The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

In a report in Auto Express, Chris Grayling calls for motorway fuel retailers to share live price data via apps and sat-navs

Motorway fuel retailers should share live pricing information to prevent drivers being taken advantage of, the transport secretary has said.

Chris Grayling has contacted a number of motorway service station operators, asking them to list how much they are charging for petrol and diesel at their motorway forecourts at any one time on smartphone apps and sat-navs.

If motorists were able to access this data in advance, rather than having to pull off the motorway and drive to the forecourt, they would be able to better plan motorway journeys and work out where to get the cheapest fuel. In addition, the Department for Transport has suggested that the data could be used by autonomous vehicles in future.

Petrol and diesel prices at motorway service stations can be around 15p per litre more expensive than at other retailers.

Grayling said that, if motorway fuel retailers decline to make their live pricing data openly available in the way he has suggested, he will launch an “urgent review” into how motorists can refuel affordably.

“Fuel prices are highest on motorways, taking advantage of drivers who have less choice when it comes to shopping around,” said Grayling. “Accessing this data on a smartphone or sat-nav means motorists can plan ahead and refuel safely at the best possible price.”

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams commented: “While we welcome the idea of motorway fuel retailers sharing their pricing data in terms of better transparency, the reality is any app will only tell drivers what they already know – that motorway fuel prices are unbelievably expensive.”

Williams added that RAC research has shown 44 per cent of drivers “would never buy fuel on the motorway”, advising motorists to try and find forecourts that charge at or below the average price of fuel. By Graham Hill

Many moons ago my dad bought a brand new Cortina and one of the options at the time was electric front windows. I asked if he was going to have the option as it looked pretty cool and his answer was – why? What problem did electric windows address? And besides which it was something else to go wrong.

Hand-cranked windows rarely went wrong and if they did a sharp bang on the inside of the door seemed to sort it out. So when you read daily of car crime increasing because of crooks being able to break into keyless car technology and nick cars and contents on an industrial scale I find myself asking the question – why? Why does the technology even exist?

What problem does keyless entry solve? I understand remote controls, one of the best things ever invented for TV’s and cars. With respect to cars, you no longer have to fumble in the dark to find a hole in which to stuff your key or breath on the door lock to defrost it enough to insert the key and gain entry on a frosty morning.

No more fumbling in the rain and with some diesels, remotely unlocking the car from a distance actually activates the pre-heaters which should be activated before starting the engine. So why this obsession with keyless entry? What is the problem it is solving over and above a remote key.

A remote key is capable of transmitting around a trillion variants of its generated code that allows the car to be locked/unlocked/boot opened etc. The only time the code can be accessed is when you push the button to transmit which is then changed the next time you lock or unlock the car making it incredibly difficult to break into the car.

On the other hand, a keyless device is transmitting constantly making it easy for crooks to harvest the code and unlock then start the car using a handheld computer device to gain entry. The fact is that it isn’t like my iPhone with either fingerprint or facial recognition you need to carry something so why not a remote key?

Personally, I don’t think my life will be in any way enhanced by having keyless entry so with a higher risk of theft and no doubt higher insurance premiums give me a remote control. My Audi is even more dopey. I have a remote control to open and lock the car and boot but when I’m in the car I have to press a button to start it with the remote control taking up space in one of my cup holders. Crazy!

In order to overcome the security issues faced by those with keyless entry I’ve scanned the solutions introduced by manufacturers and found that most either overcome the problem by using a Faraday bag that encases the signal or the remote can either be deactivated (a bit like pressing a button on a remote control) or it will deactivate itself if there is no movement. My solution is much easier, revert back to remote controls!

If you are concerned about keyless entry with your car some manufacturers have allowed for the keyless entry to be disenabled either yourself or by a main-dealer. Call their customer services or call into a dealer to find out. By Graham Hill

So what’s he up to this time I hear you ask? Well Mr Angry of West Sussex here is getting really annoyed that we don’t hear anything concrete from this Government regarding diesel cars vs petrol cars vs hybrids vs electric cars.

He’s called for a national scrappage scheme which I don’t disagree with. The real culprits are the very old cars and vans that can be seen spewing out thick smoke and soot which is clearly not good for the atmosphere and the health of our nation.

