What sort of damage gets your buyback rejected?

[icecoaster]

Canadian here, anticipating our buyback to rollout in about a month.

A few months ago, I got rear-ended and the left corner of the bumper is damaged. The two halves have separated, so there is a noticeable gap between them. The damage got reported to insurance but I did nothing about fixing it, figuring the buyback was imminent.

Now, I'm wondering if I should get it fixed before the buyback so that there are no delays. I don't want to turn it in and get rejected. If I have to get it fixed, I'll do it now.

I'm wondering what's the US experience been like. I know that cracked windshields, minor dents and dings are overlooked. But, what about significant body damage? Do they care?

 

[DanB36]

The correct answer, under the terms of the 2-liter settlement (as modified by the judge regarding stripping), is that no amount of accidental damage will get a car rejected, as long as the car can drive under its own power. The 3-liter settlement is a little more specific, and requires that the car can be safely and legally driven on public roads.

Here's my thread about turning in a totaled car: http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=468293&highlight=wrecked+car

I sold back another car this past Saturday, and the rep said she hadn't heard anything new (i.e., since I last saw her in December) about not accepting damaged cars.

 

[GoFaster]

The "clarification" has related to cars that have been intentionally stripped of parts.

Accidental damage, no problem. Intentional parts removal, problem.

 

[k1xv]

Complete car with some parts damaged due to street combat, OK

Incomplete car with parts removed and missing, not OK.

 

[LeahPharmD]

Do we have a judges ruling on this yet?

I was told "definition of operable" was still open for debate in the courts....

My car is "totaled" but still can operate under it's own power... in a holding pattern right now

 

[GoFaster]

No official ruling, merely a public warning for people to follow the spirit of the buyback and not the letter of it. When a judge says that, it's normally best not to do anything that would cause them to issue a ruling, because you won't like what that ruling has to say. So please don't.

 

[Rico567]

No official ruling, merely a public warning for people to follow the spirit of the buyback and not the letter of it. When a judge says that, it's normally best not to do anything that would cause them to issue a ruling, because you won't like what that ruling has to say. So please don't.

^^^^^^

The above is very sage advice. But will the little stripper-boys who want to mulct VW of a few more bucks stop? That's a good question.....

 

[DanB36]

No official ruling, merely a public warning for people to follow the spirit of the buyback and not the letter of it.

...of course, it'd be nice if VW were following even the letter of the agreement wrt timelines, or at least acknowledging that they're failing, rather than repeatedly inventing new "approved" timelines...

 

[k1xv]

You can be assured that the Court is aware of any deviations from the timelines contemplated in the initial settlement, and is aware of how closely VW is conforming, and why there is variance between initial goals and actual performance.

Not every deviation from a Settlement schedule is cause for blowing things up or taking extreme remedial action by the Court.

 

[ddorrer]

I disagree k1vx. If, for example, the Court orders payment by X date, then any deviation is a violation of that order and subject to court sanctions.

In my humble opinion, VW should be ordered to pay any interest on restitution payments for any deviation past the court ordered buyback/fix timelines. It took 60 plus days to process my claim and I still haven't been paid. What was the court order again? 10+10; 20 days?

 

[Mr. Furious]

Not every deviation from a Settlement schedule is cause for blowing things up or taking extreme remedial action by the Court.

There are clear penalties already spelled out for deviating from the timelines. I would like to see those enforced, no "blowing things up" or anything else "extreme" necessary.

 

[k1xv]

I disagree k1vx. If, for example, the Court orders payment by X date, then any deviation is a violation of that order and subject to court sanctions.

Courts will distinguish between deliberate acts to not comply with a schedule, versus non deliberate causes that are based on circumstances over which a party has limited control. At that point, good faith effort becomes a significant factor.

For example, assume everything was being processed in California, and a flood came along, flooded out the operations center, and cut the digital communications in and out. What sanctions do you think would be appropriate?

It would not surprise me if VW submitted, in advance, its compliance plan to the court. So long as it is devoting resources to the task as envisioned in the compliance plan, the court is likely to cut them some slack.

