The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

So far this year BMW has recalled 312,000 cars in the UK over a stalling issue whilst Toyota has issued two notices worldwide for 3.4 million recalls. VW and Seat have recalled Polos, Aronas and Ibiza’s over malfunctioning rear seatbelt buckles. Whilst recalls are becoming more common, if you receive a notice it doesn’t always make it clear as to what you are supposed to do.

Being told that you have a safety recall can be worrying but how serious should it be taken? Are manufacturers forced to issue recalls? How are the recalls issued? In an exclusive interview with Auto Express Neil Barlow, head of vehicle engineering at the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), explained how the system works.

The most critical level of recall is the ‘Stop Drive Recall’. This is very serious but very rare apparently. If this recall is issued it’s a little like an aeroplane being grounded, the car must not be driven. Next level is a Safety Recall. This is the most common recall that the DVSA has to deal with. Neil explained this as follows, ‘Where a vehicle or component is deemed by our engineers, usually along with the manufacturers’ engineers, to present some safety risks.’

Drivers can continue driving the affected car whilst waiting for the problem to be fixed, ‘Unless informed otherwise,’ according to Mr Barlow. The DVSA also gets involved when a manufacturer has ‘non-code actions’ and ‘service campaigns’, where it will assist them to contact owners regarding defects that do not present a serious safety risk.

According to Mr Barlow, they hear about problems mainly from manufacturers and they can sometimes hear about the issues from dealers who have had drivers come in with consistent faults. Drivers can also report issues directly to the DVSA via DVSA online.

8 Dedicated engineers and 350 examiners are on hand to assist with inspections. Once a fault has been identified the engineers discuss a fix with the manufacturer. Car brands are obliged to advise the DVSA if they identify safety-related problems and a recall notice issued if the fault is likely to affect the ‘safe operation’ of the car or may ‘pose a significant risk to the driver, occupants and others’.

Recently there have been several press reports when it came to light that the DVSA recommended a safety recall be issued but the manufacturer initially refused. This has now been cleared up as a result of the DVSA taking legal advice. The result is that the DVSA can insist on notices being issued. If the manufacturers don’t conform the DVSA can take legal action or place a suspension notice on vehicles that are affected to prevent them from being sold.

If you receive a notice you should contact your local dealer or follow the instructions included in the notice. Notices are sent by recorded delivery but the problem faced by manufacturers and the DVSA is that too many drivers don’t respond to the notice. Then sell the car to an unsuspecting purchaser.

As Barlow pointed out it is possible for drivers to check their cars to see if there is an outstanding recall notice by visiting www.check-mot.service.gov.uk. Drivers may have to pay for remedial work when it relates to ‘non-code actions’ but work done under a safety recall should be free of charge. By Graham Hill

I won’t go into the fine detail but the driver of an F-Type had the under bonnet pedestrian airbag deploy twice without the need to, costing him £4,000 as the dealer and the manufacturer refused to accept that there was a manufacturing or design fault and therefore refused a warranty claim.

What Car got involved but still no joy. In the meantime, fearing that the airbag would deploy again the driver, Aiden Magee, stopped using the car. What Car then recommended that he lodge a complaint with the Motor Ombudsman. After investigating, their adjudicator stated he didn’t think that it was a manufacturing defect as it only affected around 2% of F-Types. WHAT THE F!!!! Are they serious?

OK, so it isn’t a manufacturing defect if only 2% of electric kettles blow up! Or if the brakes only fail on 2% of a particular model of car. What a disgraceful argument. But it gets worse. But before I get to that I should point out that the Motor Ombudsman isn’t like the Financial Ombudsman, financed by the Government they are an independent profit-making body set up to confuse customers.

They are paid for by their member dealers so they can hardly be considered as independent. In fact in some promotional text I managed to see, they explain that being a member of the group and paying fees gives all members great publicity giving the public confidence in using those signed up to the ‘code’. So it’s a marketing con. Here are the reviews on Trustpilot:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.themotorombudsman.org

As the car was pre-2016 when Jaguar changed its handbook to say that the pedestrian protection system was active between 12mph and 31mph they felt that as he didn’t know that he had to drive the car at speeds of lower than 12mph when approaching obstacles that Jaguar should pay for the first repair. However, as he had been made aware of the constraints when the first airbag was replaced he was responsible for the second deployment.

None of the above made any sense to me. The ‘Ombudsman’ said that the ‘fault’ only affected 2% of all F-Types so not a manufacturing fault but then referred to the fact that there was no note of the way the pedestrian airbag deployed in the handbook, being the reason why the first replacement should have been made under the warranty but even though no pedestrian was involved in the second deployment the car owner should be responsible.

Not surprising I don’t recommend that you ever use the Motor Ombudsman – what a waste of space. I’m currently attempting to find out if legal expense insurance will cover you for warranty claims. By Graham Hill

I recently announced in my newsletter that the Government was going to pull the plug (get it) on electric vehicle and hybrid grants in November. Hybrid cars that have an electric, zero-emission, range of less than 70 miles were to have their grants reduced to zero and the grants for full electric vehicles were to drop from £4,500 to £3,500.

