The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

There’s an app for that is rapidly becoming part of everyday conversation. Having created an award winning app myself that enables users to compare lease deals or simply to evaluate a deal to see if it represents good value, I know that app boundaries are limitless.

The latest app relating to motoring is aimed at younger, less than responsible, drivers that could help to prevent an accident, reduce their insurance premiums and help parents to worry a little less. The app has been created by employee tracking specialist, Romex. The app uses the driver’s phone to detect whether the car is exceeding 4 miles per hour via the phone’s GPS system.

At this point the app locks the device disabling calls, texts, emails and social media accounts, amongst other distractions. It can also monitor the speed the car is travelling at and the time spent driving. The company already has a similar product available to fleet users as part of its telematics systems to help companies and drivers to comply with legislation.

The maker has announced that the new app could be available as early as May 2016. Sales director, Steve Arscott explained, ‘It’s called distraction prevention, we’re approaching younger drivers because they’re the ones most likely to be glued to their phones.’ There will be a charge for the service and it will work alongside another of their apps called Guardian, which allows parents to monitor where their youngster is and whether they have been speeding – just as companies can do with their fleet drivers.

The company is optimistic that they will find an insurance company to partner up with, providing users with a rebate on their policy. The Guardian app can be extended to non drivers for worried parents who want to know where their off spring are. I’m sure it will lead to some very interesting debates between parents and children! By Graham Hill

The Consumer Rights Act came into force in October 2015. The biggest change to consumer rights, included in the Act, was the right to return goods within 30 days for a full refund. This applies to all goods not just cars so please bear in mind if your 3 piece suite arrives damaged or the TV arrives with a scratch on it.

The question is, what constitutes a fault? My reading of the Act was anything that makes the car imperfect. But this view isn’t shared by lawyers who have challenged the right to reject by some customers when representing dealer clients. It’s down to interpretation and degree. The emerging fear from dealers is the freeloader who simply wants a free car for 30 days then return it to the dealer saying he wants his money back claiming that the car is faulty.

In this respect I have a little sympathy with the dealers (yes I did actually say that), because as with most English Law it lacks total clarity leaving it up to a judge to interpret it on a case by case basis and I have to say few judges are actually car experts. In order to protect their long term position some dealers have chosen to fight customer rejections citing that if a car is to be rejected and the client have his money refunded, according to the law, the ‘faults must be present at the point of sale’ AND render ‘the vehicle not satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose.’

The files of a lawyer showed recent claims by consumers to reject their cars to appear to be extreme and misuse of the law. For example ‘The parcel shelf clip was missing’, ‘The cup holder does not work’ and ‘The FM button on the radio doesn’t work. As a consumer you have the right to either reject the car, if you feel that the fault satisfies the test shown above, or you can allow the dealer to fix it.

What the files didn’t show was if the customer had already allowed the dealer to attempt to repair or replace the faulty items, other circumstances that may have prevailed to cause the customer to reject and how long after taking delivery the customer chose to reject. The fact is that the law was created to prevent dealers taking anything up to a year to correct a fault that existed on a car at the point of sale, constantly fobbing of the customer who was left without a car for most of the time.

Was it intended that drivers should be able to drive around in a car for a month then simply return it for a refund because the cigarette lighter doesn’t work? Probably not but without tighter legal tests it is going to happen. Incidentally, this law may not only help the ‘freeloader’ but also customers who suffer from a condition, known in selling as ‘Customer Remorse’. These are customers who buy something then within hours, for often unexplainable reasons, regret the purchase.

It is why a good salesman will often congratulate you on your purchase after he has made the sale. Many people fail to see why the salesperson says things like, ‘I’m so pleased you chose that model, it is my favourite in the range and I should know I’ve been selling these for over 20 years’. It may seem daft – but it works! By Graham Hill

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued warnings about a number of scams that are doing the rounds perpetrated by brokers who are not authorised by the FCA.

They will be looking to take action against such companies when they are found but in the meantime the onus is on consumers to make sure they check that the person providing the finance/advice/services is properly authorised.

Especially the case when you are asked to part with money upfront as a commitment fee or a deposit to secure a car that will be financed. Their advice is ‘We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are.’

And here’s the rub, if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. So as I pointed out recently the first consideration should not be the rate that you are offered, be that a lease rate or APR, but the company that offers it and will represent you going forward. You have been warned – yet again! By Graham Hill

If you are a regular reader of my posts you will know what section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act is and the way that it makes the finance company jointly and severally liable in the event that you have a ‘fit for purpose’, ‘miss-representation’ or any other breach of contract claim against the dealer.

The general perception is that first and foremost the dealer is responsible so you immediately take up the problem with the dealer which invariably gets you into a bit of a dispute. However, I am reading about more and more cases whereby the customer has immediately taken up the case with the finance company, which tends to take the side of the customer and roll over, somewhat quicker and easier than the dealer, leaving a very happy client and the finance company to battle out the recovery of any money they have spent from the dealer – not your problem.

In fact it is often the case that before making finance available to a dealer he must sign up to an agreement that simply says that in a dispute with a customer that the funder settles, the dealer is responsible to refund the cost. The agreement, in my opinion, shouldn’t be needed as it is covered off in sub-section 2 of section 75 of the act, as follows:

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

The fact is that if you have taken out finance on a car, usually HP or PCP, and you feel that you have a claim against the dealer I would suggest that you challenge the finance company and if they ask you if you have already taken up the case with the dealer, point them in the direction of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 75.

