PDA

View Full Version : Can We Sue Volkswagen Owners for Polluting Our Air?


Naughty Nigel
9th January 2017, 11:57 AM
So, thousands of Volkswagen owners in the UK are to seek compensation from the carmaker following the emissions rigging scandal.

BBC Report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38552828)

Lawyers have said that 10,000 owners have already expressed an interest in suing VW, and estimate that owners could get "several thousand pounds each" in compensation.

If they are successful, does this mean we can sue VW owners (or even other VW owners) for polluting the air that we breathe? (After all, VW and Audi drivers always have to be in front). :rolleyes:

Where does it all end?

Can we now expect thousands of cold calls from companies asking whether we have claimed compensation for the VW that we once drove? ;)

Walti
9th January 2017, 12:10 PM
I went a while hoping to be stopped by the police...

"do you know how fast you were going, sir?"
"well the car told me I was legal, but these VWs do lie...."

Actually rather glad I didn't put it to the test!

I think the owners are in a comfortable position, residual values seem to have held up, so while I wouldn't say no to a nice compensation payout, I'm not joining the let's sue them brigade!

The software update on mine appears to have improved the consumption, so presumably cut the pollution...

Who knows?

Naughty Nigel
9th January 2017, 12:42 PM
"do you know how fast you were going, sir?"
"well the car told me I was legal, but these VWs do lie...."

Actually rather glad I didn't put it to the test!


I somehow doubt that would work, unless you were an off duty Chief Constable or had a funny handshake. :rolleyes:

I fully accept that VW Audi Group should be punished for tinkering with the emissions system, but I don't see how VW drivers are the victims here.

Zuiko
9th January 2017, 01:57 PM
I somehow doubt that would work, unless you were an off duty Chief Constable or had a funny handshake. :rolleyes:

I fully accept that VW Audi Group should be punished for tinkering with the emissions system, but I don't see how VW drivers are the victims here.

As a Passat owner I see myself as a potential victim only if any of the following apply:-

1) Annual road tax becomes more expensive due to the poorer emission data.

2) I am forced to scrap my car due to the poor emissions.

3) The second hand value of my car reduces (hardly an issue as my car is over 10 years old).

I'm inclined to think that any compensation from VW should go to the Treasury and be specifically earmarked for research or implementation of future pollution reduction, as it is something that affects us all.

Walti
9th January 2017, 02:13 PM
As a Passat owner I see myself as a potential victim only if any of the following apply:-

1) Annual road tax becomes more expensive due to the poorer emission data.

2) I am forced to scrap my car due to the poor emissions.

3) The second hand value of my car reduces (hardly an issue as my car is over 10 years old).

I'm inclined to think that any compensation from VW should go to the Treasury and be specifically earmarked for research or implementation of future pollution reduction, as it is something that affects us all.

Mine is one of the "suspect software" cars and the revised software has apparently brought the car into line with the published data at all times, so VW are saying there can't be a retrospective change in vehicle excise duty.

The car may well need to be scrapped due to poor emissions, as with all cars, the emissions legislation is changing and UK could follow suit of some countries on insisting a minimum standard for older cars too, e.g. Switzerland insist cars are scrapped when they get to a certain age/emission standard.... BUT the UK doesn't do that and it's not a specific to VW group.

At present and rather surprisingly second hand values seem to have held up so far, I was expecting a hit on this come PX time...

Naughty Nigel
9th January 2017, 03:53 PM
I'm inclined to think that any compensation from VW should go to the Treasury and be specifically earmarked for research or implementation of future pollution reduction, as it is something that affects us all.

Exactly! Cars are recalled for all manner of problems nowadays, some major, some minor. To me this isn't a biggie for individual owners as their only inconvenience was having to take the vehicle to a dealer for modification. The work was probably performed at the same time as a service anyway.

I certainly don't see VW/Audi/Seat owners as the victims here. They didn't have to drive their cars, but we had to inhale their pollutants whether we liked it or not!

Certain Vauxhall Zafira models have been recalled more than once owing to fires in their cabin heating systems. More recently certain models of Corsa were found to have a similar problem.

Toyota had an even bigger problem involving the accelerator control system, which cost the lives of several people; yet I haven't heard any calls for mass compensation for Vauxhall or Toyota owners.

Some VW/Audi/Seat owners say they are claiming compensation because they bought their cars specifically for their low emissions, above and beyond anything else. What utter bullshit! *yes

If VW/Audi/Seat owners were seriously bothered about emissions and carbon footprint, etc. they would have bought a British built car to avoid the emissions involved in transporting their new vehicle half way around Europe.

