The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

I won’t go into the fine detail but the driver of an F-Type had the under bonnet pedestrian airbag deploy twice without the need to, costing him £4,000 as the dealer and the manufacturer refused to accept that there was a manufacturing or design fault and therefore refused a warranty claim.

What Car got involved but still no joy. In the meantime, fearing that the airbag would deploy again the driver, Aiden Magee, stopped using the car. What Car then recommended that he lodge a complaint with the Motor Ombudsman. After investigating, their adjudicator stated he didn’t think that it was a manufacturing defect as it only affected around 2% of F-Types. WHAT THE F!!!! Are they serious?

OK, so it isn’t a manufacturing defect if only 2% of electric kettles blow up! Or if the brakes only fail on 2% of a particular model of car. What a disgraceful argument. But it gets worse. But before I get to that I should point out that the Motor Ombudsman isn’t like the Financial Ombudsman, financed by the Government they are an independent profit-making body set up to confuse customers.

They are paid for by their member dealers so they can hardly be considered as independent. In fact in some promotional text I managed to see, they explain that being a member of the group and paying fees gives all members great publicity giving the public confidence in using those signed up to the ‘code’. So it’s a marketing con. Here are the reviews on Trustpilot:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.themotorombudsman.org

As the car was pre-2016 when Jaguar changed its handbook to say that the pedestrian protection system was active between 12mph and 31mph they felt that as he didn’t know that he had to drive the car at speeds of lower than 12mph when approaching obstacles that Jaguar should pay for the first repair. However, as he had been made aware of the constraints when the first airbag was replaced he was responsible for the second deployment.

None of the above made any sense to me. The ‘Ombudsman’ said that the ‘fault’ only affected 2% of all F-Types so not a manufacturing fault but then referred to the fact that there was no note of the way the pedestrian airbag deployed in the handbook, being the reason why the first replacement should have been made under the warranty but even though no pedestrian was involved in the second deployment the car owner should be responsible.

Not surprising I don’t recommend that you ever use the Motor Ombudsman – what a waste of space. I’m currently attempting to find out if legal expense insurance will cover you for warranty claims. By Graham Hill

Warnings have been issued regarding the non-acceptance of UK driving licences in the EU in the event that we exit next spring without a deal. A report has been issued by the Department for Transport (DfT) explaining what could happen for the benefit of both businesses and private drivers in the event that we leave without an agreement.

UK driving licences will no longer be valid according to licence checking firm Licence Bureau having analysed the DfT report. They have said that in order for UK drivers to travel around Europe they will need two different international driving permits (IDP) from March 2019.

Licence Bureau MD Malcolm Maycock suggested that businesses and individuals should be aware of the issue and maybe start taking action to prepare for it. Especially if businesses need to travel into Europe immediately after Brexit or individuals have holidays planned that require them to drive or hire a car shortly after exit date.

Whilst it is hoped that we won’t leave the EU without an agreement these sorts of issues need to be taken into account. According to the DfT the available IDP’s are based on rules agreed in 1949 and 1968. The 1949 IDP lasts for 12 months and is recognised in Ireland, Spain, Malta and Cyprus, while the 1968 version is valid for 3 years and would be recognised in all other EU countries along with Norway and Switzerland.

And that is just the tip of the detail iceberg that has to be resolved in the event we exit without an agreement. By Graham Hill

If you’re like me and constantly on a diet, which clearly isn’t working or we wouldn’t still be on one, we fool ourselves into believing that we stick exactly to the diet but in truth, we have all the right intentions but when it comes to the crunch we fall short and succumb to chocolate, biscuits, cakes and much more. So whilst we know what we should be doing we do the complete opposite!

It seems that this is the case when it comes to the switch away from fossil fuels to planet-saving alternatively powered cars such as hybrids and electric cars. To prove the point fleet management company CLM carried out a survey amongst car drivers. 400 drivers were asked a series of questions with the following results: 24% said that they would consider a fully electric car, 32% said the same for a plug-in-hybrid and 36% said they would consider a conventional hybrid.

