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

[DanB36]

You just quoted it in writing. You won't find it in writing from an "official" source, though. Really, how you want to characterize any portion of the payment is up to you, and has no effect on anything.

 

[grawk]

It was a negotiation. It wasn't a judgement it was a settlement. So you have to read between the lines for some of it.

 

[GoFaster]

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?

Then let them buy it back in 2018. The buyback amount at that time will be more than any non-delusional value of what the car would have been worth in the absence of this brouhaha.

 

[GetMore]

If VW does not offer diesel cars after 2015 then the remaining VW diesels will increase in value. Those that keep their cars for a while and then choose to sell them may reap a windfall. So, the statement that it will be as though dieselgate never happened is false. Shame on you for spreading this lie!
(just in case the smilies are not enough, I am not accusing anyone of wrongdoing, I'm just trying to be funny.)

 

[S2000_guy]

In addition to the option to sell back the car if no fix is available, if there's no approved fix by some future date (I don't care what it is, if you care look it up yourself) you get a second period where you can opt out of the class and pursue litigation on your own.

 

[autdi]

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".

I put this exact issue in my objection letter:

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The statement of options to owners to obtain a modification or buyback is not accurate at this point in time, nor will it be accurate until long after the opt-out date has passed, locking owners into the settlement that may ultimately be detrimental to them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I want to keep the vehicle, which would put my current decision on the modification option. However, the modification option is really a non-option until approved by EPA/CARB, and given they have already rejected one proposed modification, it is impossible to predict if future modifications would be approved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The submission timeline for modification approval is at the earliest in November 2016, more than two months after the opt-out date for this settlement. To make a decision on the merits of this settlement requires all relevant data to be able to make the decision. In this case, speed to settlement is undermining the ability to make sound, fact based decisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Due to the unique nature of the issues in this case, and the inability for owners to receive reasonable trade in offers for their vehicles, I understand the need to progress towards settlement quickly, however, I object to it harming one part of the class, namely those who are interested in the modification, but have no ability to determine the acceptability of the modification, to benefit another part of the class, namely those that want to trade, but have been unable to due to the lingering issues of this case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This objection can be remedied in a number of ways.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] i. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Delay approval and opt out dates of the modification option settlement until after the modification is approved or disapproved. The owners wishing to trade in should be allowed to as the modification approval is not relevant to their decision making, but those wanting the modification need to know if it is actually an option or not to make an informed decision.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alter the second opt out date in the event of no approved modification to immediately following the rejection of the modification. There is no reason that owners should have to wait until May 2018 for the opportunity to opt out of this settlement after a final rejection, which would likely have happened in early to mid 2017. Nothing constructive is accomplished by forcing the delay of over a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] iii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pay the owner restitution portion of the settlement immediately to all remaining owners if the modification is rejected. As all owners in the class are due this money through both options, should the modification be rejected, the owners requesting the modification should not be further penalized for having the option they accepted this settlement under removed from consideration as that materially changes the settlement to a portion of the class.[/FONT]

 

[Scott02]

I put this exact issue in my objection letter:

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The statement of options to owners to obtain a modification or buyback is not accurate at this point in time, nor will it be accurate until long after the opt-out date has passed, locking owners into the settlement that may ultimately be detrimental to them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I want to keep the vehicle, which would put my current decision on the modification option. However, the modification option is really a non-option until approved by EPA/CARB, and given they have already rejected one proposed modification, it is impossible to predict if future modifications would be approved.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The submission timeline for modification approval is at the earliest in November 2016, more than two months after the opt-out date for this settlement. To make a decision on the merits of this settlement requires all relevant data to be able to make the decision. In this case, speed to settlement is undermining the ability to make sound, fact based decisions.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Due to the unique nature of the issues in this case, and the inability for owners to receive reasonable trade in offers for their vehicles, I understand the need to progress towards settlement quickly, however, I object to it harming one part of the class, namely those who are interested in the modification, but have no ability to determine the acceptability of the modification, to benefit another part of the class, namely those that want to trade, but have been unable to due to the lingering issues of this case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]This objection can be remedied in a number of ways.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] i. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Delay approval and opt out dates of the modification option settlement until after the modification is approved or disapproved. The owners wishing to trade in should be allowed to as the modification approval is not relevant to their decision making, but those wanting the modification need to know if it is actually an option or not to make an informed decision.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Alter the second opt out date in the event of no approved modification to immediately following the rejection of the modification. There is no reason that owners should have to wait until May 2018 for the opportunity to opt out of this settlement after a final rejection, which would likely have happened in early to mid 2017. Nothing constructive is accomplished by forcing the delay of over a year.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] iii. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Pay the owner restitution portion of the settlement immediately to all remaining owners if the modification is rejected. As all owners in the class are due this money through both options, should the modification be rejected, the owners requesting the modification should not be further penalized for having the option they accepted this settlement under removed from consideration as that materially changes the settlement to a portion of the class.[/FONT]

So it seems the answer to my question is, there is no answer. But it seems enough of you have already formally brought this point up. So we just wait to see if anything changes in the future court hearings.

 

[autdi]

So it seems the answer to my question is, there is no answer. But it seems enough of you have already formally brought this point up. So we just wait to see if anything changes in the future court hearings.

If you haven't written, do so. While 1 more person expressing the same issue seems pointless, and it probably will get railroaded over in this race to settlement, it can't hurt to spend 3 stamps trying.

 

[Armby]

I don't think this has been raised in this thread yet but if there is no fix approved then there would be an additional period to opt out.

From the Executive summary of the Proposed Settlement Program page 3:
If no modification is approved for your car before May 1, 2018, you will be
notified that no emissions modification is available. At that point, you will have
until June 1, 2018, to accept a Buyback or to exclude yourself from the Class.

 

[autdi]

I don't think this has been raised in this thread yet but if there is no fix approved then there would be an additional period to opt out.

From the Executive summary of the Proposed Settlement Program page 3:
If no modification is approved for your car before May 1, 2018, you will be
notified that no emissions modification is available. At that point, you will have
until June 1, 2018, to accept a Buyback or to exclude yourself from the Class.

Which then means another class action suit to recover the equivalent of the owner compensation, and another year of waiting. Which is why I suggested, just pay those of us wanting the fix but can't get it the money. Cheaper in the long run for VW than to get sued again for something they already indicated was worth at least $5100 in compensation for, plus a fix and extended warranty.

 

[grawk]

 

[Waynoooo]

+1 to you good sir!