The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

We all know that one of the most common car insurance fiddles is the widely publicised Cash for Crash whiplash claim. Simply a car races past you, swerves in front and brakes hard. You brake and still run into the back of the car. As you ran into the car in front you are considered at fault whilst all 5 people in the car at the time claim for whiplash and each receive several thousands of pounds in costs and compensation.

With the introduction of the Civil Liabilities Act (at Bill stage at the moment) compensation for whiplash claims will drop from the current maximum of £1,850 to £425. The new Act will make it illegal to submit a whiplash claim without medical evidence. Together it is felt that this will discourage this scurrilous activity and in turn save the Insurance Industry £1 billion each year.

This is the equivalent to £35 per motorist. The Ministry of Justice says that despite the UK having some of the safest roads in Europe the number of whiplash claims has increased by 50% in the past 10 years. They blame a predatory industry that encourages motorists to submit exaggerated or fraudulent claims driving up insurance premiums for all.

Justice secretary, David Gauke, said, ‘This legislation will ensure that whiplash claims are no longer an easy payday. The Bill will seek to set fixed amounts of compensation for whiplash claims and halt the practice of setting claims without medical evidence.’

Whilst some insurers, including Liverpool Victoria and Aviva have pledged to pass on any savings to motorists I have my doubts. And how will we know? Will they send a note to all clients advising of a drop in their premiums? I doubt it. My concern is that the £425 ceiling is too low when applied to a genuine case. Genuine cases of whiplash should be treated fairly with those affected being suitably recompensed. I know people who have suffered whiplash with the problem remaining forever. It can be very painful and debilitating. £425 hardly seems fair to me simply because a few crooks make false claims. By Graham Hill

If like me, you like to watch QI you will know that when asked a question with an obvious answer, the chances are that the obvious answer is wrong. So if you believed that the obvious answer to the question above was the ‘UK’ you would only be partly right.

The reason for saying this is that we will still be exporting to Europe, whether free of duty or not, the products must still conform to health and safety standards set down by the EU. Emissions from our cars must still conform to the EU standards, currently Euro 6.

But that aside we will have International Accounting standards that mean we can’t account for anything in a way we feel we should do – we must conform to the International rules. And that’s not all. What or who is the United Nations? If you thought out loud and said a body set up to maintain world peace and you were sitting on the panel of QI you would have an incorrect answer klaxon blasting in your ear.

The truth is that the UN is currently not only investigating the use of Chemical weapons by Assad but also headlight glare. A United Nations working party has been set up, following concerns by the public, to look into headlight glare to determine whether headlights are now too bright? With newer cars now being fitted with bi-xenon bulbs and even using matrix laser technology (no I don’t either) the public are suggesting that they are being blinded by the bright headlights.

Seriously, a body that I thought was set up to police the world is checking out the safety of car headlights. When did that responsibility pass to them or am I completely missing a point here?

On the point of headlights I read in the same article that an RAC investigation found that 65% of all motorists claimed that they were regularly blinded by oncoming traffic. Good enough then – no wonder the UN are involved. I could possibly understand it if headlight blinding was resulting in a serious number of accidents each year – but there is no evidence of that. All very confusing.

If they carry on down this path I can see us exiting from the UN – let’s call it BREXITUN. The world’s going nuts! By Graham Hill

Insurance comparison website comparethemarket.com has found that car insurance rates are cheaper in the summer than in the winter. New figures showed that insurance rates were most expensive in December. They explained that over the past 4 years the cost of a typical car insurance premium was 13% higher in December than the monthly average for the rest of the year.

Summer and Spring months were found to have the cheapest policies. The comparison site said that in December, call centres are often less heavily staffed and closed for certain periods, leading to less competition in the market and higher prices overall for drivers.

As a result the comparison sites have suggested that drivers should look to take out policies in the summer. Very Strange! By Graham Hill

When Apple updates the operating system on their iPhones in the autumn of this year to IOS 11 it will include a mode that will prevent alerts from coming through to their iPhone whilst driving.

The ‘Do Not Disturb Whilst Driving’ feature is activated when connected to a car via Bluetooth or cable. It will silence all notifications and blank the screen. The feature will also respond to all messages coming through with a text message that says that the person is currently driving and is unavailable.