There is a strong whiff of bovine poo around some of these claims, but an even stronger smell of 'get rich quick' Lawyers, who I understand are in line to collect 30% of any compensation payout! :rolleyes:

birdboy
9th January 2017, 04:02 PM
As someone who brought a VW based upon its low emissions statements made at the time in 2010 I am most upset at the response of VW. I brought the blue motion Tiguan version and following the software update my fuel consumption is worst by about 5 -10mpg. That is consistent with what VW tells me they have done to my car to lower the NOx levels which is to have changed the fuel injection pattern by injecting more fuel than it did before.

In the states the motor industry has limits on emission to do with CO2 and NOx. Thats why they had to pay compensation because they broke the law. In europe (and because the UK are currently in the EU) they only have limits on CO2. I do not know if VW did break the law in the UK and suspect that they may well have done because why else would they modify the engine mapping to lower NOx levels. Yes VW cheated its customers but the much bigger question is the limits on emission by all cars, particularly on NOx. I think VW have some of the better efficiency engines so why should VW owners be punished again.

Naughty Nigel
9th January 2017, 06:21 PM
The car may well need to be scrapped due to poor emissions, as with all cars, the emissions legislation is changing and UK could follow suit of some countries on insisting a minimum standard for older cars too, e.g. Switzerland insist cars are scrapped when they get to a certain age/emission standard....

Ships and diesel powered trains are routinely re-engined with new propulsion systems throughout their lives to gain from newer engine technologies, cleaner running, lower bunkering costs and so forth. I gather similar programmes are available for aircraft.

In my view it is about time this became a realistic proposition for cars.

iso
9th January 2017, 07:00 PM
IS NOT the real scandal that Diesel Fuel was promoted above Petrol? Higher Mileage & Cheaper:eek:

Naughty Nigel
9th January 2017, 07:16 PM
IS NOT the real scandal that Diesel Fuel was promoted above Petrol? Higher Mileage & Cheaper:eek:

Diesel was promoted because per unit of energy provided CO2 emissions are lower, and CO2/global warming is, or was seen as public enemy No 1.

The real scandal, for me, is that once again the baby has been thrown out with the environmental bathwater in an effort to reduce one pollutant whilst simultaneously increasing others.

Worse still, the legislation that made catalytic converters mandatory in the early 1990's very significantly increased CO2 emissions AND fuel consumption.

It was widely believed (and misreported) that catalytic converters were needed for tetraethyl lead to be removed from petrol, but that was incorrect. Suitable petrol engines will run perfectly well on lead free fuel without the need for catalytic converters.

The next scandal will be "pollution free" electric cars, which actually produce around double the CO2 emissions of diesel and petrol vehicles.

However, even if diesel powered cars were eradicated from our roads tomorrow there are millions of lorries, buses, trains and ships running on diesel, which it would be impractical, and probably unsafe to convert to petrol or LPG.

I certainly wouldn't want to go to sea on a petrol powered ship! :eek:

shenstone
9th January 2017, 09:12 PM
I quite agree Nigel - the cat was designed to deal with California smog and works well when good and hot and most short UK drives just don't get them properly up to speed

it would be fun to do a calculation between my 3 year old Diesel Suzuki with all current bells and whistles and my 29 year old Land rover as to which is overall most energy efficient overall - after all the investment to create the steel of the chassis of the Land rover has been spread across a lot of years

I'm not allowed to drive either of them in the new proposed ULEZ (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/complying-with-ulez) and it would cost me 100 to take the Land Rover into the London LEZ (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone/check-if-your-vehicle-is-affected?intcmp=2266) at all - not that I would want to at all - I've been to London this decade and that was enough

Anyway back to VW owners. I feed sad if people have lost from their pre-adjustment value, but agree that overall encouraging the compensation culture is not good

regards
Andy

Harold Gough
10th January 2017, 09:01 AM
Ships and diesel powered trains are routinely re-engined with new propulsion systems throughout their lives to gain from newer engine technologies, cleaner running, lower bunkering costs and so forth. I gather similar programmes are available for aircraft.

In my view it is about time this became a realistic proposition for cars.

Ships and planes are, typically, with one owner for decades.

Harold

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 10:27 AM
Ships and planes are, typically, with one owner for decades.

Harold

That is not entirely true.

It is true that the big, well known cruise liners tend to stay with one owner throughout their working lives, but other 'working' ships change hands on a fairly regular basis. It is also common practice for cruise ships to be lengthened by 40 metres or so mid-life to accommodate increasing numbers of passengers.

Likewise trains and aeroplanes change hands (often leasing companies), and operators throughout their lives. BA, somewhat unusually, tends to operate the same aeroplanes for decades, but they do have quite an old fleet.

