Compensation claims for diesel car buyers (manufacturers' false emissions figures)

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

I've notice these adverts start popping up on telly more and more just recently. It looks like a similar scenario to the PPI scandal, but I just don't actually get what they're seeking compensation for.

The PPI thing was obvious: people had historically been misled into paying a lot of their own money in exchange for a frequently worthless product and/or one which they had never knowingly or explicitly agreed to buy.

However, I'm really struggling to work out why individual car owners would morally be entitled to compensation for having bought cars that were more polluting than the manufacturers claimed. Yes, of course the manufacturers were very wrong to do this, and I fully understand their being heavily fined for their deceit on a governmental level; but how many people who bought their cars actually cared or took any notice about the claimed emissions - and would have refused to buy that particular car if they had known the truth?

In fact, I may be misunderstanding here, but if car owners were paying tax (and possibly congestion/similar charges) based on the claimed (lower) emission levels rather than the actual (significantly higher) levels, won't they already have financially benefited on a personal level?

If they successfully claim from the car makers, should they pass all/some of any compensation they're awarded straight back to the government, to reflect the true amount of emissions-based tax that they should have been paying? What have the motorists personally lost - which is generally the purpose of compensation: to make good your loss.

Am I missing something? Is there actually a genuine moral reason to pursue these claims or is it just one (or maybe more) company(ies) exploiting a legal loophole and people's greed in order to cash in on all of the commission that they stand to make from it, just because they technically can?

I've got a vw which fortunately isn't one of the problematic models, but re but how many people who bought their cars actually cared or took any notice about the claimed emissions - and would have refused to buy that particular car if they had known the truth? .... yes of course we looked at the emissions, and wouldn't have bought one that we knew to be crappy.

In terms of loss, I assume there's some reduction in resale value. Will any of these come a cropper if cities introduce clean air zones?

I may be wrong but I thought the U.K. tax reduction was based on CO2 emissions - which are low for diesels. Not NOx, which is what the false emissions test scandal is about.

They were more expensive and have lost resale value. People (not all, obviously) definitely choose cars based on environmental factors and are prepared to pay more for that - see electric cars now - so there was clear misselling.

Ah, that's a very good point about the NOx and not CO2 emissions wrt tax.

But if just about all of the companies were at it, what real choice would there have been to choose a different car make that was just as bad? If the real figures would have been far worse across the board, wouldn't the choice (with the knowledge of hindsight) have been to either buy a car or not buy a car? I suppose some may have been swerved towards petrol, but ime, most people make the choice between petrol or diesel based on the bottom line of how much more or less fuel will cost them for their lifestyle and the number of miles they drive.

I suppose the petrol or diesel choice would also include considerations for depreciation, but again, if all of the manufacturers were at it, wouldn't it effectively have set a (murky) level playing field for the used diesel car market?

Maybe I'm just naturally too sceptical about these claims companies. Although there was (imho) a good moral case for the PPI claims, whilst Martin Lewis and others were guiding people how to claim for themselves and keep all of their compo, these companies were circling around furiously trying to take 30-40% of people's payouts for very, very little work on their parts.

Genuine question: do you think that most people who choose electric cars are doing so out of environmental concerns or mainly because of the (for the time being) far cheaper running costs?

Everybody I know with one has only ever seemed to stress how much cheaper they are to run than paying for petrol or diesel, but none have been raving about how much more eco-friendly they are. Maybe I just know the wrong sorts of people!!

I'm an eco-friendly person and was misled at the time into buying diesel cars on the basis that per mile they weren't any worse than petrol cars. So if I'd been sold a diesel car that was in addition, more polluting than the manufacturer claimed, then I would have been even more annoyed.

Next car will be electric or at the least, hybrid, not because of price although that's always nice, but because of environmental concerns. Of course if the price differential was larger it would be a factor but taking into account purchase price there isn't a huge amount in it at the moment, especially if you don't always charge at home overnight.

Were people actually given inaccurate info re PPI? We never took it because it was generally pretty obvious it was a bad thing. Whereas the emissions numbers were out and out deceptive. Why isn't that a stronger 'moral case' in your view?

Were people actually given inaccurate info re PPI? We never took it because it was generally pretty obvious it was a bad thing. Whereas the emissions numbers were out and out deceptive. Why isn't that a stronger 'moral case' in your view?

To be honest, I think both were designed to be deceptive. Maybe some providers had slightly more scruples with stating clearly what people were signing up for with PPI and checking that it was right for them, but so many people ended up with it without even knowing that it had been included, let alone those who were already unemployed/SAHPs, students or whatever.

We took out a loan with our major high street bank and stated from the outset that we did not want any PPI with it - and then later saw in the small print that the sales person had simply added it on anyway. When we went back to complain and demand it be removed, there was no apology or embarrassment on their part, just gaslighting and the suggestion that we were the awkward ones for 'changing our minds'.

Martin Lewis has stated that people selling loans and credit cards would routinely say "And your monthly repayments fully protected will be...." - rushing and gabbling the fully protected bit. Plus, even where people were wise to it and on their guard, there was still often the strong implication given that your application was more likely to be refused as 'potentially high risk' if you had declined to apply along with a PPI policy.

