The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

As you know I like a funny story and this one made me smile. A young lad of just 17 years his age had a rather sporty looking Corsa which he had fitted with a Carrot telematics box, as required by his insurance company, in order to bring down the cost of insurance. The black box measures his driving style, speed, acceleration and smoothness and adjusts his insurance cost accordingly.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Unfortunately the young lad was devastated to find that his pride and joy had been stolen from outside his place of work in Oldham. However, the black box is also fitted with GPS which pinpointed the location of the car which the police managed to locate a couple of hours later and to the driver’s delight the car was in perfect condition other than a broken window.

However, his concern next turned to his black box, knowing that the car was probably stolen by joyriders and could have seriously damaged his driving score, escalating his insurance through the roof. Having contacted Carrot they found that during the two and a bit hours during which the car had been stolen the thief scored a perfect 10, the first time since this young driver had taken out his insurance.

The even better news was that Carrot allowed him to keep the score which will contribute to his overall score for the year. Brilliant news but I have news for you mate – it was probably your dad who nicked the car! It also suggests that if you are a young driver with one of these black boxes fitted, let your mum or dad drive your car occasionally, it could dramatically improve your score and reduce your insurance costs. By Graham Hill

If you are one of those that use the Dartford Tunnel/Bridge you will know that either side of the Thames can get a tad congested from time to time. This is annoying and can cause a wait of anything up to half an hour (my experience) but you know when the congestion is likely to occur so you try to avoid those times.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Foreigners and truck drivers don’t seem to know these times so if you find yourself in one of these tailbacks or even whilst cruising at reasonable speed towards the toll booths you can find yourself flapping whilst trying to dig your change out of your pocket ready to throw into the bin located at the toll.

This isn’t helped when you have a juggernaut on one side of you and a foreign driver on the other side, all doing the same. But amazingly very few run into each other and the delays, as far as I’m concerned are minimal.

However, they could do one thing that would speed things along and that is to take those who have pay as you go Dart Tags fitted to their vehicles that enables them to simply drive through the toll without stopping to have a type of bus lane (Dart Tag Lane) reserved for them, about 2 miles before the crossing.

To segregate at the last minute, as happens at the moment) means that these people are sitting way back in the queue, adding to the congestion whilst the Dart Tag booths sit mainly unused until the Dart drivers peel off. Now that to me would be an excellent solution. Not so according to the Highways Agency who will be removing the booths from October 2014.

The booths will be replaced by a remote system similar to the congestion charge. As with the congestion charge anyone not paying the fee will receive a penalty charge. But the good news is that you can pay online, by text, at shops and by phone. A pre-pay option will also be available which, according to the Highways Agency, will save users up to a third of the fee.

Hmmm, this all sounds good if you are a regular user but it seems to me that instead of fumbling in your pocket for a few coins drivers will be busy calling and texting whilst driving or stopping short of the tunnel/bridge in order to prevent a penalty charge. I think we have some interesting times ahead on the M25! Or again, is it just me? By Graham Hill

You know how much I despair of the consumer credit legislation in the UK but I equally despair of the legal system in this country and not just because of the EU interference in the way we administer our own citizens. I read copious amounts of text in order to come up with interesting items for my newsletter and my blog.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Some of what I read is funny and some very sad with some combining sadness with total injustice. For example there was a lady in Leicestershire who had an accident whilst on a mobile phone and driving at the same time. Sadly she collided with another car and two children were killed.

In my book, as a dad of three kids, that comes close to making the case for bringing back capital punishment. But our ridiculous legal system only found her guilty of careless driving resulting in an 18 month ban and a £3,000 fine. But it gets worse. As the lady was driving on company business there was a health and safety issue, surely her employer should be held liable for the actions of the employee who was taking a call whilst driving.

Apparently not so according to Leicester police who decided not to prosecute because ‘The call received by the driver was of a social nature and not work related, and therefore it did not fall within the Health and Safety at Work Act.’ How appalling is that? I would also suggest that the police take a more careful look at the act because it is my belief that whilst at work the law would cover personal calls.

