The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

I reported last week that three constabularies, Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands were instructing officers to randomly stop drivers and carry out a number plate reading test whereby the driver is expected to read a number plate 20 metres away.

If the driver is unable to read the number plate he or she will automatically have their licence revoked and stopped from continuing their journey. Whilst road safety group BRAKE supported the police in this initiative, questions have been asked as to whether this is fair to police as well as drivers.

Is it right to give police the same powers as judge and jury by giving them the responsibility of taking away a driver’s licence on the spot? There is also the question as to who they should test. Whilst Brake believes that it’s a great way to make roads safer, because of the randomness of the tests it is unlikely to make roads much safer.

It would be better for all drivers to have an eye test every 5 years till they get to say 40 when it should be mandatory to have an eye test annually. The police are struggling to catch crooks and remove dangerous joy riders without licences and insurance from our roads so to load them with even more responsibility by forcing them to randomly stop drivers to carry out a sight test, when it could be handled differently, is just plain daft.

Of course, I don’t agree that anyone who has illegal eyesight to be allowed to drive on our roads but unlike a drunk driver who knows he is doing something illegal we could treat them with a little more sensitivity and make sure that they either correct the situation or let their doctor or optician explain why they can no longer drive.

Annual eye tests – that’s what we need! By Graham Hill

I have just been looking at artists’ impressions of electric cars of the future. They look amazing, like mini caravans with plenty of room to relax have a chat, have a drink, watch TV and even stretch out and have a snooze. It all looks fantastic, a great way to travel but read other reports and they say we will never get to a situation where a car will completely drive itself.

According to safety reports, you won’t be able to go out, have a skinful, fall into your electric car, announce to Siri that you want to go home and let the car take over whilst you throw up into a bag for life. In fact, you will still have to be in a driver’s seat and still capable of taking over the controls in the event of an emergency or the systems failing. So which is right? What are we to believe?

The same applies to Diesel vs Petrol. There is constant confusion over the emissions. Old diesels are, without doubt, not good for the environment. The high levels of NOx are not good for people’s health and particulates (soot) are bad for health and bad for buildings causing deterioration. Compare that with the damage to the ozone layer caused by high CO2 emissions from petrol cars – the next environmental panic.

So should we drive diesel cars or petrol cars if we can’t afford the premium prices or lease rates of hybrids or electrics? Latest test results show that there are virtually no particulate emissions from the latest diesel engines and whilst NOx from diesels is still slightly higher than petrol, CO2 emissions are still higher from petrol compared to diesel so in truth there is little to choose between the two.

That is until the newly developed Bosch system gets added to diesel cars. The estimate is that NOX emissions from diesel cars will drop to about 10% of the new levels that will come into force in 2020. In the meantime what should drivers do? We need less confusion and a consistent message. By Graham Hill

If you think it’s OK but you haven’t had your eyes tested for a few years – if ever, you should think about it seriously or risk losing your licence – instantly! Three constabularies are stopping motorists and asking them to read a number plate 20 metres away. If they can’t they are being prevented from driving by having their licence revoked on the spot.

The initiative is being run in Hampshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley. The results will be analysed and decisions made as to whether to roll out across England and Wales. Safety organisation Brake and Vision Express are calling for a vision test when car licences are renewed every 10 years. Joshua Harris, Campaign Director for Brake said, ‘It is frankly madness that there is no mandatory requirement on drivers to have an eye test throughout the course of their driving life.

Only by introducing rigorous and professional eye tests can we fully tackle the problem of unsafe drivers on our roads’. Research by the Association of Optometrists, published in November last year, found that 35 per cent of optometrists had seen patients in the previous month who were driving, despite having been told their vision was below the legal standard. Based on this figure, it is estimated that around one million people could be driving illegally.

There is a lot of evidence to show that accidents including fatalities could be avoided if there was a statutory requirement on all motorists to have an eye test. Campaigners have also called for a so-called Poppy’s Law, making it a legal requirement for medical professionals to report patients who are unfit to drive.

This followed the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke, who was killed in 2016 by a 73-year-old motorist who had ignored warnings from his opticians not to drive and was not wearing his glasses at the time. A disgrace and unnecessary tragedy. By Graham Hill

For those concerned about the environment, the new Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP) were considered to be well overdue when you consider how easy it was to fiddle the emissions test under the old regime known as NEDC. It wasn’t just VW fitting equipment that could be switched over during the emissions tests to give a false reading.

Others fitted undersized wheels and stuck tape around doors, bonnets and boots in order to avoid any drag. So now we have the cars being properly tested we see emissions levels increasing. The cars are the same but the emissions levels have increased due to more accurate testing. Which is fine unless you happen to be a company car driver.