Whilst drivers brought forward their purchases to benefit from the last of the grants the Government forgot to mention that there was a pot of grant available and when that pot went so did the old grants and the new grants were to kick in.

So imagine the shock when car dealers and leasing company staff rocked up for work on Monday to find that the new grant structure was effective from Monday morning. Presumably, because the old pot of grant money had gone by Sunday night. The Government revealed that qualifying car sales increased by 6 fold following the Government’s announcement.

I covered the announcement in a previous blog/post so I won’t repeat but we are already behind most of Europe when it comes to charger infrastructure and the take-up of hybrids and EV’s is still low even though the higher uptake of the two is the reason given by the Government for people buying hybrids and EV’s. More would take electric vehicles if there was less anxiety over the range, hence the popularity of hybrids.

Personally, I think that removing the grants on hybrids is a bad move. Many used it as a stepping stone towards a full electric but they are now being pushed out of the market and back into petrol and diesel cars purely because of cost – retro-move! By Graham Hill

The Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that an amazing 1 in 4 drivers who died on our roads in 2017 wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Official figures revealed that 1,793 people were killed on UK roads last year. Of those, 27% were not wearing a seatbelt, up from 20% the previous year.

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is currently £100 which rises to £500 if the case goes to court. Clearly, this isn’t enough of a deterrent. As much as we hated Jimmy Saville his clunk click campaigns worked but what on earth causes drivers not to belt up when they get into a car? It just doesn’t make sense. We need some new campaigns to make drivers aware of the dangers that still exist.

On to cars:

Cars are exposed to dangers as a result of ineffective speed bumps. A survey carried out by Confused.com revealed that over a fifth of drivers had experienced car damage as a result of speed bumps with repairs costing an average of £141. Whilst not classed as a road defect local authorities have paid out over £35,000 over the last two years in compensation.

Confused.com surveyed 2,000 motorists of whom 22% reported damage caused by driving over a speed bump of which there are 29,000 in the UK. Tyre damage was the most common – in 48% of the cases followed by 33% reporting suspension damage. 41% felt that speed bumps caused too much damage whilst a quarter said that they did nothing to reduce speed – probably the drivers who sustained damage to their cars – idiots!

Advice from Confused.com’s motoring editor, Amanda Stretton was to check the height of the speed hump if they sustained damage whilst driving at a reasonable speed to see if you qualify for compensation. Might have been handy to explain what that height should be! By Graham Hill

If you’re like me you’re probably getting sick to death with hearing about it every single time you turn on the news or a political programme but it’s already starting to affect us. But we also have to be aware of the fact that Brexit is becoming a bit of a ‘catchall’ for all things wrong in a variety of industries.

Mini is bringing its ‘planned annual maintenance’ forward to 1^st April 2019 just after we officially leave the EU. This will mean that the factory will shut for a month whilst they carry out urgent repairs but most understand that a slow down in sales has resulted in a drop in demand.

So they will shut the plant for a month to carry out ‘maintenance’ whilst the order book hopefully recovers. The official reason is that immediately following Brexit they could run into a major parts supply issue so they are taking precautions sooner rather than later – really?

In my view they need a change in design. You have to add in a Chili Pack to any of the models to get to the basic spec. of most competitors. The rates are keen but compared to the latest designs of A3, Golf, A Class and 1 Series the Mini is no longer current. Up the spec. levels and make the cars funkier. Low sales have nothing to do with Brexit.

In addition to the Mini factory shut down Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) have announced a 3 day week at their Castle Bromwich production plant affecting 3,000 workers. Again down to poor management. The factory builds XE, XF, XJ Saloons and F Type sports cars. Having been given the new emissions test rules in September 2017 they had a year to meet those standards.

It is my understanding that when their cars were tested they were failing the new tests which meant that they had to change the design of their cars to bring down the emissions. In turn, they shut down their order book and when customers couldn’t get their new Jaguar they simply turned to other manufacturers such as Mercedes, BMW and Audi.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have expressed concerns for a bad deal or no deal Brexit. The average new car price is set to increase by £1,500 when imported into the UK under WTO tariffs with our exported cars into the EU increasing by £2,700 making our cars less attractive with the production plants potentially moving to the EU.

And not just the car builders, there is a raft of manufacturers that will feel the negative results following Brexit. From car carpets to dashboards there are component manufacturers that may feel the need to set up plants in Europe as the new duty charges and cost in delivery, especially if we see queues at the ports, result in costs increasing significantly.

The problem is that I’m not seeing a solution. Whilst most leavers that I know believed in the rhetoric that was being bandied about at the time of the vote that the likes of Germany and France wouldn’t want us to have no trade deal – which I believe is true but if I was in Belgium, Austria and say the Netherlands with no car manufacturing, seeing the opportunity of enticing UK manufacturers into their countries would be a great encouragement to vote no at any deal.

