Lawyers should be a last resort for VW owners
Lawyers should be a last resort for VW owners, says Auckland law firm
Owners of Volkswagen and other makes of vehicles affected by the global emissions scandal are being advised by one law firm to consider lawyers as the last resort, and instead follow due process to recover any losses they might suffer as a result of stigma and devaluation associated with their vehicles.
A partner at general practise Auckland Law firm Stainton Chellew, Mr Henry Chellew, said the first stop for affected vehicle owners should be the dealer where they purchased the vehicle from and only if that fails, should they consider other remedies.
“Ask your Volkswagen dealer how they intend to put it right. If you have no joy, you could consider other legal remedies ahead of court action, which itself could be long, protracted and uncertain of success. In addition it may prevent you from achieving a quicker result.
“The Disputes Tribunal, which is a division of the District Court, can hear claims of up to $15,000. Lawyers are not allowed to represent parties or advocate on their behalf. It keeps out the big corporate lawyers who tend to represent multinational corporates like VW, and it’s a low cost, faster venue for resolution.”
More than 5,000 Kiwi owners of Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda 1.6-litre and 2-litre diesel engine vehicles – including Tiguan SUVs and Passat cars – are believed to be affected by the emissions deception. As a result they could find the value of their vehicles reduced by the stigma.
Mr Chellew said that a class action was an option, but that it may not be an easy road because the key element is to prove loss attributable to the emissions scandal.
“An identifiable loss requires the owner to be able to point to the issue and say that ‘my vehicle was worth this sum before the scandal, but as a result of that scandal it is now only worth this’ – bearing in mind that cars do devalue quickly anyhow, and therefore damages may be limited.”
He said VW owners could qualify for compensation under both the Fair Trading Act 1986 and also potentially the Sale of Goods Act 1908.
“Under the Fair Trading Act, section nine, there is no requirement for the misleading conduct to be intentional. In other words, the person who sold you the car does not need to be aware that he or she was misleading you or misrepresenting the product, only that it occurred.
“Under the Sale of Goods Act 1908, goods must conform to their description. So if sales descriptions make reference to the emissions output of the vehicle and those were false, then we can say the vehicle does not answer to its description,” Mr Chellew said.
For more information, visit http://www.staintonchellew.co.nz