The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

If you are one of those who uses a mobile phone whilst driving without a Bluetooth hands free kit be prepared for extra points on your licence and an increased fine if you get caught.

New proposals from the Department for Transport (DfT) will increase the number of points to 4 which means that under the totting up rules if you get caught 3 times you will automatically lose your licence, previously you had to be caught 4 times.

After seeing an increase in accidents involving drivers using mobile phones whilst driving the Government has decided to take action. Not only will the points increase to 4 but the fixed penalty fines will increase to £150 from £100. HGV drivers will see their points increase to 6 if caught using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Most new cars come with Bluetooth so yet another reason why motorists should lease their cars – well what did you expect me to say? By Graham Hill

Has anything changed in your life that you feel could affect your car insurance? Have you had an accident or managed to clock up some points on your driving licence. Maybe you have had your eyes tested and been told you are as blind as a bat?

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

All of these things are pretty obvious but what about the not so obvious. I read recently about a spate of damage caused to nearly a hundred cars in Bournemouth by vandals.

If any of the owners were like me and managed to fill their garage up with junk, forcing them to park their cars in the road but didn’t tell their insurer that the car was now parked in the street overnight they could find themselves having a visit from their insurance company to see if they could park their car in their garage overnight, if not the insurer could refuse the claim.

You must advise the insurance company of any changes that could affect the premium, even if it is lower. If you move house you might remember to change your driving licence but what about the insurance? Where you live can affect your premium as can the job you do.

You may get a promotion or change employers in which case you should tell your insurance company. uSwitch carried out a survey to see how many drivers were potentially at risk because the information held by your insurer is out of date or inaccurate. The figure was a staggering 60%. When asked 41% of drivers were unaware that they had to tell their insurance companies about changes of circumstances.

They were also unaware that with most insurance companies every time you change details there is a charge of, on average, £22 but it can be as high as £50, something uSwitch suggest you check before you take out a new insurance policy, especially if any changes are imminent such as moving jobs or home. By Graham Hill

So there I was driving towards Croydon in South London on the A23. For those who know it the traffic lights by the big Tesco store. The road is a funny arrangement, two lanes continue towards Croydon but in the outer lane you can filter off right.

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

The car in front was in the outer lane signalling right so I pulled alongside on his left to continue on. We were both coming up to the traffic lights. Suddenly he obviously decided he wanted to go straight on after all and without warning started to pull into the side of my car.

In the split seconds I had to think I moved to my left, he continued to move over. I now had a few choices as he clearly hadn’t seen me. I could brake hard, in which case there was a good chance he would still run into the side of my car. I could toot and remain alongside in the hope that he would swerve to miss me. Or, as I did, I accelerated out of harm’s way.

The downside was that the cameras flashed from all directions and I ended up with a speeding ticket. Under normal circumstances I would have challenged it but this was Croydon and anyone that knows the Met. operating in Croydon knows that you are wasting your time.

So I have chosen to go on one of the driver re-training courses. Purely for investigative reasons of course, so early in the new year I’ll report back as to what the experience was like. I’m told that it is a real eye opener! Watch this space. By Graham Hill

Are our roads safe enough? Safety organisations and fleet operators think not and are calling for a re-introduction of safety targets called ‘road safety reduction targets. They were first introduced in 1987 but were axed by the Government in 2010.

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

The targets were believed to have helped to reduce road deaths and serious injuries on the road each year. Whilst the targets were discontinued in 2010 the road safety community believe that we are now missing a vital component in the tools that make roads safer.

Trade journal, Fleet News, along with the ACFO and the BVRLA have joined forces to try to convince the Government that they need to re-introduce the targets. However, the DfT have said, ‘Britain continues to have some of the safest roads in the world, but every death is a tragedy and we are determined to do more.’

He went on to explain, ‘We are making sure we have the right legal, education and investment frameworks in place to make our roads safer. We have already introduced new laws, given the police tougher powers to tackle dangerous driving and are investing billions to improve the conditions of our road network.

Local authorities are best placed to decide how to use these frameworks to make their roads safer, rather than having centralised national targets.’ Richard Owen, Road Safety Analysis operations director, pointed out that the current Government was opposed to use targets to dictate policy. He said, ‘An example of this is hospital waiting times. This was forcing hospitals to meet numbers and it was having a detrimental impact on patient care.’

However, UK safety bodies believe that targets do make a difference. There is a wider EU target to reduce road fatalities by 50% by 2020, but a lack of clear UK targets takes away focus and sends a message that road safety is not a priority. The DfT’s Reported Road Casualties In Great Britain Annual Report 2014 shows that 1,775 people died on the roads (a 4% increase on the year before). A further 22,807 were seriously injured (a 5% increase).

Casualties of all severities rose to 194,477 in Great Britain in 2014, an increase of 6% over 2013, interrupting a steady downward trend since 1997. Pedestrians and bike riders bore the brunt of the increase. Pedestrian deaths increased by 446, an increase of 12%, accounting for three quarters of the overall rise in fatalities. Serious injuries to cyclists rose by 8% to 3,401continuing a long term trend that has been ongoing since 2004.

In response to the figures Julie Townsend, deputy chief executive at safety charity Brake commented, ‘We should be under no illusions as to the seriousness of these figures’. Brake join forces with the RAC Foundation and the Institute of Advanced Motorists in calling for the re-introduction of Safety Targets. I find myself agreeing. By Graham Hill

I wasn’t surprised to read that over 1,000 drivers each year appeal MOT test results. However I was surprised to read that these appeals were against a pass rather than a fail. Only 100 appeal a fail each year with about 40 being successful.