Having said that MOT testers now have to carry out a visual check on the exhaust of all vehicles and if they are spewing out smoke they fail – simple as. Back to Mr Khan, he’s calling for a national scrappage scheme, not to put people into newer petrol cars that would be a step in the right direction (not exactly as I’ll explain) but into pure electric vehicles.

Well, first of all, you don’t have to be a financial whizz kid to realise that people that are driving old diesel cars about are either eccentric multi-millionaires that are tight with their money but can appreciate a good deal when they see it or is it because they are financially stretched and can’t afford a newer car otherwise they would be driving one?

So expecting these people to swap their old diesel for either a hugely expensive new electric car or a used electric with a range of 3 miles, on a good day, is pure idiocy! And if we could incentivise the diesel drivers to move across to electric cars what about the infrastructure. I live in a rural Sussex town but with the remnants of an old marriage taking up space in my garage that couldn’t accommodate my car anyway (even if it was empty) and with no power to the garage – charging in my garage would not be an option.

Parking in the road is manic and with lamp posts located on the inside of the pavements, we couldn’t even mount chargers on the lamp posts. The idea that we can convert everyone into EV drivers is a pipedream and not possible until battery technology catches up. A lightweight battery pack that could be easily removed from the car and charged indoors then reconnected into the car when needed could be a solution – but we aint there yet!

In the meantime, the answer would be to get new car buyers, with the ability to charge electric vehicles, to buy EV’s or plug in hybrids, the more sold would bring down the cost of used cars and make them more affordable.

But as the Government has removed the subsidy on hybrids and reduced the subsidy on EV’s it’s hardly a move in the right direction. And even companies, keen to get their company car drivers into EV’s with zero emissions face the challenge from employees that BIK tax this year, even on cars with zero emissions, face a BIK bill of 16% of the car’s overpriced list price.

I should also mention that if you read my 3 part report into the findings by the Germans who carried out a large survey into latest generation diesel cars only to find that emissions of NOx, CO2 and particulates were less than petrol when tested on the road in real world conditions so if anything we should be moving back to diesel as an interim measure.

Sorry Mr Khan, consider the above then I would get back to the drawing board if I were you!  By Graham Hill

Fleet News reported on the following that I found interesting so I thought I would pass on, especially as I was nearly blinded last night when driving to Tesco in the rain last night. It’s incredible to think that headlamp regulations haven’t been changed since the 1960’s. Think we need an update!

The problem of glare – caused a headlight’s beam having a dazzling effect for oncoming traffic – is getting worse, research from the RAC suggests.

Nine in 10 drivers said ‘some’ or ‘most’ car headlights are too bright and 54% of these said they are dazzled more regularly now than a year ago.

When asked how they are affected by glare, six in 10 of those affected said they regularly get dazzled by oncoming headlights even though they are dipped, with a similar proportion (60%) being unable to tell if headlights are either dipped or on full beam.

Almost half (45%) also complained that they get dazzled by headlights in their rear-view mirror, while 70% believe some lights are so bright they represent an accident risk.

In fact, official Government data shows there are around 300 collisions every year where dazzling headlights are a factor.

Drivers were less clear on the likely causes of glare, however. Half (51%) blamed vehicles that sit higher on the road, such as increasingly popular sports utility vehicles (SUVs), for dazzling them although 41% said the problem was not caused by any particular type of vehicle.

Similarly, when it comes to lighting technologies, 55% believe ‘bluer’ xenon or the most modern LED headlights are to blame, but a similar number (51%) are not sure or cannot tell the difference between the types of lights.

The research also found that in some cases drivers themselves might be inadvertently causing glare – either by not adjusting their lights correctly, or by having badly-aligned lights. Almost half (47%) of drivers either never adjust their car headlights up or down when carrying different loads, or don’t do it regularly enough – something that is important in avoiding causing other people to suffer from glare as the aim of the headlight beam is affected by the load in the vehicle.

A quarter of drivers (26%) meanwhile have suspected problems with a misaligned headlight, with 9% of this group either trying to sort the problem out themselves or ignoring it altogether – all of these scenarios are likely to lead to a dazzling effect that could cause other road users discomfort.