As an interim measure and so as not to sting company car drivers for driving the same car the revenue has applied a conversion equation to bring the CO2 emissions back to where they were under the old tests. However, the CO2 levels are still around 10% higher than previous thereby increasing the BIK tax on cars that drivers may have been driving for the past 2 years and the new cars are generally 20% higher so replacing a like for like car could increase your benefit in kind tax substantially.

Whilst the fleet industry has called on the Government to amend the BIK tax tables so as not to penalise drivers of company cars, as usual, they’ve done naff all. This has led to a move towards car allowances allowing drivers to select their own car, firstly to save the BIK tax but also allow them to potentially drive better cars. As I’ve reported before let’s say that a company negotiates preferential terms with a dealer to take 200 Ford Mondeos a year.

As a result, they receive 25%  discount on all cars that is fed into their contract hire rate. Normally the best a consumer would receive is a discount of 15% built into the contract hire rate but if a new model is coming out the dealer and the manufacturer may allow a discount and bonus of 35% to be built into the contract hire rates.

This means that a consumer could achieve a lower rate than some of the biggest fleets in the country. Or maybe a Vauxhall Insignia or Mazda 6 works out cheaper because for the same reasons the rates are incredibly low. So for employees, the time may have come when they hand back their company cars and take a car allowance then talk to me to get them into a low rate car. By Graham Hill

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to appear on ITV’s Tonight programme that went out last Thursday (6^th September). However, with just half an hour available and the main theme of the programme the decision that drivers face as to whether to choose a petrol, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric car next they dropped what was to be a section on finance.

All had their merits, petrol – short around the town trips, diesel for high mileage drivers, hybrids in town but with no ability to plug the car in at home or at work, plug in’s if you have access to electricity and electric for those on low mileage in a city subject to congestion charges with easy access to chargers.

However, they sent a couple on a trip from their home in the north to a party in the south of England in an electric car. A trip that would normally take 4 hours but actually ended up taking over 6 hours, making them 2 hours late. The reason, finding somewhere to charge up the battery en-route. They found at service areas chargers that were broken as well as chargers that couldn’t fast charge. It seemed like a nightmare and got the couple very irritated and worried that they could end up stranded.

One gentleman with a plug-in hybrid found that he needed to charge his car for 6.5 hours at home using the domestic power supply in order to be able to cover something like 25 miles on just the electric motor, think he should change to Duracell Ultra batteries! The programme also questioned the environmental differences claiming, as many others have, that the manufacture of electric vehicles and their batteries come at an increased environmental cost and they still affect the environment as there are particulate emissions from tyres and brakes.

So whilst not all great news electric is the direction of travel and since BP bought out Chargemaster EV charging network we will see many more fast charge points with the next generation able to ‘fill up’ a car in just 5 minutes. Added to which there are already cars that can be used as electricity storage devices. Left plugged into the house electrics any stored electricity could be used when the cost of energy is high then charge the car overnight when energy is low.

Lots happening but I’m yet to be convinced. And the idea of charge points in lamp posts – as was shown on the programme is likely to end up with drivers in A&E as they come to blows as to who was at the lamp post first and whose needs are greater. By Graham Hill

So you’ve been to a party, club or just down the pub and had a skinful. You responsibly get a lift or a cab home. You even have a Halfords special breath tester and test your breath. Great, you’re well under the legal limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (England and Wales) so you jump into your car and off you go. But are you safe?

Scientists from the University of Bath say no. They conducted a meta-analysis (no I don’t know either) of 11 existing hangover studies, determining that ‘Sustained attention and driving abilities were impaired during hangover’. These are people under the alcohol blood limit but still in recovery.

One study showed reaction times to be 20% slower in hungover subjects, while another revealed ‘the ability to control a vehicle, as measured by deviation from a set course was impaired’ following a night of ‘heavy drinking’. Lead author Dr Sally Adams told Auto Express, who reported the findings, hangovers affect two key elements for driving, the first is our ability to concentrate on our activity for sustained periods of time and the second, psychomotor skills(our brain’s ability to control physical activities).

She went on to explain. ‘Your body works hard to metabolise alcohol and produces acetaldehyde as it does so’. And with current research indicating acetaldehyde ‘mimics the neurological effects of alcohol’ she suggested that ‘It may be time we consider if you have to drive the next day, perhaps a heavy night of drinking the night before isn’t a good idea’.

Whilst Government is considering lowering the limit to 50mg per 100ml in line with Scotland and many other European countries this won’t stop the ‘hungover effect’ If you were bladdered the night before. The NHS advises that the body takes 3 hours to break down the alcohol in a 250ml glass of wine and 2 hours to process a pint of normal-strength beer.