Passengers who are also connected to the car can opt to disable the feature by confirming that they are not behind the wheel. Drivers will be able to send messages in an emergency by saying the word ‘Urgent’ and can tailor the replies to different contacts.

The new feature, whilst it doesn’t stop those who are not Bluetooth connected from holding the phone to their ear or texting whilst driving, it is certainly a step in the right direction. Others in the industry have given the revision a thumbs up.

Pete Willians, spokesman for the BePhoneSmart campaign said, ‘We’re pleased that at last millions of drivers who use an iPhone are about to be able to put an end to intrusive notifications while they are behind the wheel.’ I agree. By Graham Hill

Nearly a million bus lane fines are issued a year according to the RAC. Between 2015 and 2017 3.4 million penalty charge notices have been issued by local councils, estimated to be £68 million a year or £200 million over the 3 years – so why has this been happening?

The RAC puts it down to ‘inadequate’ or ‘confusing’ signage causing drivers to accidentally move into a bus lane without realising it. It begs the question, is the signage poor in order to catch unsuspecting motorists? The problem is that whilst the local councils wring their hands the confusion causes traffic delays and jams leading also to increased emissions.

One of the problems, in addition to signage, is inconsistency. Some towns and cities have bus lanes that are reserved as bus lanes 24/7 whilst others allow other drivers to use their bus lanes outside set times. So when motorists travel from town to town, to be on the safe side, they stay out of the bus lane.

You will often see cars pulling over at the end of a bus lane to turn left at a junction or roundabout only to be prevented from doing so by those who have zoomed down the bus lane (as they know the rules) giving the impression they are doing something illegal – when they aren’t. This can lead to traffic delays at junctions and possible road rage. A motorcyclist also pointed out that in some towns he can drive along the bus lanes at any time whereas others he can’t.

If you are concerned about receiving a fine it was interesting to note that Manchester was top of the fine list. 2^nd was Glasgow, followed by Cardiff, Bradford and Nottingham. Strangely, whilst London was left off the list, it actually slotted in below Glasgow – quite a surprise. I won’t bore you with more stats but I would point out that in London the borough with the biggest increase was my good friends – Croydon with a 787% increase. I think if you sneezed in a car in Croydon you’de be done for driving without due care and attention!

So the warning, check the signage carefully and don’t assume that a car whizzing down the bus lane knows the rules and is taking advantage, then follow him, he’s probably just nicked the car and doesn’t give a damn! By Graham Hill

The new emissions tests were supposed to stop any emissions test fiddling and allow employers to make a more educated assessment when deciding on their car policy – even when the car policy only extended to one car. As a result, we all knew that there was a very high probability that the emissions figures, for both CO2 and NOx would both increase which would affect employees benefit in kind tax, vehicle excise duty and NI.

And that is pretty much the sum total of all the information provided by the Government. As over 60% of my cars are supplied on business agreements I thought I would explain where we are at the moment. The current testing procedure is called NEDC and it’s the result of those tests that we use to calculate benefit in kind tax.

Since September 2017 all new cars launched or facelifted have to be tested under the new regime, the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP). The other thing we know is that all new cars must be tested under WLTP from 1^st September 2018 (unless the car is on runout) but given an NEDC correlated figure.

This figure was assumed to mean that if your car had emissions of 95g/km of CO2 under NEDC and 120 g/km under WLTP a calculation would be made and we would end up somewhere close to the NEDC reading. Unfortunately, that’s it – all the information we have. So we have yet to learn how the changes will affect benefit in kind tax, vehicle excise duty and National Insurance.

From what I have been reading everything else, other then the two known deadlines, is total guesswork. We haven’t even been told that if the car you are driving is tested and the calculation applied to arrive at a CO2 emissions midpoint, whether you will pay increased benefit in kind tax and NI. The assumption is that if you already have the car you will continue to pay at the old NEDC emissions level. But we don’t know. Apparently, the Treasury is still ‘assessing the impact’.

Another assumption is that given company vehicle lifecycles it is assumed that until 2020, any cars taken by businesses and provided as company cars will attract BIK tax and NI based on the WLTP test results then run through the calculator, known as CO2MPAS, to arrive at the mid-point figure. Assuming also that after 2020 the full WLTP reading will be used. Again, whilst it is the general feeling of the industry, 2020 has not been confirmed as the change date.