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

So why would anyone appeal a pass? As it turns out it is quite logical, they are customers who have bought a used car with a new or relatively new MOT that they subsequently feel is dodgy and want to use the results of the appeal to either return the car or take a dealer to court.

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) confirmed that over 1,250 motorists contacted them in 2014 believing that their car should have failed. The number is increasing as this figure is up by 100 from 2013.

As for those appealing a fail whilst only 116 in 2014 this is the highest over the last 5 years. Of the 1,250 appeals against passed cars only 22% were successful but that shows that nearly a quarter of cars sold with a Full MOT are not roadworthy.

That is frightening. The DVSA carry out an annual Compliance Survey whereby they carry out retests on recently tested cars. They found that 15% of all MOT’s are wrong. Over 11% were given a fail when in fact they passed and 18% were given a pass when they should have failed.

I find that even more frightening! What is wrong with our testing systems whether they are for safety reasons or emission reasons. This isn’t good enough. By Graham Hill

As you know, as it has been the subject of previous blog posts, things have been a little confusing when drivers are given a parking ticket for overstaying the time paid for in private car parks.

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

Many articles have been written about private car park owners who have issued a £100 ‘fine’ to motorists for overstaying their allotted time considered to be a ‘penalty’ which in English law is not allowed unless by statute, such as a speeding ‘fine’ or on road parking ‘fine’.

The argument has always been that had the driver vacated the space the parking company could have sold that space for the time that the car was ‘illegally’ parked, let’s say an hour plus a ‘reasonable’ admin fee. But thanks to a Supreme Court ruling this is all about to change. Mr Beavis took action when he was given an £85 parking ticket when he overstayed the two hour parking limit by just under an hour. Mr Beavis took the private parking company, Parking Eye, to court.

The case of Beavis v ParkingEye hinged on whether the fine charged by Parking Eye was classed as a penalty, which would make it unlawful unless it equates to actual losses incurred by Parking Eye. Open and shut one would think as the company didn’t appear to sustain a loss from the overstay. Not so said the Supreme Court who ruled, ‘The fine was not a penalty as the charge authorises the company to control access to the car park in the interest of customers and the wider public’.

The judgement said fines were beneficial to motorists themselves as they make parking spaces available to them which might otherwise be clogged up by long stay users. I have not read about this case anywhere else other than my one secretive source and yet the findings have a massive impact on the basic understanding that if a commercial ‘penalty’ doesn’t reflect a loss incurred it ain’t lawful.

This is what John de Waal QC of Hardwicke Chambers who represented Beavis had to say about this monumental decision, ‘The case sets a new test for ‘take it or leave it’ consumer contracts as the law was last considered at this level 100 years ago’.  He went on to say, ‘Until today, charges that had been agreed in advance, payable on breach of contract, were disallowed as unlawful penalties unless they could be justified as a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Today’s judgement sweeps away that rule and says that deterrent charges will be allowed if there is some commercial justification for them’. A very strange decision on the part of the Supreme Court but no doubt one that will have all car park owners, other than local authority car parks, singing in the streets! By Graham Hill

As VW continue to fight fire as things get worse following the latest revelations that 800,000 petrol cars have incorrectly stated CO2 emissions. In a statement from VW following a question about the effects on personal tax of those driving affected company cars, they have said that they will stand any additional CO2 based tax due from drivers and went further asking that the Governments involved charge VW direct rather than involve drivers.

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

We are yet to see the responses from Governments across Europe – this is getting very messy. In addition VW have issued an action plan. The new chairman, Matthias Muller, said in the plan, ‘We have to look beyond the current situation and create the conditions for Volkswagen’s successful further development.’ There’s an optimist for you.

The first of the 5 point action plan – aimed at the re-alignment of the group, is to support customers affected by what VW is now referring to as ‘the diesel issue’. The company is working towards finding effective technical solutions to help its models to meet historical Euro4 and Euro5 emissions limits which it plans to roll out in January 2016 having liaised with the German Federal Motor Transport Authority.

Second on the action plan list is to carry out a thorough investigation in to how the software that was allegedly installed to falsify emission figures, during certain testing conditions, came into existence and why. Muller added, ‘We must uncover the truth and learn from it’. They have also recruited audit firm Deloitte to assist with the investigations and added that ‘those responsible for what has happened must face severe consequences’.

Third on the list is a total re-organisation of the group in an attempt to ensure that this can never happen again. Group management is to be decentralised to a greater extent in the future with individual brands and regions being given more independence. Muller said that the company would examine the portfolio of more than 300 models with a view to examine the contributions made by each model to earnings.

They will also look into ‘cross brand strategies’. The fourth ambition is one of openness. This will involve a realignment of the Group’s culture and management behaviour with a focus on retaining ‘the pursuit of perfection’ and employees’ commitment to the company. The company will change the way the business handles and communicates mistakes with an aim to create ‘a culture of openness and cooperation’.

Finally VW Group, which had a 2018 strategy, has replaced it with a 2025 strategy shifting emphasis from sales numbers to building ‘qualitative growth’. Muller revealed that they would be working on the new strategy over the next few months to be unveiled in mid 2016.

I have written several articles recently asking whether this ends with emissions. In the past manufacturers have been trusted to keep us safe in our cars and meet the many standards laid down by Governments. But is this the tip of the iceberg? Will other manufacturers be caught out fiddling emissions but worse have any of them been fiddling safety tests in order to sell more cars? By Graham Hill