As an aside I asked a lawyer friend of mine in the industry why the lender is more likely to roll over and he explained that if you took up the case against the dealer your recourse would be via the fairly wet fish Trading Standards but if you escalate a claim against a lender your recourse would be via the gritty Financial Ombudsman Service and if they investigate a claim they immediately charge £550 per claim investigation (in fact I believe they are allowed 25 claim investigations before they incur a charge). So there you have it. By Graham Hill

I recently reported that the Government is planning to scrap large numbers of sets of traffic lights as they seem to slow down traffic flow rather than improve it. Taking things one step further Transport for London (TfL) have been experimenting with removing central lane markings on busy streets around Croydon and Haringey.

Studies carried out during the experiment has shown that average speed has reduced by 13%. They have concluded that fewer road markings improve safety by making drivers more cautious and aware of their surroundings. The report stated that it has been found that a drop in average speed of just 1 mile per hour is associated with a 5% reduction in accident frequency.

TfL is not the only authority to remove centre lines. Apparently similar schemes have been introduced in Norfolk, Wiltshire and Derbyshire. In fact in Norfolk, Tracy Jessop, assistant director for Highways and Transport at Norfolk Count Council, said ‘We’ve been removing centre white lines for at least 15 years in locations that have the right characteristics and where there is community support.’

Personally, like Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA, I think this is a dangerous move. When you drive along a road and you see bits of tree strewn all over the place you sense danger and slow down accordingly, the same would apply if suddenly you had no guidance as to where the centre of the road is, people don’t slow down because the road is safer, they slow down because they sense danger – in this case not without reason. By Graham Hill

Here’s an interesting dilemma. Customer buys a new car, it could be any car but in this case it’s a VW Golf. The car is fitted with Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) which basically stops you from accidentally running up the bum of the car in front.

As the car was in Ireland the costs are in Euros which I have conveniently converted to Sterling to save you checking exchange rates and grabbing your calculator. I’m like that! Anyway, the driver’s ACC warning light lit up on the dashboard. No I wouldn’t know either!

The light surprised him as nothing had happened other than the fact that he was driving the car normally. Off he toodled to the main dealer who said that the system was damaged, possibly from an impact. The cost to replace the ACC was going to be £1,145 and as it was the result of an impact the replacement would not be covered by the warranty.

As he hadn’t had an impact and as he had managed to safely drive a car for many years without this latest gadgetry he asked the dealer to simply disable it. The driver, Ben Smith, was told that the dealer couldn’t disable the set-up and because it was a serious road safety issue they wouldn’t let him drive the car away without signing a consent form. This is when it gets interesting.

He had the car towed away for an alternative inspection by an independent garage as he felt he was being forced into having work done that may not be necessary. He was shocked to learn that, according to the independent inspection, no damage had been caused to the unit, instead the report, according to Auto Express who saw the report, found that three sensor bracket sensor nuts had come loose, causing messages to appear.

The report also claimed that the bracket VW claimed had been broken was not the one found in the car. The fix cost Ben £46. OK one would assume that the dealer was trying it on and that they would apologise and Ben would continue driving his car in the knowledge that he won’t accidentally ram the car in front. But no! Auto Express contacted VW who explained that a mount was found to be broken (not according to the independent garage) as well as a cracked camera.

Not mentioned by the independent examiner. Of the independent fix VW said ‘Without repairing the vehicle as per manufacturer guidelines and calibration of the ACC system after replacement, (it wasn’t replaced by the way), the repair hasn’t brought the vehicle back to manufacturer specification. VW cannot guarantee that the vehicle will operate as the manufacturer intended.’ This implies that Ben could lose his warranty cover because he didn’t pay to have a repair carried out that wasn’t needed in the first place.

That is frightening but what wasn’t mentioned in the piece was the Government backed arbitration service called Motorcodes. This is what they say on their website: Motor Codes is the government-backed, self-regulatory body for the motor industry. Its voluntary membership of thousands of garages is committed to maintaining high standards covering new cars, the administration of new car warranties and car service and repair.

So as always I am providing more information than a major motoring magazine. If Ben gets in touch with Motorcodes they will have to look into his complaint and will give a legally binding ruling. The web address of Motorcodes is: http://www.motorcodes.co.uk/ By Graham Hill

In the town in which I live they have been building houses like they are going out of fashion. Virtually every piece of free land is being built on which I guess is pretty good news, especially if you’re a first time buyer. But the downside is that each new development needs electricity, water, phone and sewage facilities which means roads have to be dug up.

This in turn means that temporary traffic lights are erected and currently at the end of my road is a set of 4 way lights. As you can imagine I can wait what seems like 10 minutes to get out of the end of my road. I then have at least 1 if not more sets of temporary lights to contend with before I reach my destination elsewhere in the town.

My complaint isn’t that we have temporary traffic lights but that no bugger ever seems to be working on the bit of road that the lights are protecting, especially at weekends. As a result the Government is going to take action. They plan to fine local councils and utility companies £5,000 a day for road projects left unattended at weekends that unnecessarily inconvenience motorists.

So work would have to continue at weekends or the roadworks lifted at weekends until work resumed on the following Monday. Also fines will be imposed when lights are left in place after work has been completed. Arguing against this Peter Box, a spokesman for the Local Government Association, said that there are often reasons why roadworks are left unattended, for example when concrete has been laid it takes time to dry.

He can see that if the rules come into force people will be employed at weekends to watch concrete dry rather than receive a fine. As a final word, before you get over excited about driving freely around at the weekends the rules will only apply to A roads and not rural B roads or residential streets – damn. By Graham Hill