The fix the companies has to do to stop the excessive NOx emissions made the car engines less fuel efficient and/or lowered performance. So it resulted in higher running costs for a worse car, as well as reduced resale value.

With the PPI, that was a complete con. I even saw copies of forms from years ago and someone else had filled in the PPI section. It wasn’t my writing. I got about £3k back in total from different cards.
I had diesels from Vauxhall’s, not sure they’re officially on the list yet, but if so I’m not paying one if these firms for the case and do my own thing like I did with PPI. These companies will take approximately 40% of the total due.

@Longdistance

With the PPI, that was a complete con. I even saw copies of forms from years ago and someone else had filled in the PPI section. It wasn’t my writing. I got about £3k back in total from different cards. I had diesels from Vauxhall’s, not sure they’re officially on the list yet, but if so I’m not paying one if these firms for the case and do my own thing like I did with PPI. These companies will take approximately 40% of the total due.

This is MSE's advice on making a claim yourself

It would be almost impossible for you to bring a claim like this on your own – so if you believe you're owed, this may be the only option
These are complex legal proceedings which require technical expert opinion to establish facts, and if you were to try to bring a claim yourself, the costs would likely dwarf any damages, plus you'd risk having to pay the other side's legal costs.

So while we'd normally urge you to steer clear of firms that will take a cut of any compensation, in this instance if you do want to make a claim, joining a group legal action may be the only viable option – though even then, there's no guarantee of winning.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/diesel-emissions-group-legal-claims/

But if just about all of the companies were at it,

They weren’t though VW group (VW, Audi, Skoda and SEAT and Mercedes were the main offenders.

DH is only recently planning to join one of the class action suits.

He got the VW retuned to have the low advertised emissions.

3x in last 2.5 years one of the fuel injectors has blown up.
Last year when I was driving to holiday, so 160 miles from home, £500 roadside repair.
Last week a mere £200 repair.
He keeps reading the fuel injector failure problem is because of the retuning to original published standard, the equipment can't actually operate well like that.

Is a palava.

The fix the companies has to do to stop the excessive NOx emissions made the car engines less fuel efficient and/or lowered performance. So it resulted in higher running costs for a worse car, as well as reduced resale value.

Ah, of course - I hadn't thought of that at all. Makes good sense now. Was it compulsory to have the fix, though? I thought car owners had the freedom to have the fix or just to leave it as it was, but I may have misunderstood that too.

They weren’t though VW group (VW, Audi, Skoda and SEAT and Mercedes were the main offenders.

The persistent TV advert shows a form with a big table with (IIRC) 20 or so different manufacturers and asks you to select the appropriate manufacturer of your car. Maybe they're just really hoping to push their luck?!

That's appalling, lljkk - I don't blame him in the slightest, in that case.

I had one of the affected cars and when the car was at the garage for routine work, the garage applied the fix without my consent and didn’t tell me until afterwards

The MSE link I attached does include Vauxhall.

I had one of the affected cars and when the car was at the garage for routine work, the garage applied the fix without my consent and didn’t tell me until afterwards

Wow, that's rather out of line. Were they under the impression that it was a legal requirement, do you know, or did they just assume it was a no-brainer and that nobody would turn it down? Mind, I assume the manufacturer would have paid them for doing the work, so it was certainly in their financial interest to 'assume' and go ahead.

I have an affected car and very much did choose it as being a supposedly more environmental option. There was never any lower tax payment attached to it, but now I fail the test for the ULEZ and will have to pay through the nose to drive in Greater London (which I have no option but to do). I have had the fix but wasn't actually aware it made the car perform less well - I'm not very up in car stuff, I just drive it a-b. May have to investigate this further.

@MiddlesexGirl

I'm an eco-friendly person and was misled at the time into buying diesel cars on the basis that per mile they weren't any worse than petrol cars. So if I'd been sold a diesel car that was in addition, more polluting than the manufacturer claimed, then I would have been even more annoyed.

I’m curious though, do you think that because you’re annoyed that your vehicle was more polluting, even though you have personally saved money on VED, cost of fuel Etc. you should be further financially compensated? I think that is what OP is asking, and I have thought the same - in reality, it’s Governments that have received less revenue as a result of this deception, so I also don’t understand what the compensation to car owners should be for. The definition of compensation is “something, typically money, awarded to someone in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury.” As car owners haven’t lost anything, been injured or “actually“ suffered, I can’t see how this is morally right... maybe I’m overlooking something?

Lljkk
I declined the fix but had two fuel injectors fail anyway (Skoda). I am part of the first group action.

thanks Hilda. does seem to be a theme, doesn't it?

in reality, it’s Governments that have received less revenue as a result of this deception

The VED scale is based on CO2 output, which isn't what the problem was about. The deceitful figures were the NOx emissions, which is a completely different thing. Why do you think the government has received less revenue?

We have one. Paid more for diesel as we thought better for environment (being sold as such at the time). Since the fix the fan keeps going off constantly. We haven’t joined an action but maybe we should look at it.

I think they took the opportunity to get it fixed. The garage would need all cars to be compliant ASAP