Question - Opt for fix, what if no fix, how to get "fix money"?

[Scott02]

Sorting through all the zillion threads to find a specific answer is beginning to feel almost life ending...

I love my 2011 JSW DSG Pano. I would love to keep it as-is (DSG tune only), but someone (VW) is trying to give me some money to make some emissions changes to it.

Thus, my question is, if they give me the "fix money" when I go in to my local dealership to have the fix done...

What if they never agree to a hardware-addition and/or software fix?
What if they just grandfather the 09-14's in?

When or how would we receive the fix money?

Thanks in advance!

 

[austintg]

This isn't for sure, because no one knows, but when the judge made it clear we were due separate compensation of the fix or buyback, they should be able to pay us the $5,100 minimum at any time, forfeiting our right to the buyback. They would benefit financially from doing this because they would have an idea of how many will not take the buyback and prevents us from changing our minds afterward.

 

[grawk]

the fix money is to entice people to get the fix, which means fewer cars with higher than required NOx. Giving restitution without the fix would be counter-productive.

 

[austintg]

Actually it isn't to entice us. It is due us because of the settlement. It happens to work as an enticement, but the judge did not say this was a way to get people in the door in the court case.

 

[k1xv]

CARB and EPA's goal in this settlement is to get the cars fixed or taken off the road. Paying you $5100 without getting your car fixed, or selling it back, would do nothing to get non complying cars off the road.

 

[ZippyNH]

If no "fix" it turns into a buyback..... honestly doubtful that would happen....
But they only must meet a Reduction in pollution to an AGREEED level....not a perfect fix.
Shortfalls are made up with them buying pollution credits by doing things like subsidizing the replacement of older city busses and airport equipment....provides an offset.
The economics of them wanting the fix to be as good as possible is understandable....it lowers their costs.
Yes...gen1 cars (non DEF) will be a challenge, but medium duty truck engines do it with a HUGE LNT trap...no reason to believe they can't get to the specified level with some engineering.

 

[DanB36]

When or how would we receive the fix money?

You receive the fix money only once your car is fixed. No fix, no fix money. If no fix is approved, the only way you get paid out of this settlement is to sell the car back.

 

[grawk]

Actually it isn't to entice us. It is due us because of the settlement. It happens to work as an enticement, but the judge did not say this was a way to get people in the door in the court case.

The judge may not have said it in so many words, but it's pretty clear the reason it's tied to a fix is that it's there to entice people to get the fix, if they're keeping the car. That's why there's no money for "keep as is".

 

[austintg]

You receive the fix money only once your car is fixed. No fix, no fix money. If no fix is approved, the only way you get paid out of this settlement is to sell the car back.

Where does it say this? Honestly just curious! I seriously don't claim to know all about what is happening, just my 2 cents from what I've read and heard.

 

[Scott02]

You receive the fix money only once your car is fixed. No fix, no fix money. If no fix is approved, the only way you get paid out of this settlement is to sell the car back.

This is my fear. I dont want to sell the car back. Selling the car back isn't near the same money in my pocket as taking the fix and money.

 

[Scott02]

The judge may not have said it in so many words, but it's pretty clear the reason it's tied to a fix is that it's there to entice people to get the fix, if they're keeping the car. That's why there's no money for "keep as is".

I completely agree that if "I" choose to keep it as is, I get no money.

My question is, what if VW/EPA chooses that there is no fix, not "me".

 

[turboBear]

The judge may not have said it in so many words, but ...

Maybe, but this all being a legal proceedings if "it's not stated in words" - as in the written word and part of the court record - it just doesn't matter what people "think" was meant.

 

[k1xv]

The problem is, you have a sense of entitlement to the money, even if you don't sell back, and even if your car cannot be fixed.

The settlement has multiple purposes. The principal one, from the Government's point of view, is to get polluting cars fixed or off the road. If there is no fix, and you get no money because you refuse to sell, then you are not helping in the effort to get polluting cars off the road. So you get no payment, notwithstanding your intention to get a fix.

As is often said, the road to H___ is paved with good intentions.

 

[DanB36]

Where does it say this? Honestly just curious! I seriously don't claim to know all about what is happening, just my 2 cents from what I've read and heard.

FTC Consent Order, page 23:

Upon submission of an Eligible Owner’s or Eligible Lessee’s complete and valid claim application pursuant to Section XIII and completion of an Approved Emissions Modification by a Volkswagen Dealer (or other entity authorized by Defendant), Defendant shall pay the amounts required by Subsections B through E.

(emphasis added)

They only have to pay the "fix" money once the fix is completed.

 

[grawk]

Maybe, but this all being a legal proceedings if "it's not stated in words" - as in the written word and part of the court record - it just doesn't matter what people "think" was meant.

The motivation isn't stated. The conditions for receiving money are clearly spelled out. Get the fix, sell the car, or meet one of the few narrow edge conditions. Opting for the fix and then not getting it means no cash for you.

 

[autdi]

Opting for the fix, no fix being approved is a possibility, and one of the complaints about the settlement. The trade in doesn't put me in an equal car driving off the lot. So the options are opt out now and sue, wait for the fix, and then have to wait even longer to opt out and sue if it doesn't come along, or sell taking a hit to drive something comparable, or drive something worse.

If I opt for the fix, and there is no fix, I should get the owner comp cash, as that comes to the owner regardless of what they do under the settlement. Since I tried to get it fixed, but EPA/CARB blocked it, it's not my fault I can't get it fixed, I shouldn't be paying the price for a decision I have no control over.