RAC spokesperson Rod Dennis said: “The dazzling effect of another driver’s headlights isn’t just uncomfortable – in some cases it can be nothing short of dangerous, making us lose sight of the road for a short time. So it’s concerning to see that a greater proportion of drivers have reported problems with glare this year than last year.

“Among some drivers there is a perception that newer headlights cause more glare. But while a sizeable proportion claim it is the xenon headlights more often found in higher-end vehicles that are primarily to blame, a greater proportion either don’t know the difference between lights or aren’t sure.

“In reality, the issue of glare is a complex one and it’s not as straightforward as saying one type of lightbulb causes more of a dazzling effect than another – there are a range of reasons why a driver might be dazzled, from a slight misalignment of a headlight, the difference in ride height of different vehicles and even individual people’s vision. That explains why not every car headlight appears to be dazzling, with eight-in-10 drivers saying only some cause glare.”

Headlamp aim forms part of a vehicle’s MOT, and the requirements on garages to conduct this part of the test thoroughly were strengthened in 2016.

However, figures obtained by the RAC from the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) show that of the 26.5m MOT tests completed in 2018 for Class 4 vehicles (which includes cars) over three years of age, 6% still failed as result of problems with headlamp aim, the equivalent of nearly 1.6m vehicles.

In 2016, the agency also stated that “headlamp aim consistently tops the MOT compliance survey as one of the most likely items to be assessed incorrectly by testers”.

Dennis said: “All headlights have to meet specific international standards, which motorists might be surprised to discover haven’t been updated since the 1960s and so do not take specific account of newer technologies like xenon and LED. And an overwhelmingly proportion of drivers – 84% – now want the UK Government to act to ensure the regulations are updated to remove the possibility of glare being a result of modern technology.”

I find I get dazzled regularly – what can I do?

• Talk to your optician. If you wear glasses, a coating can be added that can go some way towards making it easier to see when you are faced with car headlights. A quarter (25%) of respondents to the RAC survey wear such glasses.

• Adjust your rear-view mirror more often. Unless your car has a self-dimming rear-view mirror, you can reduce glare from vehicles behind you by doing this – more than half (56%) of drivers who responded to the survey say they do this.

By Graham Hill

Following a ‘super complaint’ to the Competitions and Markets Authority by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) the FCA announced at the end of last year that it was instigating an investigation into the way that car and home insurance was being sold.

Citizen’s Advice alleges that ‘Loyalty Pricing’ is rife throughout insurance, mortgage, savings and telecoms industries. The process gives customers the impression that they are receiving preferential rates when in fact they are conning us out of £4.1 billion every year according to the CAB.

We’ve probably all been there, I know I was taken in with the wording of my car insurance renewal letter many years ago, something along the lines of ‘Thank you for being a loyal customer, as a result of which we can offer you the special loyalty rate of £xx for the next 12 months. You don’t have to do anything if you wish to continue with us blah blah blah’.

There I was thinking I had a good rate until I tested the market and found that I could save £300 a year – the crooks! And don’t get me started on ‘Loyalty’ phone upgrades! So I for one am all in favour of the FCA investigation. The FCA has already said that it understands the conflict between consumers’ perception of what Loyalty means and the truth – they will be addressing the situation.

Reading the various reports it is far worse than I thought. It would seem that insurance companies assess the likelihood that you will shop around before giving you the new quote. This can see some subjected to ‘price discrimination’, whereby they are charged more than other customers who present the same risk to insurers, and cost no more to provide cover for.

The FCA said it has ‘Concerns that these pricing practices can potentially disadvantage some consumers significantly, in particular, the most vulnerable and least resilient customers’. It seems that older drivers and those with disabilities are less likely to shop around relying on the term ‘Loyalty’ to suggest that they are being treated fairly.

I await the results of the investigation with interest. By Graham Hill

For years I’ve been concerned about safety recalls and the fact that some drivers tend to ignore them putting themselves, their passengers and other road users in danger. I’m not talking about a bit of trim that might fall off inside the car or a glovebox that doesn’t shut properly but something like the Vauxhall Zafira fire hazard that caused more than 160 cars to catch alight.