Newer operators such as EasyJet and Ryanair don't want the maintenance overheads of an older fleet, so they tend to buy new aircraft, work them hard for a few years and then sell them on.

snaarman
10th January 2017, 10:30 AM
I'm a bit miffed that I have been hammered with 500 car tax for years on my 26mpg but low Nox petrol Subaru while my mates laughed at me because their efficient clean diesels are quoted at 70 mpg and are awarded low car tax.

Now it seems diesels were not that good after all - but the government won't be asking for retrospective car tax from them.

Harrumph, for no particulate reason.

:-)

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 11:21 AM
I'm a bit miffed that I have been hammered with 500 car tax for years on my 26mpg but low Nox petrol Subaru while my mates laughed at me because their efficient clean diesels are quoted at 70 mpg and are awarded low car tax.

Now it seems diesels were not that good after all - but the government won't be asking for retrospective car tax from them.

Harrumph, for no particulate reason.

:-)

I feel your pain. :)

I had a similar dilemma when I bought a new car last year. By choice I would have gone for the V8 supercharged petrol model, but the annual road tax would have been ridiculous; even though the MPG was actually quite good, (and probably better than a Prius at 69 MPH on the motorway). :rolleyes:

The dealer offered me the same car with a 3.0 litre V6 petrol engine, delivery mileage only at a very attractive price, and with a gorgeous engine note; but again the road tax was ridiculous, (about 550 a year if I recall).

In the end I took the 'sensible' option of buying the diesel model, which thanks to its low emissions has road tax of only 160 a year; but I now wonder how long for? :(

However, there is no tax concession for the fact that the vehicle was built in Britain, by British workers, and didn't have to be transported half way across Europe with associated emissions. Maybe that too will change under the new order?

Otto
10th January 2017, 12:03 PM
Are there any cars that are completely built in Britain any more? I thought most were assembled here from imported parts?

I changed my diesel car last year (the only diesel I've ever owned, I always said I'd never have one!) for a similar model with a petrol engine with a similar power output but which officially has lower emissions than the diesel, yet uses more fuel. I don't understand that either but anyway, my reasoning is that the greens have their sights set on banning diesel cars. The tax on my present car is 30 whereas the diesel version was 110 so the saving goes some way to offsetting the increased fuel consumption.

As for hybrids being less harmful to the environment I read somewhere recently that due to the increased weight (the batteries) they actually emit more particulate matter from their brakes than a modern diesel equivalent's exhaust! It has also been shown I think that the overall carbon footprint of a Toyota Prius (including the manufacture and disposal) is quite a bit more than an equivalent conventional car.

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 01:07 PM
Are there any cars that are completely built in Britain any more? I thought most were assembled here from imported parts?

JLR builds all of its vehicles in the UK, using British built engine blocks (formerly cast by Ford, but now home built).

Granted they use gearboxes built by XF in Germany, (ZF Friedrichshafen AG that is, not the model of car), along with various Bosch components, but it is all designed and built here in the UK.

You can even go on a tour of the Castle Bromwich factory to see them being built. (No photography allowed though.) As a point of interest, the firm's Brown's Lane factory was used to build the Spitfire aircraft; design cues from which have found their way into some recent models including the S-Type and current XJ.

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 01:22 PM
As for hybrids being less harmful to the environment I read somewhere recently that due to the increased weight (the batteries) they actually emit more particulate matter from their brakes than a modern diesel equivalent's exhaust! It has also been shown I think that the overall carbon footprint of a Toyota Prius (including the manufacture and disposal) is quite a bit more than an equivalent conventional car.

As I understand it the chemicals and chemical processes involved in the production of lithium ion batteries for electric and hybrid cars are an environmental disaster in the making.

But just like the power for electric cars the pollution is generated "somewhere else" so it doesn't matter. :mad:

Otto
10th January 2017, 01:52 PM
Ah yes, how could I forget JLR? :o. I grew up almost within sight of the Land Rover test track :). I was thinking more of Nissan, Honda, etc. I'm afraid my car was built in Italy; JLR products are a bit out of my price range!

Lithium-ion batteries are everywhere of course, in our phones and cameras as well as cars and aircraft. They are quite dangerous things really as owners of some Samsung phones, Sony laptops and Boeing Dreamliners will appreciate!

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 02:01 PM
I'm afraid my car was built in Italy; JLR products are a bit out of my price range!

Look again. You might be pleasantly surprised. :)

The way I look at it, you can buy a very nice one-year old JLR car with a few thousand miles on the clock for much the same cost as a new bog standard Eurobox. Running costs are comparable, or better.