Whilst it was originally believed that once the CO2MPAS calculation was applied that the CO2 readings would only increase marginally, it has been found that they have increased by between 10 and 20 percent, hitting company car drivers pretty hard as the readings bump them up the tax bands. This could lead to a number of employees switching from company cars to car allowances which is not good. Experience shows that employees don’t take such good care of their cars and they err towards used cars as opposed to new cars.

I have to say that I was a remainer, not a remoaner. I knew that the BREXIT decision could go either way and I was prepared to accept the decision – whatever the outcome. But if this is an example of how we take back control, we are in for a very rough ride! By Graham Hill

Far too often I’ve heard complaints from consumers who have made a warranty claim only to be told that the manufacturer won’t honour it – insisting that the problem was down to wear and tear or the driver’s driving style. In many cases the decision is wrong but what do you do if the manufacturer has point blank refused to carry out a repair?

Well first off you read the relevant sections in my PCP guide – soon to be available as a free download. The same rules apply whether you took the car on PCP, HP or PCH finance. You don’t own the car so your beef is with the owner of the car – the finance provider.

If you’re not satisfied with the response from the dealer and the manufacturer, make a formal complaint to the finance provider. If you still can’t get the problem sorted you report both the lender and the dealer to Trading Standards. They will contact the dealer and the lender. Still no joy? Move on to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) but only if you have financed the car. If you bought for cash there is nothing they can do. The official alternative is what used to be called Motor Codes, now the Motor Ombudsman.

This isn’t part of FOS. FOS is a government-run independent body very much on the side of consumers. However, the Motor Ombudsman is funded by the garages that sign up to their scheme and you can only complain about a garage that is one of their members. Are you starting to get the same feelings as I’m getting? How certain can you be that you’ll be treated fairly over a part that is very expensive and needs replacing? In my opinion, avoid the Motor Ombudsman.

Next down the list are the trade bodies, a route very rarely suggested but can be very effective. Your issue is actually with the lender so check on the websites to see if the finance provider is a member of the Finance and Leasing Association (FLA) and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), you should make a formal complaint against the funder if he fails to get involved or come up with an acceptable solution.

You can also ask the association for details of their Dispute Resolution Service and make an application to them to help if you are in a stalemate. Every trade body must have a Dispute Resolution Service that they can provide details of. The dealer and manufacturer must carry some responsibility, so make the same complaint to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) and if you want to take up the case with them (not the lender) you can, but beware of stepping on the toes of a lender. They will also have a Dispute Resolution Service which you can call upon.

Finally, you can file a legal claim through the small claims court but hopefully, you would have resolved the problem before you get to this stage at no cost other than your time. By Graham Hill

If you are a regular reader of my blog posts you will know how frustrated I can get when the advice that is handed out by so-called experts to drivers with a problem falls short of the full and accurate advice. Just because a fault appears on a car that is out of warranty doesn’t mean that you have no claim against the dealer from whom you bought the car. Or if the car is on finance against the finance provider.

I have explained that any complaints should be raised with Trading Standards and also with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Write a letter of complaint to the manufacturer if you feel that the dealer you are using, his franchisee, isn’t treating you fairly.

But there is another line of fire that I rarely discuss. A route that I am about to embark upon with Mercedes who have rather foolishly decided to take me on! Interesting times. You may know that you can go to conciliation if you have a complaint. There are various types of Conciliation. County courts offer a Mediation Service which is free and can resolve issues before they get to court. But to use it you must already have taken steps to sue the other party and that could end up costing you money.

The purpose of the Mediation Service is to see if there is a quick solution that could avoid court time and expense on the part of all concerned. Another form of conciliation service is one provided via a trade body that the supplier is a member of. And this is the real heavy guns in my opinion. First of all establish which trade bodies are involved. You can check out their website for details.

Most lenders are members of the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) with some also members of the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA). So first of all you need to explain that you want to use the conciliation service of the trade association. The finance company you are dealing with must do that. You can then make a formal complaint to their trade association then discuss the complaint with the independent adjudicator.

As the lender stands a chance of being disciplined or even thrown out of their trade association they will want to avoid this, especially if you are in the right. So you may find their approach relax once you have filed your formal complaint. You can then proceed with the conciliation service.

