The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

You will probably remember the sad case of the Glasgow refuse truck driver who fainted at the wheel resulting in an accident causing six people to lose their lives and several more to suffer injuries.

The driver had suffered fainting attacks since 1976 but this was unknown to his employer who was held responsible, as any employer would, for the actions of their employee and for allowing him to drive their truck in the first place.

This was still the case even though they claimed that the driver had not told them of his condition. But this raises an interesting point because I only recently found out that it is unlawful for an employer to ask a job applicant about their disability or health until after they have been offered the job.

How crazy is that? However, you can apply for the medical records on the applicant, provided he or she agrees, under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. The medical practitioner (normally the applicant’s GP) is then obliged to provide the records requested.

If you are an employer who either provides company vehicles or pays employees to drive their own vehicles on company business by way of a car allowance or pence per mile, you have an obligation to ensure that they have the appropriate licences and do not suffer from health conditions that may affect their driving.

As an employer you are able to carry out regular assessments on drivers to ensure that they are still fit to drive. And as an employee if you have a condition that may affect your driving you are equally obliged to make your employer aware. By Graham Hill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

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

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

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

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

Did you know that 80% of traffic lights could be scrapped without any detrimental affect on traffic flow? So says a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). They could be replaced by filter-in-turn or all-way give way layouts at junctions (no I haven’t a clue either).

According to the report if we ditched all the unnecessary traffic lights we would avoid unnecessary delays and if this saved 2 minutes per trip it is estimated that the move would save the economy £16 billion a year. The study found that the number of traffic lights had increased by a staggering 25% since 2000.

In addition the report suggested that many bus lanes, cycle lanes, speed cameras and parking restrictions should go also – wow I’m with them on these thoughts. Cities in Germany and the Netherlands have already ditched 80% of their traffic lights successfully and the IEA believes that we could do the same.

The IEA finishes by saying, ‘The affect of these measures puts an enormous burden on the UK economy, It also imposes huge costs on road users, tax payers and communities.’ And I for one agree! By Graham Hill

Having just renewed my insurance I have first hand experienced of the way that crooked insurance companies are trying it on through the ‘auto renew’ con. I had the paperwork through explaining that they had researched the market on my behalf in order to achieve the best possible rate which in fact increased my premium by a third.

But by expressing the new premium in monthly terms on the face of it the figure could have easily been overlooked and being lazy I could have continued on with the same insurer. But having checked the previous year’s premium I was staggered and immediately jumped on comaparethemarket.com (free cinema ticket every week for a year – there’s my dates off match.com sorted for the next year).

When I saw the premiums I was staggered. I was about 40 quotes down the list before the premiums were anything close to the quote from my existing insurer. In fact the quote I went for with the RAC was about £100 a year less than the premium I paid last year. I had a similar experience with Mcafee for my computer protection insurance. I paid the Argos shop £19.99 for one year’s protection last year.

When it came up for renewal they were going to hit my credit card to the tune of £89.99. When I phoned to say I didn’t want it they said they would reduce it to £45.99. After checking with Argos I told the lady to shove it. I believe that if you sign up to auto renew a policy of any kind, if the premium increases by more than say 5% for whatever reason it should be clearly explained and you have to opt in rather than opt out. Rant over! By Graham Hill