirt.

Value is a very personal commodity, as the cars I had considered - Honda Accord (prior history of great reliability), Subaru Legacy (AWD Sedan), VW Passat (TDI efficiency in spacious, versatile sedan) - before purchasing this one are actually VERY different than the JSW TDI. It's because the checkboxes for my next 20-year car were very unique to me and might not make sense to anybody else.

As an Engineer practicing the scientific method in the manufacturing world for the last 35+ years, we often see the word "equivalent" used to say that one thing has the same form, fit, and function as another. These criteria are used to help determine if a new component is an acceptable replacement/substitute for one that becomes obsolete or no longer available.

I have been relatively convinced from the beginning of this fiasco that VW was not going to be able to find a viable "fix" for cars with no DEF tanks. Even an initial evaluation would show the fix to be much more mechanically and legally complex than the disease. As such, I have spent the last several months considering numerous avenues for satisfying the attributes in my first sentence above.

Honestly, there really aren't any.

The only other cars that can give me the characteristics I value most are some $20k more - and the only one that can give me the same distance-per-tankful is over 60K out the door (BMW 3 Series diesel wagon, which is nigh impossible to find pre-owned). For the money they're giving back, I'm going to have to settle for one of them (Audi allroad, BMW 3 Series Wagon) with MUCH MORE wear-and-tear under the belt, and it's certain to cost me much more money in the long run.

Being that I'm going to have to choose checking all the boxes for MUCH MORE money than I ever wanted to spend or have to change many of those boxes to other boxes (criteria) - there's NO WAY I'm being "made whole" and the biggest positive is that it could've been worse.

 

[MichVW]

Thanks for the summary.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the valuation based on trade-in PLUS 20%? That would put it closer to the NADA retail value.

Yes it would.... But the 20% compensation and $2XXX should not count towards the value of the vehicle. It is supposed to act as "compensation" not part of the value of the vehicle.

 

[bird67]

Yes it would.... But the 20% compensation and $2XXX should not count towards the value of the vehicle. It is supposed to act as "compensation" not part of the value of the vehicle.

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

 

[2015vwgolfdiesel]

Yes it would.... But the 20% compensation and $2XXX should not count towards the value of the vehicle. It is supposed to act as "compensation" not part of the value of the vehicle.

Where is the GENEROUS factor here?

Guess there is a generous factor with the older high miles at $5,100 ?

Guessing they can not fix 'em and gov wants them off the road ASAP.

 

[MrWrench]

It seems like the value placed on the cars were hidden. Paperwork says clean nada value plus additional compensation. They don't tell you that the amount shown on the chart is what you get.

 

[2015vwgolfdiesel]

<snip>
- with NO actual "fix", the keep-and-fix option is an illusion

That will keep you awake regarding "is there really a FIX"?

 

[alma]

I have a strong objection to the clause that removes you from the Class Settlement if your vehicle gets totaled between June 28 and September 16. Those owners should still be eligible to receive Owner Restitution to cover at least part of the gap between insurance value and buyback amount. Instead, this clause is forcing owners to choose between risking a substantial financial loss or stop using their car for a couple of months.

Agree.

 

[buzzo]

Objection in the mail to the Court, Defense Counsel and Class Counsel:

July 1st, 2016

To whom it may concern,

As an “Eligible Owner” of an “Eligible Vehicle” we would like to offer our objection to the Class Action Settlement re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Legislation, No. 3:15-md-2672 (N.D. Cal).

Our first and foremost objection pertains to the exclusion from the settlement class of Eligible Owners whose (1) Eligible Vehicle gets totaled and (2) consequently transfer his, her or its title to an insurance company after June 28, 2016, but before the opt-out date (September 16, 2016).

Document 1606-3 as filed on 06/28/16 states on page 13 of 28:

“If you owned an Eligible Vehicle that was functioning and operable as of September 18, 2015, but was subsequently totaled (and the title transferred to an insurance company), you will be eligible for the benefits under the Class Action Settlement as described in this notice at Question 19. There is one exception: if your car is totaled after June 28, 2016, but before the opt-out date (September 16, 2016), you are excluded from the settlement class and reserve your rights and claims against the Volkswagen entities.”​

This means that most if not all Eligible Vehicles are currently insured for only a fraction of their “Buyback” value, and are essentially underinsured. Eligible Owners are forced to choose between risking a substantial loss (typically greater than the “Owner Restitution”) in case their Eligible Vehicle gets totaled, or stop using their Eligible Vehicles between June 28, 2016 and September 16, 2016.

It is our opinion that an Eligible Owner with an Eligible Vehicle that was (1) totaled and (2) title of which was consequently transferred to an insurance company after June 28, 2016, should not be excluded from the settlement class, but instead receive full Owner Restitution. This would at least cover part of the difference between current insurance value and Buyback value and relieve some of the newly assumed risk involved in driving their Eligible Vehicle.

Our second objection is the use of the “Clean Trade value of an Eligible Vehicle” for the “Base Value”. Eligible Owners purchased/leased their vehicles at retail value, and in case of a Buyback will likely purchase/lease a new vehicle at retail value. In essence, part of the Owner Restitution merely bridges the gap between clean trade value and retail value and is as such not recompense for loss due to Volkswagen's emissions fraud.
In our opinion the Base Value should therefore be the retail value of the vehicle on or about August 2015.

We do not wish to exclude ourselves from the Class Action Settlement.

Sincerely,

 

[faultymechanics]

^^ I like this so far, do we have a second. We shouldn't be sending in mass letters unless it is perfectly worded and sound. Preferably checked by a lawyer.

There is a typo in your quote, "these is" should be there is, no?

Could add in about the mileage depreciation, cars meant to be driven, out of our control how long the proceedings lasted. Also the scandal started before sept 15. Wouldn't hurt right?