However, in the real world where people swear they are sticking to their diet – but aren’t, these people who say they would go green or greener with their next car are saying it because they want people to believe they actually care about the planet. The truth is that they do care but money talks and if it’s cheaper to buy and run a diesel or a petrol car – that’s the choice made for them.

So back here in the real world, just 0.57% of the cars registered are pure electric, 1.83% are plug-in-hybrids and 3.38% conventional hybrids. That is crazy! Are we all fooling ourselves into believing we can continue as we are because everyone else will switch over to cleaner cars or is it simply down to cost? Or could it be, as CLM MD John Lawrence alluded to – simply down to education?

They found that only 26% of those surveyed could identify a plug-in hybrid whilst 38% could identify a conventional hybrid. On the other hand, 64% could identify a fully electric car. Whilst most of us look on and see how cars are evolving at a rapid rate we struggle with understanding how the vehicles work and how they improve the environment.  If your car usage consists of several short trips around town every day then a Plug-In Hybrid or electric car would be the best but forget the electric and possibly the Plug-In Hybrid if your daily usage requires you to drive long distances.

You could end up spending many a pleasant hour sitting on the hard shoulder of a motorway. So whilst most of us would like to think we are environmentally conscious, in truth we could all do a lot more to bring pollution levels down but for each of us the question is – at what cost? By Graham Hill

If you thought that there was ever healthy competition amongst car manufacturers to the benefit of consumers – think again. They work much more closely than you think – often to the detriment of consumers.

In one case six truck manufacturers were found to have colluded in order to coordinate the pricing and release of new technologies needed to meet stricter emissions standards and when the new tech. should be released. The collusion lasted from 1997 – 2011 and ended up with total fines of £3.4 billion being issued against all of the participating manufacturers by European Commission.

The Competition Commissioners carried out a raid on the 6 companies which included Daimler, Daf, Iveco, Volvo and Renault. Scania decided not to settle with the Commission and were fined a year later for being a member of the Cartel. MAN was also part of the Cartel but as they had cooperated and provided evidence against the others they were immune from any fines.

A report in Fleet News revealed that following the investigation into the truck firms, the Commission, working on some inside information, decided to look further afield and found that German manufacturers, i.e. Daimler (Mercedes), BMW and VW Group had colluded to control the rollout of new technology for cleaner cars. Last month it was widely reported that the European Commission was carrying out an investigation into the allegations.

The antitrust investigators have already uncovered proof that the ‘Circle Of 5’ had held meetings to control the introduction of emission-reducing technology. The circle of 5 included Daimler (Mercedes), BMW, VW, Audi and Porsche. VW and Daimler have assisted the investigations and by being whistleblowers have avoided any fines. That certainly doesn’t seem right!

In October offices of several German car makers were raided and papers and other evidence removed. The German press suggested that there was evidence showing that the car makers had colluded to restrict the size of AdBlue tanks in order to reduce cost and space but potentially cause drivers problems.

Original AdBlue tanks were 35 litres that could clean emissions for up to 18,500 miles. In the end, after getting their heads together they ended up fitting tanks with just 8-litre capacity. The commission is currently investigating claims that the companies concerned colluded to limit the development and roll out of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems to reduce harmful Nitrogen Dioxide emissions from passenger cars with diesel engines.

They will also be investigating claims that the German 5 did the same with ‘Otto’ particulate filters (OPT’s) which reduce harmful particulate emissions from passenger cars with petrol engines. The Commission has stated that it aims to establish whether the conduct of Daimler, BMW and VW have violated anti-trust rules that ‘prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices, including agreements to limit or control technical development’.

Having said that the Commission said ‘At this stage, the Commission has no indication that the parties coordinated with each other in relation to the use of illegal defeat devices to cheat regulatory testing’. According to the report, the 5 were discussing many things at the meetings including the speed that convertible roofs should open and close, common quality requirements for car parts – I interpret that as deciding how long cars should last.