The fact is that it is a disgusting end to an appalling crime. At the other end of the spectrum if you accelerate through a puddle and splash pedestrians or mount a pavement you could receive an on the spot fine of £100 and 3 points on your licence (this can be reduced by taking a safe driving course).

Since August of last year when the new laws, which include lane hogging and tailgating, were introduced 5,472 drivers have been caught. But just when you think that the new laws could be preventing accidents through better awareness and fines it comes to light that 5 forces, Northumbria, Dyfed-Powys, Durham, South Wales and Cleveland are not stopping inconsiderate drivers at all because they don’t have the facilities to offer the education courses. Is it me or are we seeing the fabric of this country deteriorating? Something really does need to be done. By Graham Hill

Related articles

• States With The Harshest Penalties For Texting And Driving (cheapcarinsurance.net)

I know I keep whinging on about the FCA and their new rules but I am genuinely worried about the affect it is having on the ability of lenders and intermediaries to do business and for genuine borrowers to be able to take out finance. As a result I’ve become pre-occupied with the subject of affordability and how lenders can analyse the application from a client to assess whether the customer should receive the finance or not.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

The problem that lenders have faced for years is – will the applicant make his repayments? The only way they have been able to assess this is by combining historical data with statistics to arrive at a pretty Heath Robinson credit score.

From the information obtained from the credit reference agencies combined with the lenders own score card requirements a further analysis takes place using statistics to arrive at an acceptance, decline or an acceptance subject to certain conditions or additional information.

For example if you are married with children in a house that you ‘own’ you are less of a risk and more likely to pay than a single person with no dependents living in rented accommodation. The fact that you own your house and have made your mortgage payments on time contributes towards your credit score but the fact that you are married with dependents is part of the lender’s score card. Now here is the confusion created by simply looking at your credit score.

Your credit reference agency score could be excellent because you have a credit card with a £2,000 limit on it that is paid on the button each month with a small balance on the card that every 3 months is fully paid off. All other payments are made on time including your mortgage which shows you own your property and you have no adverse whatsoever on the file.

But just because you have an excellent credit score doesn’t mean that you can afford to take out a finance agreement that will cost you £500 per month. You may show that historically you have met all your commitments and therefore represent a good credit risk but where is affordability in all this?

The lender’s own score card may show that having responsibilities, like a mortgage and children, living in a certain area in a certain job may statistically make you a good risk, there is nothing to prove it and I believe that it is this shortfall that has caused the Government via the FCA to force the lenders to test the ability to pay rather than the intention to pay.

But my question is this – if, through some twist of fate or luck the system worked – why try to fix it to the detriment of all concerned? We know that short term or pay day lending is a totally different type of product and given the distress that the collection and ability to rollover the debt, thereby substantially increasing the amount owed, causes consumers, it makes sense that lenders apply a more stringent set of affordability tests.

But that doesn’t apply to normal lending where the lenders have many years of experience under their belt and know who represents a good risk and who represents a bad risk. It’s a little like Ford identifying a problem with Focuses manufactured between 2010 and 2012 but recalling all Focuses ever made just to be on the safe side. It’s ridiculous.

In my simple opinion the ‘problem’ is being approached from the wrong end as I believe that generally most people have the intention to pay and have already personally checked the affordability of the finance out of their income. If someone dies in a car accident the Government doesn’t stop everyone from driving.

Lessons need to be learned, addressed and repaired to prevent it from happening again. The same applies to lending. But it already does. The lenders would soon go out of business if the number of defaults and arrears kept increasing so they are obviously refining their credit underwriting but even the lenders don’t have access to a crystal ball to see into the future.

The Government needs to spend money on helping those with debt problems, assist them in managing the debt and help them to recover with least pain to them and their family. When it takes two and a half years for the Financial Ombudsman to review a complaint it is clearly here that effort and money needs to be funnelled not into affordability checks that the lenders do quite adequately.