Time will tell but I’m seeing some very painful times ahead. Getting out is one thing but getting out with the right deal is something completely different. By Graham Hill

New rules came into force in May with the most controversial being the visual test applied to diesel cars. I mentioned in earlier posts that the examiner now has to look at the tailpipe of any diesel to see if there is smoke, of any colour, emitting from the exhaust. If there is it’s an immediate fail.

The other visual check is for any tampering of the particulate filter. Any signs of tampering is also an immediate fail. Following the new tests the Prestige Motor Warehouse carried out a survey amongst 50 MOT stations across the UK and found that in the first 3 months following the rule changes the number of cars failing their MOT testa has increased by 24%.

With other rules either tightened or introduced there was also a 12% increase in petrol engine failures. Other new checks included under-inflated tyres, contaminated brake fluid, and fluid leaks, these being responsible for several of the failures. There is certainly no reason to fail on tyre pressure, a quick visit to a garage before going for the test should sort that out. By Graham Hill

The Press Association has carried out an investigation into vehicle thefts and found that between March 2017 and March 2018 theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle in England and Wales was 106,334, the highest since 2009/10. But even more worrying was the fact that 81,778 of these cases were concluded as ‘Investigation complete, no suspect identified’.

This means that 77% of all thefts resulted in no suspects being identified or arrested. That is frankly shocking. In the West Midlands it was even worse with 91% of car theft cases being closed with no suspect being identified. London’s Metropolitan police was a little lower at 85% of cases being closed for the same reasons.

All but 5 of the 44 forces analysed closed at least half of car theft cases with no suspects identified. When taken up with the Home Office a spokesman said, ‘We recognise that crime is changing and police demand is becoming increasingly complex, (no I don’t know what that means either). That’s why we have provided a strong and comprehensive £13 billion funding settlement to ensure the police have the resources they need to carry out their vital work.’

Well I’ve news for you sunshine, they ‘aint spending it on catching bloody car thieves! By Graham Hill

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

If you think it’s OK but you haven’t had your eyes tested for a few years – if ever, you should think about it seriously or risk losing your licence – instantly! Three constabularies are stopping motorists and asking them to read a number plate 20 metres away. If they can’t they are being prevented from driving by having their licence revoked on the spot.

The initiative is being run in Hampshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley. The results will be analysed and decisions made as to whether to roll out across England and Wales. Safety organisation Brake and Vision Express are calling for a vision test when car licences are renewed every 10 years. Joshua Harris, Campaign Director for Brake said, ‘It is frankly madness that there is no mandatory requirement on drivers to have an eye test throughout the course of their driving life.

Only by introducing rigorous and professional eye tests can we fully tackle the problem of unsafe drivers on our roads’. Research by the Association of Optometrists, published in November last year, found that 35 per cent of optometrists had seen patients in the previous month who were driving, despite having been told their vision was below the legal standard. Based on this figure, it is estimated that around one million people could be driving illegally.

There is a lot of evidence to show that accidents including fatalities could be avoided if there was a statutory requirement on all motorists to have an eye test. Campaigners have also called for a so-called Poppy’s Law, making it a legal requirement for medical professionals to report patients who are unfit to drive.

This followed the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke, who was killed in 2016 by a 73-year-old motorist who had ignored warnings from his opticians not to drive and was not wearing his glasses at the time. A disgrace and unnecessary tragedy. By Graham Hill

For those concerned about the environment, the new Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP) were considered to be well overdue when you consider how easy it was to fiddle the emissions test under the old regime known as NEDC. It wasn’t just VW fitting equipment that could be switched over during the emissions tests to give a false reading.

Others fitted undersized wheels and stuck tape around doors, bonnets and boots in order to avoid any drag. So now we have the cars being properly tested we see emissions levels increasing. The cars are the same but the emissions levels have increased due to more accurate testing. Which is fine unless you happen to be a company car driver.

As an interim measure and so as not to sting company car drivers for driving the same car the revenue has applied a conversion equation to bring the CO2 emissions back to where they were under the old tests. However, the CO2 levels are still around 10% higher than previous thereby increasing the BIK tax on cars that drivers may have been driving for the past 2 years and the new cars are generally 20% higher so replacing a like for like car could increase your benefit in kind tax substantially.

Whilst the fleet industry has called on the Government to amend the BIK tax tables so as not to penalise drivers of company cars, as usual, they’ve done naff all. This has led to a move towards car allowances allowing drivers to select their own car, firstly to save the BIK tax but also allow them to potentially drive better cars. As I’ve reported before let’s say that a company negotiates preferential terms with a dealer to take 200 Ford Mondeos a year.

As a result, they receive 25%  discount on all cars that is fed into their contract hire rate. Normally the best a consumer would receive is a discount of 15% built into the contract hire rate but if a new model is coming out the dealer and the manufacturer may allow a discount and bonus of 35% to be built into the contract hire rates.

This means that a consumer could achieve a lower rate than some of the biggest fleets in the country. Or maybe a Vauxhall Insignia or Mazda 6 works out cheaper because for the same reasons the rates are incredibly low. So for employees, the time may have come when they hand back their company cars and take a car allowance then talk to me to get them into a low rate car. By Graham Hill