They also discussed common testing procedures, car safety developments and even the speed that cruise control will work. All very worrying. In closing, the Commission indicated that manufacturers could possibly put up a defence as the rules allow for cooperation between manufacturers in the name of safety and improved productivity. It begs the question as to what will happen after Brexit with no common oversight by the Commission when it comes to cars being sold in the UK? By Graham Hill

The Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that an amazing 1 in 4 drivers who died on our roads in 2017 wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Official figures revealed that 1,793 people were killed on UK roads last year. Of those, 27% were not wearing a seatbelt, up from 20% the previous year.

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is currently £100 which rises to £500 if the case goes to court. Clearly, this isn’t enough of a deterrent. As much as we hated Jimmy Saville his clunk click campaigns worked but what on earth causes drivers not to belt up when they get into a car? It just doesn’t make sense. We need some new campaigns to make drivers aware of the dangers that still exist.

On to cars:

Cars are exposed to dangers as a result of ineffective speed bumps. A survey carried out by Confused.com revealed that over a fifth of drivers had experienced car damage as a result of speed bumps with repairs costing an average of £141. Whilst not classed as a road defect local authorities have paid out over £35,000 over the last two years in compensation.

Confused.com surveyed 2,000 motorists of whom 22% reported damage caused by driving over a speed bump of which there are 29,000 in the UK. Tyre damage was the most common – in 48% of the cases followed by 33% reporting suspension damage. 41% felt that speed bumps caused too much damage whilst a quarter said that they did nothing to reduce speed – probably the drivers who sustained damage to their cars – idiots!

Advice from Confused.com’s motoring editor, Amanda Stretton was to check the height of the speed hump if they sustained damage whilst driving at a reasonable speed to see if you qualify for compensation. Might have been handy to explain what that height should be! By Graham Hill

New rules came into force in May with the most controversial being the visual test applied to diesel cars. I mentioned in earlier posts that the examiner now has to look at the tailpipe of any diesel to see if there is smoke, of any colour, emitting from the exhaust. If there is it’s an immediate fail.

The other visual check is for any tampering of the particulate filter. Any signs of tampering is also an immediate fail. Following the new tests the Prestige Motor Warehouse carried out a survey amongst 50 MOT stations across the UK and found that in the first 3 months following the rule changes the number of cars failing their MOT testa has increased by 24%.

With other rules either tightened or introduced there was also a 12% increase in petrol engine failures. Other new checks included under-inflated tyres, contaminated brake fluid, and fluid leaks, these being responsible for several of the failures. There is certainly no reason to fail on tyre pressure, a quick visit to a garage before going for the test should sort that out. By Graham Hill

Highways England has produced a report showing that tailgating kills or seriously injures 100 people on the road every year and causes one in eight road casualties. Highways England is the Government-owned company responsible for the UK’s 4,300 miles of motorways and major trunk roads – they produced the statistics from their own research.

They found that 90% of drivers surveyed reported that they had been tailgated or witnessed another driver being tailgated. As a result, they have launched a campaign called ‘Don’t be a space invader’ to help dissuade motorists from the practice. No I don’t get it either. They also found that tailgating was the single largest concern drivers have about other road users.

Ex F1 champion, Nigel Mansell is backing the campaign. He branded tailgating as ‘A driving habit I utterly deplore’, then said that driving too close to the car ahead is, ‘aggressive and intimidating’ and ‘Can lead to a crash with a tragic outcome’. Matthew Avery of Thatcham research agreed and explained, tailgating can lead to a ‘ripple effect’ of sharp braking from other drivers which can cause ‘Phantom’, traffic jams.

Richard Leonard, head of road safety at Highways England, says tailgating is dangerous, not only because it gives the perpetrator no thinking, braking or reacting time. But also it is ‘Intimidating and frightening if you’re on the receiving end’. This mix of circumstances can lead to mistakes being made with serious consequences.

In addition to the possibility of an accident, tailgating can lead to you receiving a fine of £100 and 3 points on your driving licence for dangerous driving. The official advice is to allow 2 seconds between you and the car in front and increase that to 4 seconds in the wet. Drive safely and think of others. By Graham Hill

When I first started driving, a few more years ago than I would care to contemplate, we had a pretty wide choice of power source to drive our cars. We had ummm – petrol or ummm petrol. Trucks had diesel engines but in those days they had to have a diesel pump in the operators depot because you couldn’t buy diesel at a garage.