If the car wasn’t financed you can still raise your complaints with the conciliation service run by the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders. You don’t have to accept their findings, you can take up the case with the Financial Ombudsman Service and/or pursue them through the court.

What I do is make a formal complaint against the company to its trade body for bringing the industry into disrepute. This will be followed by an enquiry into what happened and some sort of penalty if they were found to be in breach of the rules. All the time you are breaking them down to the point where they normally roll over.

Too many people are being abused by both lenders and manufacturers when dealing with legitimate complaints. This has got to stop! By Graham Hill

Matthew Avery, director of research at Thatcham Research, explains that the safety star rating isn’t quite as it seems or as people perceive it to be. Over the 20 years that they’ve been testing cars they’ve tested nearly 700 models and awarded ratings to 94%. Of those half have been rated 5 stars.

Over the years the tests have been refined and updated to take account of new technology and legislation. But not all 5 star ratings are equal and comparable. Not because of when the test was carried out, although clearly that has a bearing, but the ratings are awarded within the class of car. It is therefore not possible to compare ratings between say a small family car like a Fiesta and a large luxury SUV such as a BMW X5.

The test procedures are revised every couple of years, responding to new safety technologies. For example when Autonomous Emergency Braking was introduced the tests were altered to accommodate it. It was introduced in 2008 and by 2014 it became part of the star rating test. Although it is only this year that it becomes a pre-requisite of the 5 star rating.

Matthew went on to explain that the car mass (weight) plays a part as a bigger heavier car would be expected to be safer than a small car if involved in an accident. So the ratings are relative within the group. The Fiesta and the X5 could both be considered safe within their class even though they have major differences.

Crash safety science is complicated so they’re looking to make it more comparable. In the meantime, the recommendation is to seek out cars with 5 star ratings.

Now I have to say that I was shocked when I read this. I always believed that if you bought a car with a 5 star rating I believed it to be one of the safest cars on the road but what it really meant was that it was one of the safest cars on the road – within class. But what is ‘the class’? Would a Ford Focus, that cost a similar amount to say a Tiguan 4WD, be in the same class?

As I understand it the stars that are awarded are therefore relative to other cars ‘in their class’. But if a manufacturer introduces some new safety technology as standard on their car and they already have 5 Stars – where do they go from there? Six stars? If a Vauxhall Astra already has 5 Stars then Ford, who also have 5 stars awarded to their Focus, make their car even safer, how would you as a buyer be able to draw the distinction? Especially is safety is your deciding factor.

All very worrying! By Graham Hill

In a survey carried out by the AA of over 21,000 motorists, an astonishing 85% expressed fear for their safety and that of others when driving on our poorly maintained roads. 92% were concerned about the damage to their cars whilst more than half (52%) had sustained damage over the last few years as a result of roads being allowed to deteriorate.

Simon Benson, director of motoring services at AA Cars, said: “With many local councils lacking the funds to adequately repair roads, the country’s highway system is deteriorating – which in turn puts drivers at risk and makes pothole-related damage to cars increasingly likely. He pointed out, “Clearly, drivers are well aware of this problem, as we can see by their distinct lack of confidence in the state of British roads”.

He went on to share a few gems of advice. Firstly, keep your tyres properly inflated. Underinflated tyres can suffer greater damage if they hit a pothole. Slow down if you approach a pothole. Some people confuse their car with a hovercraft and believe that a pothole approached at speed will allow you to skim over it – you won’t. Take similar care when approaching what appears to be a puddle in the road – it could be a pothole.

Also beware of cyclists. They may see a pothole at the last minute and swerve to avoid it, if the conditions are known to be bad allow plenty of space when overtaking a push bike. The report also revealed that 75% of motorists are becoming aware of longer journey times as drivers slow down for potholes.

Finally, it calculated that 4.6 million motorists are now reluctant to use their cars for local journeys and 3.7 million are reluctant to use their cars on longer journeys for fear that they may damage their cars. In summing up the report revealed that nearly three quarters of motorists (72%) felt that their road fund licence wasn’t used properly and more of what they pay should be used to maintain the roads. I totally agree, the infrastructure in this relatively small island is a disgrace. By Graham Hill