I ask the question again, what happens to those that wish to borrow money for a car in order to get to work or get their kids to school when the lender, after applying the new tests says no? The whole FCA concept has been ill conceived and badly thought through and for once it has nothing to do with the EU. By Graham Hill

There is an expression, be careful what you wish for. I’ll finish it by saying – because it might bite you on the bum. Many people complained about the Government dictated fuel consumption figures. I’ve discussed this on many occasions. The figures don’t reflect fuel consumption in the real world, whatever that is.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

The figures are measured in near perfect conditions using a rolling road in a temperature controlled room etc. But whilst the conditions don’t reflect what you would encounter in the centre of Brighton or any other city come to that nor do they reflect the conditions you would encounter on the M6, north of Birmingham on a Tuesday afternoon.

The point is that it is impossible to simply come up with a ‘real world’ fuel consumption figure. What Car may seem to think that it is possible and as a result publish ‘Real World’ combined fuel consumption figures but they are simply rubbish. I drove to Birmingham twice within a week. I felt that I was driving pretty much the same.

There was a small hold up around the M25 near Heathrow on one of the trips but other than that the traffic seemed pretty much the same and I was travelling at a pretty steady speed. The big difference was that on one trip the sun was shining and the conditions were dry, on the other it was hissing down. The result was 50.9 on the first trip and 44.1 on the second.

Now according to the handbook the combined fuel consumption should have been about 60mpg but I never expected to achieve that. What it enabled me to do was compare different cars knowing that one car would return a better fuel consumption than the other without knowing exactly how they would compare in the ‘Real World’.

So to my mind whilst the results are far from what I would expect to achieve, especially the way I drive, the Government figures make the most out of a bad situation. But here’s the crunch. In 2017 the EU is pushing for a new emissions test to be introduced. In addition to emissions the test will include fuel consumption checks which experts say will better reflect real world figures.

Now this may be great if you want what some would consider to be more accurate fuel consumption figures but the change to the way that cars are tested could show CO2 emission figures up to 30% higher increasing the benefit in kind tax for company car drivers by as much as 35% (no I’m not going daft it’s to do with the CO2 banding).

Car tax will also increase as will Class 1a NI contributions by employers. It is clear that the current testing system needed reviewing (currently the New European Driving Cycle – NEDC)  because, for example when testing the cars all fuel consuming gadgets are switched off, such as lights, air conditioning etc. and whilst 10% of the test time has the vehicle idling the figures don’t reflect the new stop/start technology. But with greater fuel consumption accuracy, as is expected with the introduction of the Worldwide Harmonised Light-duty Test Procedures (WLTP), comes the bite on the bum. You have been warned. By Graham Hill

I have never had a particularly high opinion of insurance companies, not helped by the refusal of Zurich, probably the most crooked insurance company that I have ever encountered, not paying out on a perfectly valid claim when I accidentally spilled a bottle of Lucozade into my laptop computer.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

They conveniently retained no copy of the original conversation that I had with the claims person, then produced a scrappy piece of handwritten paper considered to be a ‘transcript’ of our conversation which was a complete fabrication and actually a disgrace and fraudulent in itself.

This didn’t compare well to the transcript provided by Saga of the conversations I had when I took out my policy. The transcript was independently created, word by word, by an outside agency and the script went on for many pages. I was accused of fraud in the most ridiculous of fashions. I complained to the Financial Ombudsman service.

In the first instance an adjudicator reviews the case and gives an interim decision. This is not legally binding but gives an indication as to what the Ombudsman would conclude. On two separate occasions the adjudicator found in my favour and twice the crooked Zurich refused to accept the obvious conclusion reached by the adjudicator.

Finally after two and a half years, yes I said two and a half years the Financial Ombudsman was able to review my case and immediately found in my favour, instructing Zurich to remove all references to fraud or any other references to ill doing on my part from all files. To pay for the replacement of my damaged laptop and compensation along with interest.

Whilst, in my opinion, Zurich are the worst insurance company on the planet, they are probably not alone. A recent report showed that the average car insurance policy runs for 18,000 words taking the average driver over an hour to read. Whilst insurers would claim that they are making sure they cover all eventualities, the cynics, me included, would simply say that they are including as many reasons as possible in order to decline an insurance claim.