I think my first experience of a diesel car was when a neighbour had a diesel Peugeot 505 which you could hear turn into our road – a good half mile away. It sounded like a bag of bolts! Of course, things changed but whilst many drivers chose diesel cars because they were economical and with better sound insulation you couldn’t hear the engine in the car it meant we were stuck with a simple choice – diesel or petrol.

Then along came LPG. It was great for chuggers like the Land Rovers that might squeeze 10mpg from their diesel engine with the wind behind them, driving down a one in one hill with all the seats removed. Suddenly driving a Land Rover other than across a ploughed field made sense once you added LPG. But with so much space being taken up by the fuel tank it never really challenged petrol or diesel, especially in a family saloon.

Of course these days, whilst you can still buy LPG at some garages you now have even more sources of fuel to propel you down the road. Petrol, diesel, petrol hybrid, diesel hybrid, plug-in hybrid, electric vehicles and the hydrogen cell that was pretty much wiped out by the introduction of electric.

However, it would seem that hydrogen isn’t dead. Manufacturers are now designing and developing hydrogen/electric hybrids. The first out of the blocks is the Hyundai Nexo which uses the hydrogen cell to drive a motor to create electricity. They suggest that the car will have a range of 414 miles, top speed of 111mph and a 0-62 in 9.2 seconds. Sounds great but the price tag of £60,000 might put a few people off!

It’s a nice looking SUV that is similar in size and looks to an Audi Q5. Would certainly solve the range and re-fuelling constraints of electric cars. Will this idea catch on – adding even more choice to an already confusing range of power plants? Haven’t got a clue just like I haven’t got a clue as to whether we will be in or out of Europe next year! Time will tell. By Graham Hill

The Press Association has carried out an investigation into vehicle thefts and found that between March 2017 and March 2018 theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle in England and Wales was 106,334, the highest since 2009/10. But even more worrying was the fact that 81,778 of these cases were concluded as ‘Investigation complete, no suspect identified’.

This means that 77% of all thefts resulted in no suspects being identified or arrested. That is frankly shocking. In the West Midlands it was even worse with 91% of car theft cases being closed with no suspect being identified. London’s Metropolitan police was a little lower at 85% of cases being closed for the same reasons.

All but 5 of the 44 forces analysed closed at least half of car theft cases with no suspects identified. When taken up with the Home Office a spokesman said, ‘We recognise that crime is changing and police demand is becoming increasingly complex, (no I don’t know what that means either). That’s why we have provided a strong and comprehensive £13 billion funding settlement to ensure the police have the resources they need to carry out their vital work.’

Well I’ve news for you sunshine, they ‘aint spending it on catching bloody car thieves! By Graham Hill

I have to say that when I’m stuck in traffic on the M25, a far too frequent occurrence, I have a little chuckle to myself, as I’m sure you do, (just me then eh?) when I see a number plate that looks a little cheeky or risque. Often I’m sure that I’m the only one who has spotted it but it brightens up my day.

But that may be coming to an end as the DVLA in this politically correct world that we live in has decided that it needs to tighten up a little on plates that may cause offence or upset. For goodness sake! But have they gone a little too far? I mean you really have to look at the plates to see what the letter and number combo have been interpreted as. Let’s give it a try to see what you think?

The first to get banned amongst the new 68 plates was NO68 EAD along with OR68 ASM. Now, most people probably wouldn’t even notice but these miserable BU68 GER’s are destroying hours of motorway fun by trying not to offend most people who wouldn’t even realise.

Apparently, they sift through the number plates every March and September to remove offensive, political and criminal leaning number plates. BU68 GER was banned as were AL68 HOL and BA68 TRD – really? Oh and I can see all sorts of problems if they hadn’t banned EU68 BAD and MU68 GER.

If we really have come down to this sort of silliness (swear words and serious crime connotations accepted) I dread to think of the cost of sifting through the 69 plates next September – nudge, nudge, wink, wink! Better start recruiting plate checker now DVLA! By Graham Hill