Gansel Rechtsanwälte

At the beginning it was not so easy for a non-lawyer to understand everything, but everything was explained and very understandable . It is a great team but one name I would like to mention, Mr. Haddat Thank you for the nice conversations ! With a little patience the result was right and that's what it's all about . Your office is a recommendation for anyone who still wants to do something in the matter of diesel scandal. Thank you again to the whole team! Holger Riewe

I cannot recommend this law firm. In my case (Diesel Scandal), they failed to keep the date of the appeal without consulting me. Now they are saying that the proceedings are more or less without a chance. Before that, I was always told how good my chances were. I simply believe that they 'slept through' the appointment. I expect a different kind of work from a team of experts. I find the performance amateurish.

VW emissions scandal individual lawsuit.
VW T6 affected
Gansel requests the same documents many times.
Operationally completely incompetent!
Clearly that one cannot win this.
Simply bad.

I can only warn this law firm even with any case to care. The only thing that counts here is the profit! You are wooed with great promises and nice phone calls, after you have then given the mandate changes abruptly.

The only thing this law firm does professionally and extremely quickly is to obtain coverage from the legal protection insurance, after which you are then in a lost position.

Communication is exclusively online, if you can call it communication at all. Communication is exclusively with some call center agents who have no idea at all, there are contradictory and partly false statements, in the online customer center documents are filed incompletely, half are missing and the status is never correct. When asked about deadlines, on the one hand it was said that no reply had to be sent to the court, but 2 days later it did arrive, something as unprofessional as this should not be called a lawyer.

The statements of claim and the reply consist for the most part only of copy&paste and text modules. Yes even I as a layman have it when read through can hardly believe the sentences and whole sections partly double and triple repeat themselves, in the same writing! What should think there only a judge?

In the end, the complaint was dismissed. What I have received but before this information was ... well guess ... the request for coverage for the next instance at my legal protection. Fits into the picture, mandate terminated, richer by one experience: never again Gansel and never again dubious "Internet law firms" which seem to have completely lost their professional honor and the welfare of the client and are only after the money!

The employees care very reliable and hope that I get the money soon!
I advise all affected to contact this law firm, dare, it's worth it 👍🙏🙏

The trust in this law firm is zero stars with me.
In the diesel scandal proceedings I almost lost my car for very little money.
After such a legal advice I will next time better think about whether I go to the lawyer.
Especially online I will not do that again.

At the moment, I have an ongoing case about a car loan revocation. At the court hearing, the judge still had questions. These could not be clarified by the lawyer sent. For nearly 2 weeks I try to reach now someone with Gansel of the attorneys - so far unsuccessfully - on recall requests no recall comes. In the telephone announcement menu the message comes one is to book itself a recall date - unfortunately there are no dates available.... Deadline now runs out in 4 days from the court and you just do not hear anything from Gansel.... I am really disappointed at the moment.

Unfortunately, I also let myself be influenced by the advertising of the law firm Gansel for the revocation of car financing by the so-called revocation joker and contacted this law firm. According to the initial assessment of June 2021, a "successful revocation in my case was promising". I then provided the law firm with all the requested documents. In August 2021, after a "thorough review" of the documents, I was sent a mandate agreement, which was essentially aimed at agreeing a settlement with the lender in which he would make a payment and take back the financed vehicle. The costs for the first step of enforcing the claims etc. were to be borne by a legal cost financer in return for a contingency fee of 35% of the amount recovered. Furthermore, the mandate agreement states: "Should no agreement be reached with your bank, the legal cost financer will prepare an individual legal cost financing offer for the claim after a renewed examination and existing chances of success". I accepted this offer of mandate, which seemed very fair to me, and concluded the mandate agreement.
I was then informed by the law firm about the "client cockpit", in which one is to be informed at any time about the state of affairs and can view all documents. In October 2021, I then viewed the client cockpit and discovered that the documents I had sent were only very incomplete and that nothing had been done by the law firm even about 10 weeks after the conclusion of the mandate agreement. I then sent all the documents again, complained about the inactivity of the law firm and set a deadline of 01.11.21 to send a claim letter to the bank. This was then also done exactly on 01.11.21 and answered with the same date rejecting from the bank. Thereupon, another claim letter was sent to the bank on 11/16/21. The last sentence of this letter states: "Before we take legal action, we request feedback within 14 days of receipt of this letter, i.e. by 30 November 21, as to whether a settlement agreement is possible. It should also be noted that I have repeatedly pointed out to the law firm, both verbally and in writing, that the bank had violated the statutory creditworthiness check. These references were not addressed in any way, nor were they mentioned in the claim letters to the bank.
When then also after 30 November 21 nothing more happened, I have inquired in January 22 after the state of affairs and received on it only general and putting off answers from the Kanzlei. Thereupon my collar burst and I complained to Dr. Timo Gansel personally. Of course, this also remained without response. In March 22, I then received the following message from the "expert team" of this law firm:
"We have tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the other side. This was not successful. The only way to enforce your claims with the arguments you have presented would be to take legal action. However, taking legal action without legal protection involves a considerable cost risk, so we cannot recommend it. Since we proceeded out of court with a financier of legal costs, you will not incur any costs for our action. Unfortunately, we do not have a financier for legal proceedings". These are my rough experiences with the working methods of the Gansel law firm. Documents are filed incompletely, client notices are ignored, and work is only done when client complaints are received. The firm's promotional videos promise a lot, but hardly any promises are kept. I can't help feeling that client acquisition is the highest priority for this firm, as evidenced by the extensive advertising activities. However, I wonder how this law firm earns its money? I did not pay anything for their activities, but I wonder why I was offered legal representation in the first place after preliminary examination and thorough review of the documents submitted? I assumed that such successful and experienced lawyers only accept mandates that they are convinced will be successful. Why would such a supposedly successful law firm accept mandates whose outcome is highly uncertain from the outset after reviewing the documents? Why would the legal cost funder agree to fund such uncertain mandates? Did the employees of the law firm fail in the preliminary examination of my case because they completely misjudged the legal situation? To answer these questions, only one explanation seems logical to me, which of course I cannot prove: I do not think it is impossible that law firms, legal cost financiers and banks are working together in some way here. As I said, this is not an assertion on my part, but merely a suspicion that I cannot prove. For the reasons outlined above, I can only strongly advise against being represented by this law firm. If you take a closer look at the evaluations on the Internet, you will see that I am by far not the only client who is absolutely not in agreement with the "services" of this law firm. Have decisive mistakes also been made in these cases during the preliminary examination and/or has the "expert team" failed?
In any case, I am completely satisfied and hope very much that this law firm will be prevented as soon as possible from doing its (legal) mischief with people seeking help.