You may recall (as it was widely publicised) that some 234,000 Zafiras built between 2005 and 2014 were recalled following the fire problem that Vauxhall initially refused to accept as a problem. This was followed by a further recall of 47,000 of Zafira ‘B’ models for fear that the heating systems fitted could also lead to fires.

Initially, Vauxhall thought the problem only existed amongst cars that had the old fashioned heating and air-con systems fitted. But the latest action extended the recall to other models fitted with electronic climate control systems fitted to cars built during the same period. The fault relates to the system’s heater blower and regulator.

Letters have gone out to drivers and registered keepers advising of the recall but this is my issue. Vauxhall have explained to Auto Express that out of the original 234,000 cars, 86.5% were subsequently fixed leaving 31,000 untreated cars on the road, potentially putting lives at risk. Whilst these issues should not exist in the first place, once identified there should be a mechanism that enables every affected car to be identified.

Vauxhall says that it continues to pursue outstanding cars but added to their response to Auto Express: ‘this can take longer if a change in ownership is involved or if owners ignore our letters. There are also some vehicles which have been taken off the road or scrapped since the recall was issued’.

Since this was done I am now aware that in April 2019 a further recall was issued, making 4 in total on this car, that includes cars fitted with manual and no air condition. The latest recall of 235,000 cars also includes cars that were previously fixed for an entirely different problem.

Whilst the Government has criticised Vauxhall for their indifference to the problem in the early days, this is dreadful and more should be done to stop this from happening in the future. All safety recalls should be subject to a more robust system.

DVLA records should be scanned for cars that have been written off or simply scrapped and advised back to the car manufacturer. A note should also be added to the individual car file that contains MOT details so that the MOT station can advise drivers of the safety recall in case the change of ownership had not been recorded and the recall letter not delivered to the new owner.

Garage records should also be updated on each car to contain recall information ready for when the car is serviced. If the recall is a safety recall the car should not be released back on the road until the problem has been fixed.

Once it can be shown that the driver was advised it should be a criminal offence to drive a car under safety recall in the same way that it is illegal to drive a car without a current MOT test or illegal tyres or brakes that put lives at risk. Failure to take action should result in a fine or points on the driver’s licence. That’s what I think! By Graham Hill

We all know that the more electric vehicles on our roads in the UK the greater the demand for public charge points. Even with public charge points you will need a domestic charge point as the cost of charging an electric car using a public charge point pushes up the cost per mile.

When the fuel stations started to introduce fast chargers they were charging an introductory rate which was roughly half price. Once they increased the rates the cost per mile was higher for an electric car than a petrol or diesel car. Whilst local authority installed charge points should be cheaper they will still be more expensive than domestic chargers.

However, London has decided to assist motorists and encourage the purchase of electric cars by converting lamp posts into EV charge points as part of a £300,000 project. The points can deliver charge rates of up to 7.7Kw, and are being installed at 50 lamp posts in Southwark.

The charge points are being supplied by char.gy and funded by Go Ultra Low City Scheme. The chargers can be accessed by EV drivers on pay-as-you-go basis. Poppy Welch from Go Ultra Low said she wants to see, ‘All new street lighting columns include charging points’ in areas with on-street parking. By Graham Hill

Similar to speed cameras, new cameras are being trialled to measure noise levels from vehicles and like speed cameras, they will record the registration number of the vehicle exceeding legal limits.

The trial has been authorised by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling and will take place later this year. The cameras will detect noisy vehicles in quiet residential areas and anyone caught breaking noise level laws will be fined.

Noise pollution is becoming a big problem. So much so that many police forces have set up on-line systems that allow members of the public to report incidents. Mr Grayling is following the example set by Canada, Singapore, Australia and the UAE who are already using noise cameras.

Mr Grayling is keen to see the results of the trials as he is concerned about the misery caused to communities by thoughtless drivers exceeding acceptable noise pollution levels. If the trials are successful he will roll the cameras out across the whole of the UK.  The trials will also help to formalise legal noise levels. As a general rule noise levels over 90 decibels constitutes a nuisance but there is no formal noise limit.

