diesel emission claims for Mercedes

**WTFH** · 28 March 2023, 10:47

Yes, it's a waste of time.
They will try it for ever car maker, every delayed airline flight, it's the compensation culture that has been adopted from the US.
If they can get enough people to sign up, then they might be able to put a case together, but first they'll need your details, then they'll want you to sign the agreement as to what fee they get if they win.
In the end, the customer loses as the car maker puts up prices to pay for their legal cover against the ambulance chasers.

At the time you bought the car did you feel conned or cheated, or was it just when a lawyer promised you thousands of pounds that you suddenly started to feel that way?

**Lance** · 28 March 2023, 13:00

Originally posted by WTFH View Post

At the time you bought the car did you feel conned or cheated, or was it just when a lawyer promised you thousands of pounds that you suddenly started to feel that way?

nope. Was very happy with the car.
I was under no illusion about the reality of emission claims.
But free $$$$ is free $$$$

**northernladuk** · 28 March 2023, 13:28

Originally posted by Lance View Post

nope. Was very happy with the car.
I was under no illusion about the reality of emission claims.
But free $$$$ is free $$$$

It's not free because the companys have to charge more to cover compensation claims.

**Snooky** · 28 March 2023, 14:03

Originally posted by Lance View Post

But free $$$$ is free $$$$

You may just be trolling, I don't know, but I really hate this attitude. This is how a country goes from being normal, like the UK used to be, to a litigous weirdo society like the USA, where companies and organisations refuse to do things because they're scared of being sued or because they just can't afford the legal insurance.

**Lance** · 28 March 2023, 15:03

Originally posted by Snooky View Post

You may just be trolling, I don't know, but I really hate this attitude. This is how a country goes from being normal, like the UK used to be, to a litigous weirdo society like the USA, where companies and organisations refuse to do things because they're scared of being sued or because they just can't afford the legal insurance.

So when VW have to spaff up $18b in compensation, you're OK with not claiming any of it because you hate the attitude?

The compensation culture stinks, but it's there, and if you don't at least partially join in, then you lose out double as you still have to pay the extra dues that society as whole demands (rightly or wrongly).

And I think that to suggest that US companies are scared to do things is bizarre. They are still the most dynamic economy, and the society with the most willingness to build companies that might fail. The compensation culture doesn't harm them that much (see mass shootings and gun control for other reasons Americans don't do what we think they should)

**Snooky** · 28 March 2023, 15:15

I have no problem with people who experienced genuine loss or distress being awarded appropriate compensation, but you already said you were very happy with the car and were under no illusion about the reality of emission claims, and you're just interested in the free money. In my book that's not particularly honest, but others probably disagree. It's just like those folk who happily paid bank charges and knew exactly what they were getting from them, but then piled in when Martin Lewis etc made it easy for them to make a claim. It's the same ambulance-chasing attitude.

As for the effects of the litigation culture, I've seen plenty of it in my time as a school governor, volunteering for charities and in various other situations. Things either don't happen, or have become inordinately complex, because of the effort or expense needed to ensure that their @rses are covered, litigation-wise. And I'm not talking about risk assessments for school trips etc, which at least have a solid basis in reason.

If you don't think that companies having to put the warning "May contain nuts" on a packet of peanuts is a sign of the fear of potentially successful litigation from stupid people, I guess you have a different idea of a litigation culture to me.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, so I'll stop commenting.

**northernladuk** · 28 March 2023, 15:20

Originally posted by Lance View Post

So when VW have to spaff up $18b in compensation, you're OK with not claiming any of it because you hate the attitude?

The compensation culture stinks, but it's there, and if you don't at least partially join in, then you lose out double as you still have to pay the extra dues that society as whole demands (rightly or wrongly).

I think what he is talking about is the way you phrased that exact statement, which I partly agree with snooky to be fair. When there VW scandal hit it directly affected the prices of some peoples cars so you would expect compensation. To expect compensation when you've not been affected is the point that becomes a bit of a moral maze. The statement you posted indicated you'd jump on the Merc claim even if you haven't been affected because it's free money. Morally it's pretty poor as Snooky points out.

And I think that to suggest that US companies are scared to do things is bizarre. They are still the most dynamic economy, and the society with the most willingness to build companies that might fail. The compensation culture doesn't harm them that much (see mass shootings and gun control for other reasons Americans don't do what we think they should)

I'd say what he says is true as well. It is the most dynamic economy but that does't mean it isn't the most litigous. I don't think they are scared as such but worried enough to spend a lot of time trying to avoid it and having a portion of income dedicated to claims. Here is an article with a load of examples. Most are pretty clear cut but in some of the comments it mentions the impact on the company.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/m...e-1326946.html

In the case of the stress and the holiday oprerator at the bottom it mentions the extra burden on companies to avoid this, and in a society that just wants 'free money' that burden is going to get higher and higher and more money will need to be added to the products to cover these unseen eventualities, so is not really free money. The whiplash pandemic is another example. Some people see it as their god given right to stick a whiplash claim in for every minor incident because it's free. But it isn't, it drives the price of insurance up and so on.

Not arguing any of these cases, but I think that was the point of Snookys post.

**Lance** · 28 March 2023, 16:16

How does 'free money' stack with 'pay as little tax as possible'?

We don't think twice about paying less tax by virtue of being contractors. The rules exist, so we use them.
Joe Public doesn't like us for doing it. HMRC sees us as tax avoiding chunts.

The moral stance on either of these things tend to vary, based on the context of the person observing them.
Reliance on peoples' morals in society has proven completely ineffective.

But this is getting a bit philosophical.

**northernladuk** · 28 March 2023, 18:41

Originally posted by Lance View Post

How does 'free money' stack with 'pay as little tax as possible'?

Paying less tax following the rules is completely different to jumping on the compensation train whene you didn't incur a loss. Totally different.

diesel emission claims for Mercedes