 

[zimmy]

I have a 2015 golf, and it has minor front end damage due to myself crashing into a tree along side a drive way in a snowstorm. I got a quote to fix the damage to the tune of $5700. After speaking with VW i decided not to fix it because the rep personally told me not to worry about it. This was back in December.

I confirmed with multiple people on the same issue, and VW doesnt really care as per the lawsuit. They just dont wanna see vandalism or stripping the car like everyone else has been saying.

Its really sad to see VW not sell diesels here anymore, Ill really miss my car. Buyback appt scheduled for 3\2\2017

 

[halbert]

I hope you guys are right. As I've posted my story several times on this forum, I'm not going into it again. Short version: Had a buyback appointment for a damaged JSW that is operable by the definition. Vehicle was at the dealer (towed in, not street legal) and we got called an hour before our scheduled meeting and cancelled by VW. Rescheduled for March 11. (5 additional weeks) And, yes, I've been in touch with the class counsel, sent them pictures and the details. I just want it over.

 

[Rico567]

I hope you guys are right. As I've posted my story several times on this forum, I'm not going into it again. Short version: Had a buyback appointment for a damaged JSW that is operable by the definition. Vehicle was at the dealer (towed in, not street legal) and we got called an hour before our scheduled meeting and cancelled by VW. Rescheduled for March 11. (5 additional weeks) And, yes, I've been in touch with the class counsel, sent them pictures and the details. I just want it over.

It's not a matter of hope. The settlement sets down the condition for turn-in, and it's very simple: the vehicle must be operable, and you state that yours is.
One point stands out in your post. You do not state whether or not your appointment was cancelled due to the condition of the car or not. If so, then contacting the class counsel was certainly the right thing to do. But the fact that it was rescheduled for March 11th would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[halbert]

It's not a matter of hope. The settlement sets down the condition for turn-in, and it's very simple: the vehicle must be operable, and you state that yours is.
One point stands out in your post. You do not state whether or not your appointment was cancelled due to the condition of the car or not. If so, then contacting the class counsel was certainly the right thing to do. But the fact that it was rescheduled for March 11th would seem to indicate otherwise.

When it was cancelled, we were told, and I quote, "The buyback specialist was told by his bosses to cancel because of questions about the damage"

So, yeah, it's an issue. I don't trust the corporate weenies to do the right thing. The buyback specialist knew that it was wrong, but whoever it was at the corporate level tied his hands. I won't believe it's actually going through until the money is wired into my bank account.l

 

[k1xv]

Some of our forum untrained and unlicensed lawyers have interpreted the settlement to require the acceptance of cars that can barely move under their own power, maybe lurch forward a foot or two. Don't listen to these people. To be in legally operable condition, a car must be in sufficient condition to be legally driven on the road.

While that would allow a lot of damage, it does not mean that cars with damage so extensive that the car cannot be legally driven are "operable", even if they can lurch forward under their own power.

No buyback rep has to accept your interpretation of the settlement. And it is folly to expect them to in all instances.

 

[PacCoastFwy923]

The problem is, it's a wide grey area to contend with. A vehicle needs two headlamps to be legally operable. If one is out, would a specialist be justified in denying the buyback? No, of course not.

I'm guessing the specialists are inconsistent exactly because of this -- returns are being evaluated on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis due to a seeming lack of clear, uniform guidance.

 

[Rico567]

<snip>
I'm guessing the specialists are inconsistent exactly because of this -- returns are being evaluated on a case-by-case, person-by-person basis due to a seeming lack of clear, uniform guidance.

They are calling when something comes in that's fairly smashed up, and getting only some vague, unspecific directives from the higher-ups. So, that puts the fear into the buyback rep, and they promptly get conservative on what they'll accept. The further this goes, the messier it's likely to become.

 

[DanB36]

To be in legally operable condition, a car must be in sufficient condition to be legally driven on the road.

Some trained and licensed lawyers (at a minimum, myself) disagree with your interpretation. The settlement itself defines "operable," and it's without reference to the ability to drive the car on the road, legally or not. The 3-liter settlement specifies that the car be able to be legally (and safely, IIRC) driven on the road, but the 2-liter settlement has no such stipulation--and none of the reports posted here from any of the status hearings indicate that VW has any heartburn about crash damage, even though there have surely been plenty of wrecked cars turned in.