So if you are having problems with car or motorcycle noise you can report it but it probably won’t be long before they install noise cameras somewhere near you. By Graham Hill

According to Auto Express, cars that are vulnerable to keyless theft are set to face higher insurance costs, after the industry experts responsible for setting vehicle “risk ratings” confirmed they would be penalising vehicles that are susceptible to relay attacks.

Thatcham Research, the insurance industry’s automotive research centre, confirmed that if manufacturers failed to include countermeasures to fend off relay attacks on cars with keyless entry systems, the organisation would recommend insurers judge them less favourably when calculating premiums.

While carmakers will be given a grace period to beef up the robustness of keyless systems, from 2021 Thatcham will change its new vehicle security assessment programme (NVSA) to reflect which models are most vulnerable to keyless theft. Insurers don’t have to abide by the guidelines, but the NVSA rating system helps to determine a car’s insurance group rating, meaning many cars are likely to attract higher premiums once the changes come into place.

Owners seeking to future-proof any prospective new-car purchase against potential insurance price hikes post 2021, meanwhile, can head to Thatcham’s security page to check if a car has a Superior, Good, Basic, Poor, or Unacceptable NVSA rating – though the grading system only applies to models introduced since the start of 2019.

You can reach the Thatcham Security Page by following this link:

https://www.thatcham.org/what-we-do/security/consumer-rating-2

The UK is currently experiencing an epidemic of car theft, with insurance payouts for stolen cars at their highest level since 2012, a study by German engineers finding almost every keyless system can be hacked, and police recording under half of all stolen cars being recovered. Carmakers have recently started to roll out fixes to the keyless conundrum, however, with Ford introducing a new keyless key with a motion sensor that puts the fob to sleep when it is not moving.

Commenting on the news, Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said the automotive industry “takes vehicle crime extremely seriously”, while the latest models “feature sophisticated immobilisers, tracking devices and encrypted key codes which prevent cloning.” Hawes also called for the government to ban the relay boxes that facilitate keyless theft. By Graham Hill

Over the last few years, we have seen more company car drivers opt for car allowances rather than replace their current company car with another. For many companies, this is a nightmare. Because whilst an employee is using his own car for business it becomes part of what is known as a grey fleet.

This means that at the time the employee is driving on company business it is the responsibility of the company to ensure that the car is safe and legal along with the driver (health and safety at work). This makes life difficult for businesses who have to ensure that cars are serviced properly and on time. That they are legal with legal tyres and current MOT if applicable. The car must be properly insured for business use and for the carrying of company tools, stock or equipment.

Companies also have a problem with car selection as employees are more likely to use their car allowance for a used executive or maybe a sports car than a car selected by the company that often equates to the status of the employee or the use for which the car is to be used. Some employees would be happy to drive an old car allowing them to take some of their allowance and use it to pay for holidays. This may not portray the correct company image.

The company, therefore, has to decide whether the payment of a car allowance should come with conditions such as type, make, age, safety levels etc of the car selected by the employee. It can become an administration nightmare.

Company responsibilities apply even if an employee drops off post each evening and receives a mileage allowance. From the Government’s point of view, whilst they collect income tax against car allowance payments they are currently losing fortunes as drivers opt for used cars. The vast majority of company cars are new cars which means that the Government can collect VAT, first registration tax, from employees Benefit In Kind Tax and from employers NI.

This ridiculous situation has come about because of the greed of the Government when setting BIK tax levels. In 2018/19 if you drove an electric or hydrogen-powered car emitting no CO2 whatsoever you would still have a BIK bill of 13% of the list price of the car. In the current year 2019/2020 that actually increases to 16% with most petrol cars falling within a band of 19% – 21%. In 2020/2021 we finally see zero-emission cars drop to 2% but petrol cars will increase to 21% – 25%.

Worst of all is the fact that the Government hasn’t released rates for 2021/2022 so if you were to take a company car now on a 3-year lease you wouldn’t have a clue as to what you would be paying in that tax year.

The whole thing is a disaster for both the Treasury and for companies that run company cars. It’s about time the Government got its focus back on the day to day running of the country than Brexit and electing a leader. By Graham Hill