Adams finished off by saying that it may be possible in the future to have detectors that will detect if you are suffering from the ‘hungover effect’ and could lead to prosecutions and may be used in evidence in serious or fatal road accidents. You’ve been warned! By Graham Hill

Speeding: You may or may not be aware of ‘speeding buffer zones’ applied by the police. Essentially if there is a speed limit of say 70mph the police allow a buffer zone of 10% + 2mph making the acceptable speed 79 miles per hour (70 + 7 + 2 = 79). In the case of 30 miles per hour that would be 35mph.

I should add at this stage that this has always been advisory so you shouldn’t assume that the speed limit in a 30mph area is automatically 35mph. It is discretionary so if you were doing 35 miles per hour whilst passing a school with kids everywhere you would probably be fined. However, the ‘buffer’ is currently being reviewed by senior police officers and could well change.

At a recent Police Federation Conference, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, the National Police Chief’s Council’s lead on road policing announced the possible change of attitude. Ashe pointed out, drivers should not be surprised if they are fined for doing 33 miles per hour in a 30mph zone because they are speeding – simple as that.

In answer to the proposal officers warned that this would increase the number of cases they need to deal with and they don’t have the capacity or the capability to deal with the increased workload. Watch this space and don’t assume that the 10% + 2mph rule will always apply. Repairs: Breakdown firm Green Flag has carried out a survey suggesting that motorists are overspending to the tune of £3.4 billion every year on garage repairs.

On average drivers pay £90 per annum more than they should with 4out of 5 men and 90% of women not feeling confident when confronted with the cost of the repairs and knowing if it is correct. In the same report Green Flag revealed that 39% of motorists had no idea what the annual MOT test involves. Not good. By Graham Hill

Latest casualty figures released by the Department for Transport are for 2016. They show a year on year increase of 7% over 2015. The figures include those either injured or killed in incidents involving drivers over the drink-drive alcohol limits.

The figures showed a total of 9,040 deaths or injuries and has led to calls by road safety charity, Brake for the Government to reduce the legal limit from 80mg/100ml of blood to lower than the 50mg/100ml limit imposed on drivers in Scotland since 2014.

The DfT revealed that approximately 230 people died in drink-related incidents compared to 200 in 2015. Surprisingly the DfT described the higher figure as ‘Not statistically significant’. Going on to say that the data ‘continues a period of stability since 2010’.

Joshua Harris, the director of campaigns at Brake hit out by saying, ‘Today’s figures show that drink-driving is an increasing blight on British roads, and yet the Government sits on its hands and refuses to address the issue.’

Something needs to happen, reducing the limit is only a deterrent if we have enough police testing drivers. If drivers think that they can get away with exceeding the drink-drive limit, wherever it’s set they will continue to drink and drive. By Graham Hill

Things in the world of motoring are completely unbalanced when I find myself agreeing, more than once in a decade, with commentator Mike Rutherford. Not only that and just to show that I think about my blog, this item follows on from the last entry explaining that we are suffering a terrible underspend in our roads infrastructure in Britain.

As Mike points out we are around number 70 in the list of countries around the world when it comes to miles of road per capita. In this country, we have around 67 million inhabitants with a road network of jus 263,000 miles. In France, they have 66 million inhabitants with an eye-watering 640,000 miles of roads.

No wonder we spend disproportionate amounts of time sitting in traffic queues! Even Italy with a population of 61 million inhabitants has more miles of roads than us at 300,000. It’s an absolute disgrace that successive Governments have disregarded our roads.

Traffic jams cause increased pollution, make travel times longer and use more fuel but even worse is the way that it makes us all less efficient. The Government has expressed concerns about our efficiency but part of the problem is our road infrastructure. We can’t be doing anything if we are sitting in traffic for hours on end.

Getting back to the statistics, Spain has a population of 47 million with 424,000 miles of roads. Even Scandinavia with a population of just 10  million Swedes has created 330,000 miles of roads. 5 million Finns had a massive 282,000 miles of roads to speed along – that’s a population of 90% less than us with more miles of road than GB.

Australia with a bigger area but fewer inhabitants than GB has 500,000 miles of roads. Finally the US with a population of 328 million has 4.4 million miles of roads. As Mike points out this situation is not only a disgrace it is becoming a joke and extremely embarrassing. We are so bad we are behind Namibia and Estonia.

Now whilst some of the roads aren’t of the highest quality in some countries and some roads are pavementless we are lagging behind most other sophisticated countries buy a large margin. It can take years just to build a few miles of motorway so we really need to get our fingers out now and agree some heavy spending on our roads infrastructure or run the risk of the whole country grinding to a stop.  By Graham Hill