No one knows what and everyone goes along with it. Even one star is too much.
Unbelievable what goes on in the call center. You don't get a lawyer to talk to.
Delaying tactics are a big issue there.
I am completely dissatisfied with the work of this law firm. Agreements made are not kept. Documents of other clients are sent. Diligence, data protection missing!!!
Simply a rip-off!!!

I made use of Gansel's promotional offer of "no-risk litigation" and now have nothing but a few hundred euros less than before. I was not informed about the risks, which do exist, as one would expect from a lawyer. When asked, I was treated as if my lawyer was working against me instead of for me. It's my own fault, of course, because I didn't read the fine print. I thought I had hired a lawyer for this. In retrospect, it feels more like I had a newspaper subscription sold to me at the door under false promises. But at least I would have had a newspaper... My advice: Don't trust too much.

Absolutely not recommended!!! Simply a disaster!!!
No one knows what and everyone goes along with it.
Even one star is too much.
Unbelievable what is going on in the call center. You don't get a lawyer to talk to.
Stalling tactics are a big issue there.
I am completely dissatisfied with the work of this law firm. Agreements made are not kept. Court dates are missed by lawyers, without justification.

Unfortunately, contrary to expectations, I had to make the experience yesterday that I cannot rely on the lawyers, although I had a positive impression so far regarding my vehicle financing revocation. Yesterday, out of the blue, I received a letter telling me that I should now transfer the amount of 751.36 € demanded by the bank: "We assume that the bank has quantified the vehicle value approximately correctly. Since, according to current case law, compensation for lost value must be paid, further action is unlikely to result in any actual economic benefit for you." That was a shock for me, since now not only the vehicle is futsch, but I am to settle still additionally the over 700 €, as well as have I on recommendation a vehicle evaluation provide to let, thus only losses. There was never any talk of this before, it was always conveyed confidence that the legal dispute to my satisfaction, but unfortunately I am now richer by an unpleasant experience, I'm really pissed and feel processed...

My revocation action has been running since June 2021. A court date in Cologne 1 week before Christmas was put on hold and from January 17, 2022 both parties should react anew. 2 e-mails from mid-January and last week have so far remained unanswered. An interim response was also not sent to me at my request. I do not find this very customer-friendly.
Previous information always came only after my request.

I am thrilled!
I called and after the second ring already reached a very friendly and above all very competent lady.
This was able to answer my labor law questions very well, has taken time for my request , which I also still with a subsequent question for me fully answered to my satisfaction.
Many thanks to the great, unbureaucratic, Fast, uncomplicated and highly competent advice!

Quickly got through, competent and well comprehensible advice... that's how it should be!

Lawyers were tricked in settlement negotiations with VW in the emissions scandal. After deduction of the fees, they received less than in the case of the Musterfeststellungsklage. Lawyers always win.

No personal contact possible. Everything online only. The customer is not the focus. I cannot recommend the firm in any case.

In court, my Audi A6 diesel engine was sued with 72 pages of statement of claim because of an inadmissible defeat device on the part of Audi AG. In the presentation at court was an uninformed subcontracted lawyer who was completely uninformed. My Audi diesel does not yet have Adblue, but the entire statement of claim referred to such an engine, so the judge had no choice but to dismiss the claim. Bottom line: sloppy preparation, faulty presentation and all with unengaged lawyers. It was a single tragedy that obviously also the legal protection insurance had to pay. Rip-off!!!

You ask how satisfied we are with "Janik" (BOT). We are extremely dissatisfied with the law firm Gansel. Only a claim for return of the vehicle (diesel scandal) is allowed, not, as previously assured, also on claiming a depreciation, if you want to keep the Fz. A recall or a written confirmation that this was also possible did not take place despite tel. contact, in which this was assured to us. Obviously here complaints on return of the vehicle, with which 35% of the amount to the RA flow, are preferred. With complaint on comparison or depreciation only 15% beckon.
By phone, the law firm is very difficult to reach, you hang in a queue and fly out after some time there simply. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this law firm in any way.

Simply bad.