According to Fairer Finance, the creators of the report, Endsleigh had the biggest policy containing 37,674 words, more than George Orwell’s classic, Animal Farm. Sheila’s Wheels were next with 32,860 words followed by Esure at 32,631 words. LV was by far the lowest at 6,901 words with next best being Nationwide at 9,302 words.

Fairer Finance are running a campaign to remove unnecessary small print in insurance policies. In order to make the point they analysed over 40 insurance policies, coming up with the average number of words. I agree with them, finance documents have already been scrutinised to keep them simple so applying the same rules to insurance policies is way overdue.

73 percent of people admit to not reading their insurance documents whilst only 17 percent admit to reading and understanding their policies. The conclusion reached by Fairer Finance was that paper is being wasted and raises the question why one company can have a policy of just 7,000 words whilst another uses 5 times as many words to say the same thing.

The Plain English Campaign said that the findings which revealed that some policies were longer than a major novel is a disgrace. A spokesman went on to say, ‘It is difficult to see that this is anything other than a cynical ploy, designed to confuse and frustrate the customer.’

I would go further and say that the longer the policy the more likely they have included obstacles to meeting  legitimate claims. Avoid them and also avoid Zurich who are incompetent crooks. Let’s see what they have to say when they read this, I still have all the evidence – give it your best shot you idiots! Oh and this isn’t the end – this is just the beginning!

That’s why I respectfully accepted the findings of the Ombudsman but refused the proposals as the compensation after 2 and a half years was insufficient. If you have had a claim with Zurich refused please let me know, whether it is car related or not. By Graham Hill

Related articles

• Car insurer small print can be longer than Animal Farm, study shows (theguardian.com)

Last week I was thumbing through the latest edition of Credit Today, one of the journals I always try to read more thoroughly than any of the others, not only because it has a fairly good handle on the industry but also because a very good friend of mine, Fred Crawley, is the managing editor.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

So I was disappointed to see that a round table event had been held without my presence. I was more disappointed about the comments of the good and the great in the industry.

Motor finance currently runs at a massive £28 billion per annum and not only accounts for a slice of profit earned by the dealers but more important, and often overlooked, is that finance contributes heavily towards the sales of new cars, making it possible for consumers and small businesses to afford new cars rather than used cars.

The thrust of the debate was the effect of the new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations and the effect on the industry. Virtually everything that was raised was to do with us, being dealers or brokers and them, being the lenders. There was a complete dog’s dinner of comments, speculations and suggestions but guess what?

I couldn’t find one sentence that mentioned the potential problems to consumers and small businesses. There was a lot of sympathy and even empathy for the lenders but what about the bloody borrowers. Why is it that the Government, and virtually all of the consumer and small business finance industry, walk around with their heads firmly planted in their jacksys?

They continue to make bold statements, explaining how they are setting out to protect consumers and SME’s but when you want to finance a replacement fridge, TV, car or essential equipment for your business how does it help when the lender explains that you have failed the new FCA imposed affordability test?

And where will all this leave the economy, it’s a sad fact of life that when people borrow money from a payday lender they often need it for essentials or some sort of an emergency like the freezer breaking. Either way the money doesn’t sit around in a bank account – it is spent which continues to help the recovery.

Creating barriers to lending will flatline the economy and could send us back into recession. We are in sensitive times, we need finance to keep the economy moving forwards but I seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness. Only time will tell, lets hope that common sense prevails and lenders continue to do what they do best – lend bloody money! Rant over! By Graham Hill

Oh dear oh dear oh dear! That was me uttering under my breath as I slip on my Mr Grumpy hat. I just read about a Fiat driver who took his car into an independent garage to diagnose a problem. The problem was a faulty turbo unit.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

The garage called a Fiat dealer and was given the price of the replacement re-conditioned part as £399 which the customer agreed to pay. However, when the part arrived it also arrived with a bill for £542 with no explanation, an increase of £140. The independent garage said that they would have to pass on the increase but provided no explanation.

After querying it Fiat explained the increase by saying, ‘Many components are improved and upgraded over time but, on this occasion, it seems the old unit was still on the system, even though it was no longer available, hence the different price.’ However, no doubt as a gesture of goodwill the customer was given £150 worth of vouchers to be used against service costs and parts over the next 12 months.