 

[GoFaster]

I like buzzo's wording. Fix that typo, though ...

P.S. faultymechanics, I know what you're planning for a replacement vehicle you're using the same username there and so am I

 

[faultymechanics]

I like buzzo's wording. Fix that typo, though ...

P.S. faultymechanics, I know what you're planning for a replacement vehicle you're using the same username there and so am I

I had a feeling that was you! Gonna be a real small world on the other side. Already have a 451 I'm guessing?

 

[GoFaster]

Yes - company car - had it for years (since before selling the Jetta) - long enough that it's time to think about what its replacement will be, but that's a discussion for the other forum, not here!

 

[nwtim]

I have a strong objection to the clause that removes you from the Class Settlement if your vehicle gets totaled between June 28 and September 16. Those owners should still be eligible to receive Owner Restitution to cover at least part of the gap between insurance value and buyback amount. Instead, this clause is forcing owners to choose between risking a substantial financial loss or stop using their car for a couple of months.

That really hit home for me yesterday morning when I almost got wiped out by someone in a VW Beetle (also TDI) swinging out of there lane which was stopping into my path in a lane that was moving. Fortunately I caught the movement and got over just enough to avoid any contact, but it occurred to me that VW could've saved thousands of dollars by two of their buyback cars being wiped out.

It's a good thing they'd never go out and hire vehicle mercenaries to go out and total cars so that insurance companies foot the bill in their place...

(Don't get any ideas, VW)

 

[buzzo]

^^ I like this so far, do we have a second. We shouldn't be sending in mass letters unless it is perfectly worded and sound. Preferably checked by a lawyer.

There is a typo in your quote, "these is" should be there is, no?

Could add in about the mileage depreciation, cars meant to be driven, out of our control how long the proceedings lasted. Also the scandal started before sept 15. Wouldn't hurt right?

I like buzzo's wording. Fix that typo, though ...

P.S. faultymechanics, I know what you're planning for a replacement vehicle you're using the same username there and so am I

Thanks for pointing out the typo. I agree there are more things in there to object to, but these two seemed the most egregious to me.

 

[nwtim]

I like buzzo's wording. Fix that typo, though ...

P.S. faultymechanics, I know what you're planning for a replacement vehicle you're using the same username there and so am I

Can you drop a hint? You've got me super-curious because I'm looking high and low for a fun replacement vehicle.

 

[autdi]

Objection in the mail to the Court, Defense Counsel and Class Counsel:

July 1st, 2016

To whom it may concern,

As an “Eligible Owner” of an “Eligible Vehicle” we would like to offer our objection to the Class Action Settlement re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Legislation, No. 3:15-md-2672 (N.D. Cal).

Our first and foremost objection pertains to the exclusion from the settlement class of Eligible Owners whose (1) Eligible Vehicle gets totaled and (2) consequently transfer his, her or its title to an insurance company after June 28, 2016, but before the opt-out date (September 16, 2016).

Document 1606-3 as filed on 06/28/16 states on page 13 of 28:

“If you owned an Eligible Vehicle that was functioning and operable as of September 18, 2015, but was subsequently totaled (and the title transferred to an insurance company), you will be eligible for the benefits under the Class Action Settlement as described in this notice at Question 19. There is one exception: if your car is totaled after June 28, 2016, but before the opt-out date (September 16, 2016), you are excluded from the settlement class and reserve your rights and claims against the Volkswagen entities.”​

This means that most if not all Eligible Vehicles are currently insured for only a fraction of their “Buyback” value, and are essentially underinsured. Eligible Owners are forced to choose between risking a substantial loss (typically greater than the “Owner Restitution”) in case their Eligible Vehicle gets totaled, or stop using their Eligible Vehicles between June 28, 2016 and September 16, 2016.

It is our opinion that an Eligible Owner with an Eligible Vehicle that was (1) totaled and (2) title of which was consequently transferred to an insurance company after June 28, 2016, should not be excluded from the settlement class, but instead receive full Owner Restitution. This would at least cover part of the difference between current insurance value and Buyback value and relieve some of the newly assumed risk involved in driving their Eligible Vehicle.

Our second objection is the use of the “Clean Trade value of an Eligible Vehicle” for the “Base Value”. Eligible Owners purchased/leased their vehicles at retail value, and in case of a Buyback will likely purchase/lease a new vehicle at retail value. In essence, part of the Owner Restitution merely bridges the gap between clean trade value and retail value and is as such not recompense for loss due to Volkswagen's emissions fraud.
In our opinion the Base Value should therefore be the retail value of the vehicle on or about August 2015.

We do not wish to exclude ourselves from the Class Action Settlement.

Sincerely,

One major issue will be even with the owner comp, you won't be close to the column 1 value for a trade in, adding the insurance payout + column 2. I imagine that is why they are bumping you from the class, but I also expect that VW when sued independently would eventually cough up the cash. Any judge would look at it and see, ok, you should have gotten column 1, insurance paid you retail replacement for today, which is way less than 9/15, so you get the column 2, plus the delta between insurance and the class settlement value of the car. Seems relatively straightforward to compute, how long it would take, probably depends on when the first totaled car person calls the TV station in a major market.

The other fix, allow the insurance company to dump the totaled cars on VW, getting the column 1 payout, then it's a simple insurance pays you, they get the money back in a little while.

 

[burpod]

r11 - stop posting annoying dieselgate threads. seriously. you've created a billion of them already, all have been locked, all dumb. stop. thanks mmmk

 

[vintovka]

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

 

[flee]

Can you drop a hint? You've got me super-curious because I'm looking high and low for a fun replacement vehicle.

SmartCar, probably. CU thought it not so...