MERCEDES DIESEL EMISSIONS SCANDAL

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

We believe Mercedes 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 Mercedes 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 Mercedes 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 Mercedes (and VW and Vauxhall) 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 Mercedes 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. 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 Mercedes 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 Mercedes knew that.

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

We estimate that over 600,000 UK drivers have purchased or leased a new or second-hand Mercedes during the period when we say Mercedes was cheating the tests. Each of these motorists could be eligible to claim compensation.

Drivers who bought a second-hand car from a registered Mercedes 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 Mercedes 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. 

This case is being brought via a Group Litigation Order (or ‘GLO’). A GLO is a procedural mechanism that allows lots of claims with “common or related issues” of fact and/or law to be managed together as one case. In February 2023, the High Court agreed this is the most appropriate way to manage the claim and granted the GLO. The GLO was ordered by the Court in May 2023, constituting the action.

The VW litigation which has now settled also proceeded under a GLO.

There is real momentum in the Mercedes claim. The High Court granted a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) in 2023 and Milberg London is working hard to progress your claims in accordance with the GLO.

For instance, all c. 70,000 of Milberg’s clients under this claim have been asked to complete a “Schedule of Claimant Information” survey regarding their period of ownership of the vehicle(s) they are claiming for in alignment with the GLO. This is a crucial and essential step in the litigation as it has been ordered by the Court. It is beneficial for each client to engage in the survey as it will assist in validating the claim against the Defendants while the answers may also be used to quantify any compensation that may be owed to each client upon the success of the claim.

Similarly, the Claimant firms have served multiple iterations of the Group Register on the Defendants. The Group Register records details of all Claimants bringing a claim against Mercedes and identifies which law firm they are being represented by. We have a duty to ensure that information recorded in the Group Register is accurate and reflects each claim we are proceeding with or have taken steps to discontinue based on information provided.

As ordered by the Court, the Claimants have served their Generic Particulars of Claim on the Defendants, which sets out our claim against them in general terms common to all Claimants, and the Defendants have now filed their Generic Defences, in which they have denied the claims against them. The Claimants also submitted a Generic Reply to respond to further points outlined in the Defendants’ Generic Defence.

The Court is actively managing the NOx emissions claims with the aim of ensuring the cases are dealt with promptly, fairly and proportionately. The 13 emissions cases against various manufacturers are collectively known as the “Pan-Nox Emissions Litigation”. To better manage the monumental litigation, the Court has appointed 4 cases out of these 13 to proceed as the “Lead GLOs”. These include Mercedes, Ford, Renault/Nissan and Peugeot/Citroen. Central points of contention between each case will be decided simultaneously through the Lead GLOs. It would be inefficient for all claims to proceed through the Courts at the same time with the possibility of different rulings in different cases and would be an extreme burden on the Court and the Claimant law firms’ resources.

A trial took place in October 2024 to consider the extent to which the decisions of German regulators can be said to be binding on the decisions of the Courts of England and Wales. The Claimants won this trial and the only German regulatory decisions which will bind the Courts of England and Wales are those which have identified prohibited defeat devices in the cars.

A factual trial is due to take place in October 2025 in the Lead GLOs to determine whether there are / were defeat devices in vehicles made and supplied by these manufacturers. Crucially, this will be a public trial. It will then be considered to what extent these devices were illegal. In the run up to this trial the legal team is doing a significant amount of work on technical expert analysis of the vehicles in question and their software in order to prepare our case for trial.

We will keep you informed and updated on the progress of these claims. Please look out for our frequent case update emails and double check your junk / spam folders if you have not received them recently.

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 (see above). If the claim is successful, the lawyers are paid from the compensation recovered from Mercedes. 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 4 to 6 weeks.

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.

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.

Mercedes was selected as a Lead GLO, as mentioned above. This means that the Mercedes claim will be one of the first cases of the 13 ongoing emissions cases to proceed to trial. The first trial is scheduled to take place Autumn 2025 and will likely create significant pressure for Mercedes.

Please stick with us, we believe we will be successful, and we are making good progress on the case, one step at a time, with lots of hard legal work going on behind the scenes. Thank you for trusting us!

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.