What a load of bull poo! First of all why are dealers and manufacturers so crooked and secondly why are customers so bloody naïve? There is such a thing as the Sale of Goods Act that protects buyers of goods and an Office of Fair Trading from whom you can get advice and support so why are people writing into magazines and newspapers who guess at the answers to legal problems?

Let me explain the situation we have here. Don’t confuse this transaction with walking into a shop and buying something on the shelf that has a price ticket attached. The price ticket has nothing to do with the contract of sale it is what is known as ‘An Invitation To Treat’.

The shopkeeper is not obliged to sell the item to you at the price on the ticket. It is a suggestion, you then make an offer to buy the goods at the price on the ticket and the shopkeeper normally accepts. If the shopkeeper has made a mistake when pricing his goods he doesn’t have to sell it to you at the mistaken price.

That is a fact! However, this isn’t the case with respect to the turbo unit. The independent garage entered into a contract with a Fiat dealer to supply a part for a car. The dealer agreed to supply the part and the garage agreed to pay £399 for the part, in turn agreed with the customer. That’s it, end of story, turn out the lights on your way out!

If either party fails to perform then they are in breach of contract and the aggrieved party can seek compensation. In this case, if the dealer agreed to supply a part that no longer existed that was his problem not the garage that ordered the part or the customer. If, in order to perform their part of the contract, the dealer had to supply a more expensive item he has to suffer the loss, not the garage or in turn the customer.

This is absolutely ridiculous and Fiat probably know that this is the case but have screwed the customer – it’s simply not on. When will the car industry start to act honourably but more important when will consumers wise up? Oooh I get so angry! By Graham Hill

Currently when you reach the age of 70 you have to renew your driving licence. However, according to the Department for Transport this should be extended to the age of 80 in order to reduce DVLA costs and make it more efficient.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

Following a review, on behalf of the Government, the DfT concluded that we should change the rules to bring the UK in line with Europe who already have a renewal age of 80. At present there are over 4 million motorists over the age of 70 which represents a substantial amount of administration at renewal time, so by extending the renewal date the admin costs will be cut significantly.

But safety campaigners object to the proposal on the grounds of health and safety. In fact they suggest that there should be increased controls on the elderly not less which could cost lives. I don’t agree, not least of which as I am edging my way towards 70 I don’t really want to have to renew my licence.

Department for Transport (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On the other hand the government could take the savings and fix a few more potholes which would prevent many more accidents than extending the licence renewal dates! By Graham Hill

Related articles

• Cost-cutting Coalition to let pensioners drive till they’re 80 without renewing licence (mirror.co.uk)

How safe do you feel driving to work on a Monday morning? If the statistics produced by swiftcover.com are anything to go by you should feel less safe than any other day of the week. According to their 2013 claim data drivers were more likely to have a driving incident resulting in a claim on a Monday (17%) than any other day of the week.

Thinking of a change but unsure as to the best way to finance your car? Then you need a copy of my car finance book, Car Finance – A Simple Guide by Graham Hill. Click on the link below to buy the best car finance book on the market, available as a Kindle Book and Paper Back.

You are 36% more likely to have a windscreen claim on a Monday than any other

A car crash on Jagtvej in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

day, their statistics showed that the average was 10,000 on a Monday compared to the daily average of 7,922. Monday also sees a rise in single vehicle incidents, i.e. a car that hits a bollard or lamppost with no other vehicles involved. So what are the reasons for this higher number of incidents on a Monday?

Maxine Tighe, head of motor claims at swiftcover.com, suggests that it is the result of bleary eyed motorists recovering from the weekend and trying to get back into work mode lacking concentration. They found that whilst Monday was a bad day for single vehicle collisions Friday was the worst for multi-vehicle collisions as people dash home for the weekend, especially during the rush hour mayhem.

The weekend is safest as there are fewer cars on the roads. On the other hand loss of keys, vandalism and theft all rise on a Saturday and Sunday as cars are more at risk parked outside homes. How very very interesting swiftcover.com! Yawn!