VAUXHALL DIESEL EMISSIONS SCANDAL

Unfortunately, the wheels of justice turn slowly, and group actions of this scale and complexity take many years to work their way through the Court system. We are required to work through the English Court system and the many procedural steps required by the rules, thus the speed at which cases move is not entirely within the control of the Claimants or their lawyers and depends on the availability of the Courts as well as the conduct of the Defendants. However, a lot of progress has been made recently. It is possible the case is resolved in the next 24 months. There is also always the possibility that claims will settle before the Court process comes to an end, for example as with the settlement recently reached with VW in relation to the VW NOx Emissions Claim. Please stick with us, we believe we will be successful in the end and we are making good progress on the case in the meantime, with lots of hard work going on behind the scenes.

Not directly. We believe all car manufacturers installed defeat devices differently so the technical case against Vauxhall will be different. However, broadly speaking, we believe this settlement is a positive development for all emissions cases in this jurisdiction.

We believe Vauxhall installed defeat devices in certain Diesel cars that were designed to reduce emissions levels in a regulatory test environment. Without passing these tests, the cars would not have been cleared to drive on UK roads. Put simply, we believe Vauxhall cheated the emissions tests. The software appears to have identified when the engine was operating under regulatory test conditions and reduced the levels of pollutants being pumped out so it passed the test. But this kind of environmental performance could never be replicated under real life driving conditions. The defeat device Vauxhall created is different in its details to what Volkswagen used in the Dieselgate scandal but the effect (and we say, clearly the intention) was broadly the same.

A defeat device is any element of design, software or hardware in a car which detects different vehicle conditions (e.g. temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed etc) and adjusts or disables the car’s emission control system. In the case of Vauxhall (and VW and Mercedes) the manufacturers appear to have written software into the computer unit that controls the engine.

The practical effect of a defeat device is that it can detect when it is in a test environment (because the tests have standard conditions which the defeat device can be designed to identify) and tell the engine it needs to reduce the emissions it is producing in order to pass that test.

By contrast, when the car is outside of a test environment (i.e., most if not all of the time), it recognises that and the vehicle pumps out unlawful levels of NOx and other pollutants without the driver realising.

The reason for using a defeat device appears to have been that the engines in question could not meet the emissions test and produce an acceptable consumer driving experience.

Assuming the claim succeeds, drivers that purchased, financed or leased a new or used Diesel Vauxhall between 2009 and 2019 did so on a false premise and may be able to receive compensation.

These consumers had a reasonable expectation their car would meet certain environmental and performance standards. That’s what they were promised in the glove compartment handbook.

The reality was that the cars were far more polluting than drivers were told. They pumped more harmful substances like NOx into the atmosphere, which are known to cause thousands of premature deaths a year in the UK – academic research has also established that long-term exposure to air pollution increases the risk of serious infection and death from COVID 19. Unable to meet international emissions standards, these cars should never have been on the road.

The cars would also be worth less than the drivers paid for them (because Vauxhall did not deliver an environmentally compliant car which also met performance expectations) and are worth even less today in the second-hand car market. Drivers were sold a combination of environmental impact and driving performance that was a fiction – it could never happen under normal conditions and Vauxhall knew that.

Put simply, Vauxhall did not provide the car drivers paid for.

We estimate that over one million UK drivers have purchased or leased a new or second-hand Vauxhall during the period when we say Vauxhall was cheating the tests. Each of these motorists could be eligible to claim compensation.

Drivers who bought a second-hand car from a registered Vauxhall dealership may be eligible for compensation too. Their losses may be lower than motorists who paid more for a new car.

This will depend on a range of factors including how much drivers paid for their car and how much harm the Court determines Vauxhall caused by its behaviour. Under consumer protection law motorists could recover between 25% and 75% of the price of their vehicle depending on the severity of the misleading or aggressive practice or the difference between the market price of the product at the time of sale, and the price paid.  This could be many thousands of pounds, even for second-hand owners.

Purchasers of affected cars have already been awarded compensation in other countries. Below are some examples of pay outs in similar cases in other countries. Remember, however, that the English Courts are not bound by these decisions and will have to make their own calculation of loss for vehicle owners.

In the US, claimants received between US$5,000 and US$10,000 from VW and between US$822.50 and US$3,290 from Mercedes.

In Spain, VW claimants were awarded €3,000 each. 

In Germany, there has been a large range of awards against VW ranging from €1,000 to tens of thousands of Euros for each claimant (against Daimler/Mercedes, awards of over €40,000 have been given).

In the Netherlands, a court declared that first-hand VW owners were entitled to €3,000 and second-hand VW owners were entitled to €1,500. 

The VW litigation proceeded through the Courts under a GLO before the claim was settled and Milberg London think a GLO should be used for the Vauxhall claim as well.

A lot of progress has been made in the last 12 months and there is real momentum. Milberg London has issued claims on behalf of tens of thousands of clients at Court and is spearheading the legal work, together with other claimant firms, and has one of the largest groups of clients in this case. A substantive letter before action was sent to Vauxhall last year and the legal team have engaged in several rounds of correspondence with Vauxhall’s lawyers with regards to certain procedural matters and case management. Milberg London anticipates filing an application for a GLO imminently.

Milberg London are representing their clients through a Damages Based Agreement (‘DBA’). A DBA means all of Milberg London’s fees depend on the success of the case and the level of those fees is determined as a percentage of the compensation recovered. It also provides that a steering committee of representative claimants have authority to instruct the lawyers on behalf of the group. This is because it would be impossible for Milberg London to take instructions from everyone individually.

No.

The lawyers only get paid if there is a win at the end of the case. If the claim is successful, the lawyers are paid from the compensation recovered from Vauxhall. If the case is unsuccessful, the customers pay nothing.

Any costs that need to be paid up-front or along the way (e.g. barristers, Court fees and experts) are covered by either Milberg London on a self-funding basis or by a litigation funder. The litigation funder is paid back at the end of the case out of the lawyers’ share of the compensation – not the consumer’s (see below).

The lawyers are Milberg London, part of an international group of firms with significant experience of consumer and group litigation.

Milberg London are self-funding certain aspects of the case with the support of their affiliates in the US. Milberg London have also entered into a funding arrangement with an ALF third party funder.

Our legal team are working hard behind the scenes to progress your claim and are making good headway. We will endeavour to provide you with regular updates every 6 to 8 weeks with developments happening in your case.

In addition, you can always get in touch with your Case Manager for an update, email [email protected] or call us on 020 3824 6541.

There are a number of reasons why a vehicle may be ineligible:

• It was not manufactured within the relevant time period.

• It is not a model we have identified as being affected by the Diesel emissions scandal.

• We do not have enough information or documentation from you in order to validate your claim.

That is not a problem. We believe you still have a valuable claim even though you have sold the vehicle. Your claim and loss will be based on the period you owned the car. You can still join our group.