Why am I not eligible for compensation? F@#k VW!

[Ridered67]

Glass half full, I dig it

 

[Ridered67]

You are entitled to no compensation because you suffered no economic harm. You sold your car before the scandal became public. Therefore, your resale value was not impaired by the scandal. Its like musical chairs. The person without a seat when the music stops is the one who was harmed, And therefore, is the one due compensation.

Thats a terrible analogy....im really not upset that I wont be getting any VW money from this car (i do have others that are eligible) i wanted to see if there were people in the same situation and get a feel for thier opinions

 

[kuklaki]

They lied about MPGs. Nuff said

They did not lie about MPG. You were getting better than the stated MPG. Where was it stated this lawsuit had anything to do with MPG? You may want to sharpen that reading comprehension skill of yours.

 

[grawk]

Thats a terrible analogy....im really not upset that I wont be getting any VW money from this car (i do have others that are eligible) i wanted to check with others in the same situation and get a feel

That's not an analogy, that's why you're not eligible under this settlement.

But, because you're officially excluded from this class, you ARE eligible to hire a lawyer, or team of lawyers, and sue VW. You'd lose, but you could do it.

 

[Ridered67]

That's not an analogy, that's why you're not eligible under this settlement.
But, because you're officially excluded from this class, you ARE eligible to hire a lawyer, or team of lawyers, and sue VW. You'd lose, but you could do it.

Right right, not worth it

 

[fan of fanboys]

Your post has not contributed in anyway

neither have any of yours


you want a handout

go beg on a street corner. you would retain more of your dignity that way

 

[oilhammer]

True, the value of my car wasnt affected because i sold it pre-scandal however, I was. I drove a car that didnt meet EPA standards, emitted more polution than VW claimed etc. Etc

Well it also polluted LESS, while at the same time EXCEEDED the MPG claims, so.....

But you were not harmed in any way money wise. Not sure what you are complaining about here.

And you are a little late to the "I just joined to complain" crowd anyway.

 

[Fizzyone]

How would that be double dipping? Everyone else is being given thier sep 2015 value PLUS compensation
Anyone who sold thier car prior to sep 2015 should be eligible for the compensation.
Cmon, you know im right

"Everyone else" is not getting their Sept 2015 value plus compensation. Everyone who owned a TDI as of September 2015 is getting it. So the person you sold your TDI to in 2014 will benefit from the class action suit but you have no claim because you got the pre-September 2015 value for your car when you sold it. It's not rocket science.

 

[grawk]

your sept 2015 value is 0, because you didn't own a TDI on sept 2015.

 

[iadubber]

OP is trolling!

 

[jblondin]

^ AGREE...Troll alert, don't even indulge this guy!

 

[DanB36]

I wouldn't say he's a troll, but nothing new is going to come of this thread. OP, there have been at least two other threads posted by people in your situation. Whether you feel you've been harmed or are entitled to restitution, you aren't part of any of the settlements, and you never have been. Feel free to join up with other former owners similarly situated, hire a lawyer, and pursue an action if you choose.

 

[PacCoastFwy923]

Let's say you're on a airline flight and deplane one city before the leg where the plane suffers a harsh gear up landing due to an improper maintenance procedure.

Nobody is seriously injured, but the passengers get their airfare reimbursed and maybe compensation in the way of travel vouchers or a small cash payment.

Would you expect compensation? The airline fulfilled their obligation by delivering you safe and sound, but on the other hand you flew on that same airplane with the maintenance issue.

I suppose you could make your case to the courts with the help of a lawyer, but that would probably cost more than you stand to gain.

The additional compensation for current owners is partly for the trouble this has caused us, and partly for losing the TDI fuel economy and/or cost of replacing it in another vehicle (or offsetting the fuel costs of a less efficient vehicle). This of course assumes all current owners were planning to drive their TDIs for the long term.

But in your case, by voluntarily opting out of TDI ownership, none of this applies.

 

[TravelDave]

^ AGREE...Troll alert, don't even indulge this guy!

But this is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

 

[atomicfront]

Hey folks, first post here...

The VW website says I'm not eligible for compensation

I purchased my new 2013 TDI JSW in October of 2013 and sold it December of 2014.

Why would I not be eligible for compensation? I was sold a car under false pretenses etc.etc.....

Now I really don't give two mucks about driving a dirty diesel, I ain't some tree hugging libtard but I am VERY mad at the thought of a German company defrauding The United States Of America and her people.

Is there anyone here that sold a TDI before December 2015 getting paid or are we ass out?

Why would you be eligible? You were not effected by the scandal. Sold your car before it came out so you got full value for your car. Also you aren't going to get money to turn your car in since you don't own it. I don't see why you are mad you are not part of the settlement.

 

[atomicfront]

Haha! Fair enough but so is every other VW fanboy who was loyal to the brand but had a change of heart when they saw the payout numbers

The main use of the payouts is to get the cars off the streets. The secondary lesser one is to compensate owners for less resale value.

We are selling our cars because VW is being forced by EPA to pay much more than our cars are worth. If they didn't we would still drive them polluting the earth while enjoying our great gas mileage and plenty of power.

 

[k1xv]

Yes, reminds me of the guy who got off the train one station before the derailment.....then wants compensation because he had been riding on an unsafe train.