Otto
10th January 2017, 02:23 PM
Depends what you mean by a bog-standard Eurobox. Jaguar doesn't make a hatchback and I don't want an SUV which rules out Land Rover. And I'd always wanted an Alfa Romeo :cool:.

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 03:46 PM
Depends what you mean by a bog-standard Eurobox. Jaguar doesn't make a hatchback and I don't want an SUV which rules out Land Rover. And I'd always wanted an Alfa Romeo :cool:.

I like Alfa's. They are quintessentially Italian at heart, as I am, so I wouldn't lump them in the Eurobox category.

But if you take the list price of (say) a new Astra, you could buy a very nice Jag with just a few thousand miles on the clock, and probably a much better residual value in five years time.

shenstone
10th January 2017, 03:48 PM
I'm afraid my car was built in Italy; JLR products are a bit out of my price range!

it depends on age something like 80% of the proper land rovers ever made are still on the road and available from about 1 upwards (depending on the level of rebuild needed - e.g. ebay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-LAND-ROVER-DISCOVERY-ES-TDI-AUTO-BALMORAL-GREEN-NO-RESERVE-GREAT-OFF-ROADER-/262800366494?hash=item3d301f5b9e:g:D4MAAOSwZQRYXDl-)) spares are dirt cheap compared to most other makes because of the numbers still running when old

BTW - Mine was built in Solihull and then rebuilt into an Ambulance in Cambridge

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 05:19 PM
it depends on age something like 80% of the proper land rovers ever made are still on the road and available from about 1 upwards (depending on the level of rebuild needed - e.g. ebay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1997-LAND-ROVER-DISCOVERY-ES-TDI-AUTO-BALMORAL-GREEN-NO-RESERVE-GREAT-OFF-ROADER-/262800366494?hash=item3d301f5b9e:g:D4MAAOSwZQRYXDl-))

I see the seller "Will post to United Kingdom." ;)

I wonder how much that would cost so send by RM Special Delivery, before 9.00 am? :D

Harold Gough
10th January 2017, 07:23 PM
I see the seller "Will post to United Kingdom." ;)

I wonder how much that would cost so send by RM Special Delivery, before 9.00 am? :D

Have it sent by Yodel and pretend to be out. Just watch them try to chuck that over a fence! :D

Harold

iso
10th January 2017, 07:45 PM
I note that this discussion has yet to get to LIGHT BULBS - The new may burn less electricity but are more greedy to produce and a disaster to dispose of.

Naughty Nigel
10th January 2017, 09:15 PM
I note that this discussion has yet to get to LIGHT BULBS - The new may burn less electricity but are more greedy to produce and a disaster to dispose of.

Light bulbs? :confused:

AMc
11th January 2017, 11:56 AM
In 2015 I drove my Golf GTi to Pamplona and back where VW make Polos. That holiday was 3 weeks and around 3000 miles but wasn't even 1/3rd of my annual mileage.
I'm sure that the journey used a lot more fuel than sticking a Polo on train/transporter and delivering it to East Anglia.
The environmental impact of transporting a car from where it is built is trivial in comparison to it's lifetime emissions.

Britain is manufacturing more cars per year than ever before, over 1.6million in the 1st 11 months of 2016, exporting 57% of them to the EU. Not every single component is manufactured in Britain, but then every complex mechanical device is assembled from parts manufactured all over the world.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2016/12/1-6-million-cars-roll-off-uk-production-lines-in-first-11-months-as-global-demand-reaches-new-high/


The hybrids are worse for the environment "argument" is based on a widely disputed study by CNW and a Daily Mail article.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

TLDR


One of the most misleading ones, which has been spread by countless blogs over the past several weeks, and cited without verification by several sources that appear reputable, looks to have originated in a story last November in England’s Daily Mail, a right-leaning, British tabloid paper, which bore the gleefully spiteful title ‘Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness.’

David Friedman, research director of the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, thinks that CNW’s results and apparent methodology bring red flags. “This study has been completely contradicted by studies from MIT, Argonne National Labs and Carnegie Mellon’s Lifecycle Assessment Group. The reality is hybrids can significantly cut global warming pollution, reduce energy use, and save drivers thousands at the pump,”

Toyota also says that the study uses an unrealistically low estimated lifetime for hybrids, and that there's no data to support its assumptions in this. For instance, according to the study the average Prius is expected to go 109,000 miles over its lifetime, while a Hummer H1 would go 379,000 miles. CNW says about hybrids: “…these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods.”