 

[k1xv]

The fact that it has been clarified and put into specific words for three liter cars does not mean it does not apply to two liter cars as well. The three liter settlement terms were written after the two liter terms. There are many cases where "the common law" is subsequently codified into specific language in a statute. But that does not mean that the law was different prior to the adoption of the statute.

 

[Mollsmom]

We asked our buyback specialist, today, if she had any problem with the crash damage that we hadn't fixed. She said she had no instructions to reject damaged 2.0 cars and she hadn't had any 3.0 cars yet. Her only concern was whether they could drive it onto the tow truck to get it out of there.
And, we spoke extensively with the settlement lawyers who suggested towing it to a block from the dealer and driving it into their parking lot.
Which we did. Which was fine with the buyback person.
It doesn't lurch, but it is not street legal. It is operable - drives ok, squeals a tiny bit from brakes not being used for 6 months, and scrapes a bit along the passenger wheel, and has no headlight or front corner, in fact.
Had.

 

[k1xv]

I was not describing what will happen in every instance. Rather, I was describing what could happen, just like you could get written up for 32 mph in a 30 zone if someone wanted to be a stickler.

And, I note, even if they were "wrong", it would be a hassle to get it resolved in your favor. Weighing the benefit vs the cost of a hassle, its usually better to avoid them if you can.

 

[Mollsmom]

Well for sure, I would say it would have been better to avoid the accident if we could have.
10K "profit" not worth the risk & scare of that accident, which could have been a lot worse (4 car freeway pileup)
And we would have driven the car until 2018 instead of purchasing a new one last summer, so the 10K insurance payment that we pocketed basically reimbursed us for the xtra 2 years car payments we wouldn't have had.

 

[Rico567]

I was not describing what will happen in every instance. Rather, I was describing what could happen, just like you could get written up for 32 mph in a 30 zone if someone wanted to be a stickler.

And, I note, even if they were "wrong", it would be a hassle to get it resolved in your favor. Weighing the benefit vs the cost of a hassle, its usually better to avoid them if you can.

Yes. Most entry-level traffic tickets are rather judiciously "priced" so that it's not worth while taking the time off work that would be required to fight them. Just as easy to pay and charge it up to experience.

 

[Rmohd]

turned our 012 in Sat, 2-26-17, asked about the stripped/damage policy, she said early on you could bring it however, but now its up to the person taking the car back, she said if the damage looks deliberate as in striped parts, they could refuse. ours was clean so no issues, but I had read a lot on here about people taking parts off so I asked. Life is short.. treat this deal the way you would want to be treated and know you took the high road.

going to miss the old girl..

 

[ecode]

Canadian here, anticipating our buyback to rollout in about a month.
A few months ago, I got rear-ended and the left corner of the bumper is damaged. The two halves have separated, so there is a noticeable gap between them. The damage got reported to insurance but I did nothing about fixing it, figuring the buyback was imminent.
Now, I'm wondering if I should get it fixed before the buyback so that there are no delays. I don't want to turn it in and get rejected. If I have to get it fixed, I'll do it now.
I'm wondering what's the US experience been like. I know that cracked windshields, minor dents and dings are overlooked. But, what about significant body damage? Do they care?

Since no one addressed your other question.

No, don't get it fixed (no matter what option you were taking - trade or buyback). The Canadian FAQ has clarified that the only thing affecting value (outside of make/model/year) is whether the thing is operable, and the mileage.

That's it.

Now, the Canadian deal has the actual verbiage in it that basically says, don't be an asshat and strip the car... but I know that wasn't your question, and you wouldn't go and do that would you.

 

[LeahPharmD]

I hope you are all right-- the class action lawyer told me VW is taking the position that operable means "street legal". My car is operable under the power of it's engine... I got a new offer from VW, same as the offer I initially submitted under before my accident.... (VW made me resubmit with branded tite)... now my question is, do I get my mechanic to re-attach the headlights and bang it into shape, or try to turn it in all smashed in?

 

[GoFaster]

If you HAVE headlights, smashed or otherwise, and they're not currently attached to the car, bring them with the car.