 

[k1xv]

So you can't get it fixed. You keep driving your car, same as you were doing prior to 2015, and nobody is bothering you. As your car has not been fixed, it still performs the same, and gets the same fuel economy, as it always did. As a result, you have not been affected by Dieselgate at all. Its as if it never happened.

But you still want to be paid?

 

[grawk]

it's not my fault

You're not being punished. Not being given cash for doing nothing isn't a punishment. If you want the cash, either give up your car, or get the fix. If you can't get the fix, you still have the option of taking the buyback.

While you can't get a brand new tdi to replace the car they're buying back, you can get any number of cars that are either newer or nicer than the car they're buying back. If you don't want to do that, you're still not being punished.

 

[Scott02]

If I opt for the fix, and there is no fix, I should get the owner comp cash, as that comes to the owner regardless of what they do under the settlement. Since I tried to get it fixed, but EPA/CARB blocked it, it's not my fault I can't get it fixed, I shouldn't be paying the price for a decision I have no control over.

This is more or less how I feel about it.

 

[Scott02]

So you can't get it fixed. You keep driving your car, same as you were doing prior to 2015, and nobody is bothering you. As your car has not been fixed, it still performs the same, and gets the same fuel economy, as it always did. As a result, you have not been affected by Dieselgate at all. Its as if it never happened.

But you still want to be paid?

What if I want to sell the unfixed car? How would that not affect me? Our cars are devalued (in the general public's eyes) a ton because of all this. The minimum $5100 was to compensate the owners for this loss in value, no?

 

[austintg]

FTC Consent Order, page 23:

(emphasis added)

They only have to pay the "fix" money once the fix is completed.

So the validity of the argument is based on the words "approved," I just wish it was more clear! Why can't they say hey look, this is what we want, you don't do it, you don't get the money. Nice and simple haha.

 

[autdi]

So the validity of the argument is based on the words "approved," I just wish it was more clear! Why can't they say hey look, this is what we want, you don't do it, you don't get the money. Nice and simple haha.

If you read the 3 docs that all cover the same thing, there are all sorts of inconsistencies between them, not the least of which are the definitions.

 

[autdi]

What if I want to sell the unfixed car? How would that not affect me? Our cars are devalued (in the general public's eyes) a ton because of all this. The minimum $5100 was to compensate the owners for this loss in value, no?

You've got a week left to register an objection with the court. Do it.

My letter took the approach, I'm not made whole by the value offered for the car, and using the argument that the owner payment is part of the car value is not accurate, otherwise that owner payment wouldn't be the same fix or trade in. The car couldn't be purchased in September 2015 for the value being offered for it, without the owner payment included. The judge repeated that the owners would be paid for the car, and receive considerable compensation, that's simply false under the settlement.

The claim of options to the owner is also false until the fix is approved. Asking me to make decisions without sufficient information to make the financial decision is also unfair. If I know I can get the fix, it's an option, until then, there is one non-option valid.

 

[Scott02]

My letter took the approach, I'm not made whole by the value offered for the car, and using the argument that the owner payment is part of the car value is not accurate, otherwise that owner payment wouldn't be the same fix or trade in. The car couldn't be purchased in September 2015 for the value being offered for it, without the owner payment included. The judge repeated that the owners would be paid for the car, and receive considerable compensation, that's simply false under the settlement.

The claim of options to the owner is also false until the fix is approved. Asking me to make decisions without sufficient information to make the financial decision is also unfair. If I know I can get the fix, it's an option, until then, there is one non-option valid.

That makes the most sense of any reading I've done in the zillion threads thus far.

 

[DanB36]

So the validity of the argument is based on the words "approved," I just wish it was more clear! Why can't they say hey look, this is what we want, you don't do it, you don't get the money. Nice and simple haha.

I thought it was pretty clear. If you do X, you get money. If you do Y, you get money. None of the documents say that if you do Z, you get money. So, VW isn't required to give you money if you do Z.

Or, put differently: choosing the fix isn't what gets you paid. Getting the fix is what gets you paid.

 

[grawk]

What if I want to sell the unfixed car? How would that not affect me? Our cars are devalued (in the general public's eyes) a ton because of all this. The minimum $5100 was to compensate the owners for this loss in value, no?

if you think you're going to want to sell the car, you should get the fix. The car is devalued because of the lack of effective emissions controls (and the fraud that got them there). You have a choice to get paid to put the emissionsn controls back, get paid to give the car back to vw where it can be repaired or put back on the road, or accept the loss of value to maintain a car as you purchased it. As the final option is the only one that doesn't reimburse you for the loss of value, you're actively choosing that.

The $5100 is to reimburse you for the inconvenience of having your car modified to have lower NOx emissions and any negative side effects that might go along with said modification.

 

[DanB36]

if you think you're going to want to sell the car, you should get the fix.

Hard to do if no fix is approved, which is the point of this thread.

 

[grawk]

but you'll have the option of doing the buyback in 2018 if no fix ever shows up, at which point you'll have 2 further years of use, so it's an even better deal.

 

[adamek]

I'm wondering when or if we find out the fix for 2012 JSW TDI.

 

[austintg]

if you think you're going to want to sell the car, you should get the fix. The car is devalued because of the lack of effective emissions controls (and the fraud that got them there). You have a choice to get paid to put the emissionsn controls back, get paid to give the car back to vw where it can be repaired or put back on the road, or accept the loss of value to maintain a car as you purchased it. As the final option is the only one that doesn't reimburse you for the loss of value, you're actively choosing that.

The $5100 is to reimburse you for the inconvenience of having your car modified to have lower NOx emissions and any negative side effects that might go along with said modification.

I see what you're saying and it does make sense, but where is that in writing?