Naughty Nigel
11th January 2017, 12:35 PM
In 2015 I drove my Golf GTi to Pamplona and back where VW make Polos. That holiday was 3 weeks and around 3000 miles but wasn't even 1/3rd of my annual mileage.
I'm sure that the journey used a lot more fuel than sticking a Polo on train/transporter and delivering it to East Anglia.
The environmental impact of transporting a car from where it is built is trivial in comparison to it's lifetime emissions.

Britain is manufacturing more cars per year than ever before, over 1.6million in the 1st 11 months of 2016, exporting 57% of them to the EU. Not every single component is manufactured in Britain, but then every complex mechanical device is assembled from parts manufactured all over the world.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/2016/12/1-6-million-cars-roll-off-uk-production-lines-in-first-11-months-as-global-demand-reaches-new-high/


The hybrids are worse for the environment "argument" is based on a widely disputed study by CNW and a Daily Mail article.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

TLDR

Hmmm. Daily Mail, right leaning? Slight understatement there. :rolleyes:

But none of this alters the fact that charging an electric car using fossil fuels creates twice the quantity of CO2 per mile than a modern diesel or petrol engine. It is just that the electricity is generated 'somewhere else', so the pollution is unseen, and doesn't matter.

Hybrids provide some benefits if driven in mixed town and country conditions, where their batteries can be fully charged, but their fuel consumption (and CO2 emissions) are poorer on long motorway journeys than conventional drivetrains, whilst they provide no benefit at all if only driven in congested city centres.

The steam age, coal burning and the early days of internal combustion engines created huge pollution problems in cities which killed millions of people, including my own grandfather. But this pollution was self limiting as people simply couldn't live in it, so alternative ways had to be found.

Mankind has tackled these problems by creating cleaner pollution instead of preventing it. Unfortunately the pollution we make now is so clean we don't know we are creating it, but it is actually causing more harm to the wider world than the smogs seen in our cities in the first part of the 20th century.

I do not accept that polluting the countryside is the answer to inner city pollution problems, which is effectively what hybrid and electric cars do.

AMc
11th January 2017, 12:57 PM
The non-plugin hybrid generates it's power in the same way as a conventional petrol car.
The Prius delivers a perfectly acceptable mpg on the motorway for a 1.8l petrol car. It may be heavier due to the battery pack but the engine is tuned for efficiency with the electric motors providing additional power on demand so it doesn't need to be as thirsty as a similar sized 1.8l car to provide reasonable levels of acceleration and torque.
When driving a hybrid in town recovering the energy from braking makes a significant saving as does stop/starting the engine to replenish the battery and using the motor for low speed driving rather than stop/starting a petrol engine to provide instant power for low speed driving. This is where hybrids are at their most efficient so the provide significant benefits in congested cities which is why they are treated preferentially for the congestion charge in London and are popular with minicab drivers elsewhere.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius
http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/focus?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=

You have to run a petrol car on fossil fuels.
You can run a diesels on a variety fuels but none without a significant impact somewhere down the line.

You can power an all electric vehicle using renewable energy or conventional electricity.
In 2015-16 41.1% of the UK fuel mix is delivered from non CO2 sources (28.3% renewable and 12.9% nuclear) so even if the owner isn't using a 100% renewable tariff their vehicle is compensating for the inefficiencies in the supply chain for that power by the means of production.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/542570/Fuelmixdisclosurewebpage2016__3_.pdf

Naughty Nigel
11th January 2017, 03:33 PM
You would need rather more than 41.4% renewable electricity to compensate for losses in the electricity network, and especially for the inefficiencies of storage batteries, which need to be charged with around 1.6 times the actual power provided.

I also fail to see how a hybrid vehicle travelling at crawling speed in city traffic will have sufficient kinetic energy to generate worthwhile power with which to charge its batteries. Apart from anything else, the batteries would be unable to maintain hotel services (heating, lighting, aircon, entertainment, etc.) for long without running the engine to charge batteries.

On the odd occasions that I have been driven in hybrid cars I have been rather irritated by the way their engines constantly stop and start in traffic. They certainly don't seem to go very far on battery power alone.

I appreciate that hybrid vehicles are given preferential status with regard to taxation and congestion charges, but that does not prove their environmental credentials any more than the lower taxation presently afforded to diesel vehicles.

iso
11th January 2017, 06:35 PM
Light bulbs? :confused:

Yes Light Bulbs - I thought the general drift was about environment/pollution/intervention aka buy diesel/ just to name a few...

Naughty Nigel
11th January 2017, 06:41 PM
Yes Light Bulbs - I thought the general drift was about environment/pollution/intervention aka buy diesel/ just to name a few...

Oh do you mean the compact fluorescent lamps that ruin your eyesight and contain mercury?