 

[jhinsc]

It's funny how a thread can a take on a life of it own by asking the "why" or "why not" question. The intent of the class action suit was to compensate the owners for loss of value that occurred on Sept 18, 2015 and afterwards. Knowing that, curious as to why the OP thought he was due some form of compensation, because nothing stated in this thread provided any evidence he was entitled to it. Ooops, I said the bad word - entitled, as in entitlement. This is fun!

 

[FVWVWF]

Yes, reminds me of the guy who got off the train one station before the derailment.....then wants compensation because he had been riding on an unsafe train.

Yep. This.

 

[Fourplay]

Hey folks, first post here...

The VW website says I'm not eligible for compensation

I purchased my new 2013 TDI JSW in October of 2013 and sold it December of 2014.

Why would I not be eligible for compensation?

Because you sold your car before the scandal was uncovered...duh.

 

[Jicafold]

They lied about MPGs.

Geez man, for the umteenth time, they lied about emissions, they lied about pollution. And....you enjoyed that wonderful mileage for the whole time you owned the vehicle. What a whiner.

 

[DanB36]

Geez man, for the umteenth time, they didn't lie about emissions, they lied about pollution.

Come again?

 

[atomicfront]

Geez man, for the umteenth time, they didn't lie about emissions, they lied about pollution. And....you enjoyed that wonderful mileage for the whole time you owned the vehicle. What a whiner.

I think they lied about MPG. They claimed our Sport Wagon would get 39 mpg highway and we typically get 45 mpg.

 

[Jicafold]

Sorry, edited that.

 

[aronhk_md]

It's funny how a thread can a take on a life of it own by asking the "why" or "why not" question. The intent of the class action suit was to compensate the owners for loss of value that occurred on Sept 18, 2015 and afterwards. Knowing that, curious as to why the OP thought he was due some form of compensation, because nothing stated in this thread provided any evidence he was entitled to it. Ooops, I said the bad word - entitled, as in entitlement. This is fun!

Not sure I agree with this. The loss of value for the cars was addressed by giving pre-Sept 2015 values. The OTHER compensation offered was to entice us to turn the cars back in.

If it had anything to do with compensating us for lying, cheating etc.....then those of us who owned the cars the longest (2009 cars) would be getting the larger compensation amounts, rather than the other way around. In other words, more compensation for driving a cheating car we thought was clean for a longer period of time. JS

 

[HBarlow]

This has been entertaining. Thanks, OP, for showing up here today to give us all a laugh.

 

[TravelDave]

If it had anything to do with compensating us for lying, cheating etc.....then those of us who owned the cars the longest (2009 cars) would be getting the larger compensation amounts, rather than the other way around. In other words, more compensation for driving a cheating car we thought was clean for a longer period of time. JS

I think the additional compensation is meant to address a number of issues, including enticing people to take the deal (and thus opt out of other legal action), addressing sales tax costs on the replacement (since no trade-in), and anything else you can think of. With the sales tax element, it makes the most sense to compensate owners of newer cars more. They paid a bunch of sales tax on the VW a couple of years ago and will be paying again on the replacement now.

 

[NYC-TDI]

Some people here have a misunderstanding of the definition of fraud. They also have a misunderstanding of what was actually agreed to in the class action.

The compensation in the class action WAS NOT to make you whole, i.e. to return your vehicle to the value it possessed the day prior to revelation of the scandal. The class action DID accomplish this but also awarded several thousand dollars of ADDITIONAL compensation. Why? BECAUSE YOU WERE DEFRAUDED, whether you realize/admit/agree or not.

The owners who sold before revelation of the scandal WERE ALSO DEFRAUDED. This is not my opinion, this is the legal definition of fraud, and was already admitted to by VW. It is true such owners were omitted from the class action (in my opinion unfairly). There is legal precedent from previous class action lawsuits alleging fraud which resulted in compensation to original owners (lawnmower / tractor engines inflated HP ratings, and others). After all the fraud was initiated at the time of sale.

All this talk of "welfare money", "free sandwiches" and "greed" is being perpetrated by those who are actually receiving such.

 

[aronhk_md]

I think the additional compensation is meant to address a number of issues, including enticing people to take the deal (and thus opt out of other legal action), addressing sales tax costs on the replacement (since no trade-in), and anything else you can think of. With the sales tax element, it makes the most sense to compensate owners of newer cars more. They paid a bunch of sales tax on the VW a couple of years ago and will be paying again on the replacement now.

True, which is why I stated I thought its largest role was enticing us to take the payback. But as for newer owners being compensated more for having to pay more sales tax...maybe? Yet there are plenty of us older owners that payed sales tax a number of years ago thinking we'd be hanging onto these buggers a whole lot longer. I have only 113k miles on the clock. lol And now I have to bite the sales tax bullet on a newer car whether I wanted to or not in a sense (yes, I know they gave us a choice supposedly...but I'm not hanging onto this car in the hopes they can fix it without screwing it up).

So I still think it was mostly an incentive to get us to sell back by getting some amount of cash-in-pocket regardless of any "we are paying you back for something we did wrong" theology. I believe they just wanted to make it attractive enough to hit 85%. I think they'll hit the mark too.

 

[k1xv]

Yes, you can be fooled, and maybe some think that is actionable fraud. There may have been deception, but the OP suffered no damages. Getting court awards from another party generally requires the plaintiff to have suffered a damage or loss. None here. In fact, by his own admission, emissions and environment were not factors in his decision to purchase. He wanted mileage. He got better mileage than that advertised.

Maybe he should sue, claim $0.01 in actual damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages.