The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Before I get into the article I should point out that in my opinion the class actions, widely advertised, are unlikely to succeed as the lawyers will need to prove that customers had lost money as a result of the actions of the manufacturers. This will be very difficult to prove.

Some claims companies are trying to sign everyone up that owned or leased any diesel between dates when some have been shown to be fiddling the emissions. That way if there is a future action you cannot claim yourself, you are now under contract to the claims company. My advice at the moment is do nothing and certainly don’t sign up to any of the many claims companies. On to the article:

Emissions cheating allegations are now being levelled against all car manufacturers who sold diesel vehicles in the UK between 2009 and 2018, by London law firm Harcus Parker.

Businesses, company car drivers and the rental and leasing industry could be eligible for compensation if the claims are successful.

Following the dieselgate scandal, Volkswagen Group was the first brand to face civil action with some 90,000 UK owners seeking compensation. The carmaker, however, is defending the claim and says that claimants did not suffer any loss. The case is ongoing.

Class action lawsuits have since been launched against Daimler, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Renault, Nissan and Vauxhall by numerous firms in the UK and Harcus Parker plans to begin legal proceedings against all other manufacturers of diesel vehicles in the coming weeks. The cases are expected to last for around two years.

All the car brands involved in existing claims deny the allegations.

Damon Parker, partner at Harcus Parker, said: “My clients bought diesel vehicles after believing the messages pushed on them from all sides that ‘clean diesels’ offered a win-win solution to the problem of increasing CO2 emissions.

“Unfortunately, this ignores the difficulties manufacturers have always faced in controlling emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx). The effects of diesel fumes on air quality is now becoming more well known, and my clients hope that by holding vehicle manufacturers to account for breaching regulatory limits, they can help to protect the environment, air quality and our health in the future.”

Car manufacturers are accused of using illegal defeat devices to manipulate the emissions performance of vehicles at certain times, such as during emissions tests, to make their cars appear to be more environmentally friendly.

All vehicles registered between 2009 and 2018 underwent the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test, in order to gain type approval. While EU law bans the use of ‘defeat devices’, exceptions within the regulations allow the effectiveness of emissions control systems to be reduced if it’s required to protect the engine against damage or ensure its safe operation.

Nick Molden, founder and CEO of independent vehicle emissions testing firm Emissions Analytics, told Fleet News: “The regulations set a NOx limit in ‘normal driving’ but, in Europe, there was no description of what normal driving was – only the official NEDC cycle, which varied totally from normal driving.

“Manufacturers have worked through the regulations and found what specific tests they had to meet. No carmaker has failed to meet what they had to do under NEDC, but the lawyers argue that they should always meet that.”

A 2016 investigation by the Vehicle Certification Agency, on behalf of the Department for Transport, found that only Volkswagen Group vehicles featured defeat devices designed specifically to beat official testing.

However, the tests provided further evidence that NOx emissions from diesel vehicles were higher in real-world conditions and on the test track than in laboratory conditions.

The investigation concluded that the EU regulations provided uncertainty about how emissions control systems may be reduced or deactivated in certain conditions and did not detail how the exceptions to the ban on defeat devices should apply, whether or how manufacturers should apply these exemptions, or how a type approval authority should evaluate the validity of their use.

Parker said: “For a vehicle to perform significantly differently below 20oC, 17oC or even 15oC is simply unacceptable and in our view is a transparent attempt to manufacture vehicles which purport to pass the relevant tests but which perform very differently in the real world. After all, the average temperate in the UK is around 9oC.”

The excess diesel emissions issue is estimated to affect around 40 million cars in Europe and around 11 million in the UK, including non-RDE Euro 6 models.

The Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) said it is not aware that any of its members are engaging with class action suits and believes fleet operators are unlikely to seek compensation unless residual values were affected.

Molden said the weakness in class action suits is in establishing that car owners have suffered a loss.

“The consequence of higher NOx is better fuel economy and lower CO2. Consumers have been benefiting – there is no financial loss there. Secondhand car values are also still very strong. People like the fuel efficiency of a diesel vehicle,” he explained. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government is being urged to review the way that drug driving is tackled in a new report, published by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).

The report, ‘Drink driving – the tip of an iceberg?’, shows that enforcement of the drug driving laws varies dramatically across the country.

Forces with better procedures, contract and training are convicting ten times more drug drivers than others, when controlling for population size.

Meanwhile, high costs and delays with blood testing mean that some police forces are rationing what should be a routine roadside test.

Reoffending is also a major concern with 44% of recorded offences being committed by reoffenders.

One person committed the offence ‘driving or attempting to drive with drug level above the specified limit’ when they had 18 previous drink and drug driving offences.

PACTS says that a new drug drive rehabilitation course and high risk offender scheme should be introduced, modelled broadly on the existing drink drive programmes, but with better screening for drug and mental health problems and with clear pathways to treatment.

David Davies, executive director of PACTS, said: “This report by PACTS shows we still lack answers to vital questions on drug driving.

“The number of offences and deaths detected so far may be only the tip of the iceberg.”

Davies says that the police have made “big strides” in catching drug drivers over the past five years, but it remains a “postcode lottery”.

“While some forces are testing hundreds of drivers, others are rationing patrols to a single test,” he continued. “These disparities cannot be explained by differences in drug driving and the danger it creates. A more consistent approach is badly needed, with all forces testing for drug driving where it is suspected.”

In total, 12,391 people were convicted of a drug driving offence in 2019, but PACTS says that these numbers are rising fast.

Drug drivers are much more likely to have a criminal history than the general public. An analysis in 2017 of those convicted of drug driving found 67% of those convicted of drug driving offences had one or more previous conviction. Typically, these offences were for theft/burglary or drug-related.

Drivers who combine alcohol and drugs are likely to be significantly more impaired than those who consume only one. However, those who combine drink and drugs do not receive a longer sentence.

PACTS is recommending introducing a new combined drink and drug driving, with a lower drink drive limit, that recognises the risk drivers who combine alcohol and drugs pose.

The PACTS report recommends that the Department for Transport (DfT), in collaboration with the Department for Health, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, should undertake a review of policy on drug driving

The Government, it says, should also introduce a new combined drink and drug driving offence, with a lower blood alcohol limit.

Meanwhile, levels of drug driving enforcement should be increased in the UK, particularly in those police force areas where levels are low, and the Home Office should review the blood testing process and seek ways to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of laboratory testing by increasing capacity, improved procurement, or other means.

It should also consider the possibility of reclaiming costs from those who are found guilty.

Furthermore, PACTS wants a new drug drive rehabilitation course, based on the current drink drive course, to be introduced in the UK, while the DfT should publish robust offence and casualty data on drug driving using coroner data and other sources, as they do for drink driving.

Davies said: “Driving under the influence of a combination of drink and drugs, even at relatively low levels, is particularly dangerous. This is not widely understood and there is no specific offence for drink and drug driving. This needs to change.

“There are significant problems with the speed and capacity of laboratories to process blood tests for drugs. This is hampering enforcement of driving offences and drivers are escaping prosecution. We need a Covid-style response to improving lab capacity.”

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Road pricing is back on the political agenda. Government sources suggest Chancellor Rishi Sunak is considering replacing fuel duty, as electric power gradually replaces petrol and diesel.

Meanwhile, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons has launched an inquiry into zero carbon vehicles and road pricing.

We have been here before. In 2007 some of my colleagues were working on a study for the Department for Transport (DfT) into the public acceptability of road pricing when an email went round the university urging people to sign an e-petition urging the Prime Minister to “scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy”.

It went on to attract 1.8 million signatures, prompting Blair to abandon the plans.

I interviewed Peter Roberts, the man who started that petition, for Roads, Runways and Resistance: From the Newbury Bypass to Extinction Rebellion*.

The book tells the inside story of the most controversial transport issues in Britain since the late 1980s, the ones which provoked widespread protest, through interviews with ministers, civil servants, advisers and protest leaders.

It outlines how, in 2000, a small group of farmers and hauliers closed down the UK economy faster than Covid-19 in protest at rising fuel taxes.

The Government made small concessions at the time, but the enduring legacy of those protests is illustrated in the fuel tax graph below; fuel tax has fallen by more than a third since then.

Those stories, and that graph, illustrate the biggest problem with plans for road pricing today. Over the next few years, decarbonisation is the main challenge for the transport sector.

The sixth carbon budget now before Parliament would require the whole sector to cut its emissions by 70% by the mid-2030s. There are only two ways to do that: take petrol and diesel vehicles off the road and/or reduce the distances they drive.

Fuel tax rises would be the most effective way to create a ‘push factor’, and yet, governments continue to cut them, with hardly a murmur of opposition.

Road pricing could create a push factor if it increases the cost of driving conventional vehicles. It would make driving more expensive on congested roads, but if it replaces fuel taxes, it could make it cheaper to drive on uncongested roads, which have more capacity. That would increase carbon emissions.

It all depends on how the prices are set. Would politicians really use this as a way of making motoring more expensive? If not, then road pricing might make sense after the fleet has electrified, but not before, as I have written in my evidence to the Transport Committee.

In the meantime, governments should reverse those fuel tax cuts aim to accelerate the shift away from petrol and diesel.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Transport Committee has launched an inquiry into the benefits and safety of Smart Motorways in response to numerous calls for them to be scrapped.

It comes less than a year after the publication of an 18-point action plan to improve safety, in March 2020, following a previous review of Smart Motorways by the Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps.

Shapps told MPs earlier last month that he did not want to carry on with the system of Smart Motorways.

“What I commit to is making sure that the motorways we have in this country are safer than the motorways that came before them. That is the commitment I make. To be robust and clear from the evidence of, sadly, how many people die on our motorways, they are the safest form of road, but they should be safer,” he said.

Campaigners against Smart Motorways have labelled them as ‘death traps’. One coroner concluded that smart motorways ‘present an ongoing risk of future deaths’ while another has referred Highways England to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider if corporate manslaughter charges are appropriate following the 2018 death of a grandmother on the M1 in South Yorkshire.

Recent media coverage reported 14 fatalities on smart motorways in 2019 compared to 11 deaths in 2018 and five the year before.

The Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman MP, said: “The Department for Transport says Smart Motorways help us cope with a 23% rise in traffic since 2000, helping congestion. The Department’s own Stocktake report points to lower fatal casualty rates for smart motorways without a permanent hard shoulder than on motorways with a hard shoulder. The serious casualty rate is slightly higher.

“This message isn’t reaching the public, whose confidence in smart motorways has been dented by increasing fatalities on these roads. Road safety charities are also expressing concerns. Will enhanced safety measures help? Will the public accept them following an awareness campaign? Or should there be a rethink of government policy?

“There are genuine worries about this element of the motorway network and we want to investigate how we got to this point.”

Smart motorways were introduced as a technology-driven approach to deal with congestion through increasing capacity on motorways and controlling the flow and speed of traffic. They can be divided into three different designs, of which the most common is All Lane Running (ALR) introduced in 2014. These are the type that cause the most concern for campaigners as broken down vehicles can end up stranded in live lanes.

Edmund King, AA president, said: “Coroners, and indeed police and crime commissioners, have voiced serious safety concerns with ‘smart’ motorways, which makes this inquiry very timely.

“For more than a decade the AA has campaigned to improve the safety of smart motorways*. Tragically, too many people have died on these roads in the interim.

“Hopefully this inquiry will concentrate minds to stress the urgency of safety improvements.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Petrol and diesel pump prices could rise by 10p per litre as the price of oil hits a 13-month high.

Analysts are predicting dramatic fuel price hike as the price of a barrel of oil is set to soar from $64 to $80.

The RAC is warning that UK drivers need to brace themselves for further potentially dramatic pump price increases.

Having dropped to just $13 last April, the price of a barrel of oil has now recovered, jumping by $20 in three months. Some analysts are now predicting oil could reach $80 a barrel this year, a price last seen in October 2018, and petrol prices could rise to around 130p and diesel to 134.5p based on today’s exchange rate.

At $100 a barrel – a price that JPMorgan has said is a possibility next year – petrol and diesel could hit records high of 143p and 148p respectively.

RAC Fuel Watch data shows that petrol prices have already been rising for 13 straight weeks, with a litre now 8.03p more expensive than November 22, 2020, at 121.84p per litre.

The situation with diesel is even more pronounced, with prices now having risen for 14 weeks (up 7.68p since November 15, 2020) at 124.91p per litre.

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams said: “When the pandemic hit last year, the effect on forecourt prices was nothing if not dramatic – those still driving through March and April paid less to fill up than they had done since mid-2016, when the price of oil plummeted as a result of deliberate over production.

“But by the summer the oil price had rebounded and today is at a level not seen since the start of 2020, meaning storm clouds are once again gathering over UK forecourts. Ironically and rather unfortunately, as economic confidence grows as measures to combat the coronavirus take effect, it’s likely to mean drivers end up paying more to fill up in the coming weeks.

“The last thing drivers, and possibly the economy, need is a fuel duty increase – not least as petrol prices have now been rising for 13 consecutive weeks. A hike in duty at a time of rising fuel prices could put unprecedented pressure on lower-income households and might have the negative effect of forcing everyone who depends on their cars to consider cutting back on other spending.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The UK Government will scrap a new EU law requiring vehicles such as fork-lifts, golf buggies and quad bikes to be insured like a car or van.

The ‘Vnuk’ law requires a wider range of vehicles than those such as cars and motorbikes to be insured, including ones previously not requiring insurance.

The law also extends to vehicles on private land, meaning people with a ride-on lawnmower at home would require insurance where it would have previously not been needed.

Had the EU law been implemented in Great Britain, it would have meant the insurance industry would have been liable for almost £2 billion in extra overall costs.

Bypassing Vnuk will also protect the existence of the UK’s motorsports industry as the EU rules would have meant any collision involving vehicles from go-karting to Formula 1 would have been treated as regular road traffic incidents requiring insurance.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said: “We have always disagreed with this over-the-top law that would only do one thing – hit the pockets of hard-working people up and down the country with an unnecessary hike in their car insurance. I am delighted to announce that we no longer need to implement it.

“Scrapping this rule would save the country billions of pounds and is part of a new and prosperous future for the UK outside the EU – a future in which we set our own rules and regulations.”

The move is supported by Logistics UK. James Firth, head of Road Freight Regulation Policy at the organisation, said: “Implementation of the ‘Vnuk’ ruling into UK law would have been wholly unnecessary; the type of operations that would have been brought into scope by the ruling – for example, use of forklift trucks – are in most cases covered already by companies’ Public Liability or Employer Liability insurance. Logistics UK is pleased by the government’s decision today; it will prevent many logistics businesses being subject to additional and unnecessary costs and administrative burden.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Electric vehicle (EV) drivers can pay more than four times as much for the same amount of electricity when they use different public chargers, new research reveals.

A study carried out by What Car? has highlighted that charging a BMW iX3, with an 80kWh battery, from 10%-80% could cost between £9.32 and £40.66, as a result of the different tariffs and charges offered across the UK charging network.

BP’s Pulse 7.4kW pay-as-you-go tariff was the cheapest found, with a charge costing £9.32 for the iX3, at a cost of £0.18 per kWh.

While other providers were found to offer cheaper kWh rates, they often required a subscription fee or one-off payment, which inflated prices.

With a subscription, these networks would help owners save money in the long run. However, charging up at home is still the cheapest option, with the 10-80% boost for the iX3’s batteries costing £7.25.

Source London Flexi (7.4kW) delivered the most expensive charge in the study, costing £40.66 – despite providing the same 7.4kW charging speed as BP Pulse.

Available to London residents in Camden, Kensington & Chelsea, and Westminster, the charge included a £10 one-off sign-up fee and £0.073 per minute tariff.

The network’s 7.4kW chargers automatically stop charging a fee after four hours for cars being charged up between 8pm and 7pm, so an overnight charge for the iX3 on the Flexi tariff would cost £27.52, including the initial £10 fee.

The one-off fee also makes the first daytime charge on a 22kW Source London Flexi subscription expensive at £38.79. That said, subsequent charges are more affordable and frequent users will recoup the cost of the initial fee. It’s also important to note that Source London only charges its highest rates in the three London boroughs listed above; prices are lower elsewhere and many of its chargers are free to use.

A spokesperson for the company said: “Source London is the only network to include on-street parking in its usage fees. This gives our members the ability to park anywhere in London, including Central London, without having to pay any additional on-street parking fees which would often have to be paid separately at other locations.”

Outside London, Ionity’s rapid 350kW network proved most expensive, with a £0.69 per kWh fee to use its rapid chargers. The 80% charge would take just 35 minutes, though, compared with more than seven hours using a slower 7.4kW charger.

What Car? editor Steve Huntingford said: “Unlike petrol and diesel prices, which are relatively stable across the country, tariffs for the UK’s public charging network can vary wildly due to different electricity and subscription fees. Our research highlights the importance of doing your research before you leave home to find the most cost-effective way to make your journey.”

The findings follow the launch of a Government consultation to investigate ways to improve the public charging experience for drivers.

Among the key points is a proposal that charge point operators have to make pricing information more readily available, along with location and power output data.

The Government says that this is essential for ensuring costs are fair, for driving competition, and for increasing the confidence of both existing EV drivers and those considering making the switch.

Cost of charging a BMW iX3 (80kWh), according to What Car?’s study:

Cost of charging a BMW iX3 (80kWh), according to What Car?’s study:

Network and tariff	Monthly fee (£)	Fee per charge (£)	Cost per kWh (£/kWh)	Total 10-80% charge cost (£)
Source London Flexi (7.4kW)*	0.00	0.00	0.073 per min	40.66
Source London Flexi (22kW)*	0.00	0.00	0.13 per min	38.79
Ionity (350kW)	0.00	0.00	0.69	35.74
Source London PAYG (7.4kW)	0.00	0.00	0.084 per min	35.28
Source London Full (7.4kW)	4.00	0.00	0.05 per min	25.00
Source London PAYG (22kW)	0.00	0.00	0.157 per min	22.18
BP Pulse subscription (150kW)	7.85	0.00	0.27	21.84
BP Pulse PAYG (150kW)	0.00	0.00	0.42	21.76
BP Pulse PAYG contactless (150kW)	0.00	0.00	0.42	21.76
Shell Recharge (43kW, 50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.39	20.20
ESB subscription London (50kW)	4.99	0.00	0.28	19.49
Source London Full (22kW)	4.00	0.00	0.109 per min	19.40
Osprey (22kW to 50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.36	18.65
Instavolt (50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.35	18.13
Geniepoint London (43kW, 50kW)	0.00	1.80	0.30	17.34
Char.gy PAYG (7kW)	0.00	0.00	0.33	17.09
Ubitricity SmartCable Membership (7.4kW)	7.99	0.19	0.16	16.57
Geniepoint Rapid (43kW, 50kW)	0.00	1.00	0.30	16.54
ESB contactless London (50kW)	0.00	0.50	0.30	16.04
Geniepoint (7kW, 22kW)	0.00	0.50	0.30	16.04
BP Pulse subscription (50kW)	7.85	0.00	0.15	15.62
BP Pulse PAYG contactless (50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.30	15.54
Ecotricity (43kW, 50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.30	15.54
ESB PAYG London (50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.30	15.54
BP Pulse subscription (7kW)	7.85	0.00	0.12	14.07
BP Pulse PAYG (50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.25	12.95
Ubitricity PAYG (7.4kW)	0.00	0.00	0.24	12.43
Pod Point (43kW, 50kW)	0.00	0.00	0.23	11.91
BP Pulse PAYG (7.4kW)	0.00	0.00	0.18	9.32

*£10 sign-up fee, the cost per minute on 7.4kW chargers is capped at four hours between 8pm and 7am, making overnight charging cheaper

Winter conditions can reduce the range of a battery electric vehicle by up to 40%, participants in the Optimise Prime EV trial have reported.

The Ofgem-funded programme is the world’s largest commercial EV project and aims to discover how the UK’s electricity infrastructure will cope with the mass adoption of EVs, as well as how businesses can accelerate their transition.

It features three fleet partners – Royal Mail, Centrica and Uber – who each have different operating modes, as well as Hitachi and electricity distribution networks UK Power Network and Scottish and Southern Electricity networks.

James Rooney, fleet engineer at Centrica, said: “In 2014, we took on some Nissan eNV200s and they were a really good van in the summer, not so good in the winter.

““Bearing in mind this is old tech, we could get 70 miles out of them in the summer but in winter that could be down to 40 miles with a mix of what the cold does to the battery in terms of potency as  well as the driver using the heaters.

“It’s less of a problem now with battery preconditioning and liquid-cooled batteries, but we certainly see a seasonal disparity.”

Royal Mail has had a similar experience. “We introduced our first 100 EVs throughout 2018/19 so we’ve had them for a couple of winters now,” says Anna Pearson, fleet innovation and environment manager at Royal Mail.

“The colder and darker conditions means we have to use the heaters and lights more, and we have seen a drop in range.

“We’ve probably seen a drop of about 25% to 30%, definitely. That obviously depends on how the vehicle is being driven as well.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government wants charge point operators to make charging an electric vehicle (EV) no different to fuelling a petrol or diesel car.

A consultation, launched by Department for Transport (DfT) over the weekend, outlines a series of measures it believes could transform the charge point experience for EV drivers.

Key is interoperability, with the Government suggesting customers should be able to make a contactless payment, without having to download an app.

The consultation – The consumer experience at public electric vehicle charge points – also reveals how the Government wants to improve charge point reliability by forcing operators to respond to faults quickly and provide a 24/7 helpline for drivers.

“Standardisation to a pence-per-kilowatt hour (kWh) basis will enable a simpler pricing framework for all users.”

Furthermore, it is proposing charge point operators have to make pricing information more readily available, along with location and power output data.

The Government says that this is essential for ensuring costs are fair, for driving competition, and for increasing the confidence of both existing EV drivers and those considering making the switch.

“These proposals will ensure that it’s as easy – or even easier – for drivers to charge their car as it is to refuel a petrol or diesel vehicle,” said the Department for Transport (DfT).

The consultation is also seeking evidence on three emerging policy areas: accessibility for disabled consumers; weatherproofing and lighting; and signage.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, said: “In simple terms, drivers want charge points to be as easy and simple to use as a fuel pump.

“They don’t want to have a multitude of apps or membership cards, but the ability to simply understand how much it will cost them and pay by card.”

EV charge point pricing

By opening up chargepoint data, the Government believes it will enable the development of consumer-friendly apps and improve consumer experience.

It will also reduce costs by encouraging competition and innovation, and support system planning across the transport and electricity sectors, it says.

Fleet operators and company car drivers have long argued for a far simpler payment system for charge points.

The Association of Fleet Professionals, when ACFO, highlighted how ‘charge point anxiety’ could thwart the wider adoption of EVs.

“We would caution against interventions that would stymie innovation that will benefit consumers,” Daniel Brown, REA

The consultation says that consumers should be able to understand and compare pricing offers across the UK network to select the best available price, as is currently the case for petrol and diesel vehicles.

“Standardisation to a pence-per-kilowatt hour (kWh) basis will enable a simpler pricing framework for all users,” it adds. “Providers would still be able to offer a range of bundled services tariffs.”

It’s an approach which, it says, will ensure alignment with the energy sector and the price of electricity used across the network, helping consumers compare how much they are paying at home with how much they are paying when they use the public charging network.

The Government says it is also essential that the charge point network is maintained, and faults are repaired quickly, to ensure a minimum 99% reliability across the charging infrastructure.

Daniel Brown, head of transport at the Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA), believes an open, reliable, and “simple-to-navigate” charging network is crucial to keep the confidence of drivers and fleets and take EVs into the mainstream.

“We welcome Government setting baseline expectations and ‘guard rails’ for the industry to deliver on,” he said.

“The EV charging sector, however, is a complex blend of telecoms, electricity provision, payments, real estate, and hardware and we would caution against interventions that would stymie innovation that will benefit consumers and be the backbone of emerging British brands.”

The consultation was launched at the same time as the DfT announced it would be expanding the Workplace Charging Scheme (WCS) to include small to medium enterprises (SMEs) and the charity sector for the first time.

In addition, it said that the Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme (EVHS), which provides up to £350 towards a charge point, will continue next year and be expanded to target people in rented and leasehold accommodation.

The consultation will run until April 10, 2021. Fleets can respond using the online form.

There will also be consultation workshops running throughout the consultation period. Anybody interested in attending these events, can contact consumerofferconsult@olev.gov.uk.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Van drivers are risking a fine of up to £5,000 and potentially invalidating their insurance for not safely securing their dogs while driving to work, according to research by Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.

The study revealed that two-in-five 41% of van drivers who own dogs prefer to take them to work, but a third admitted to not restraining them securely, which can lead to distractions.

Rule 57 of the Highway Code states that pets must be “suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly”.

The punishment for failing to secure a dog safely can range from up to £1,000 for driving without proper control but can be increased to £5,000 and nine points for careless driving, says Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles.

Kate Thompson, head of marketing at Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, explained: “After such an extended period at home last year, we know that, now more than ever, van drivers don’t want to leave their dogs at home or with dogsitters when they go to work.

“It is important to be aware, however, of the risks attached whether it is distractions while driving and near misses or the possible fines attached to driving with unrestrained pets.”

There are a number of ways to safely secure your pet in the van including a comfortably sized seat-belt harness, pet carrier, dog cage or in the boot behind a dog-guard.

The Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles research found men are more likely to take their pets to work than women, while those working in London and Northern Ireland are most likely to bring their pets to work in their vans.

Van drivers in East Anglia are more inclined to leave their dogs at home than any other region.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News