The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

If you’re a fan of the Inbetweeners, as I am, you will no doubt identify the characters with old school friends with at least one of them being remembered as a bit of a nutter. Not always on the same page as the rest of us. With this in the back of my mind, I read with dread that Nissan are developing technology that will sync your brain with the car’s technology.

Not only my nutcase schoolmates, and there were more than one, but I have had one of those moments wondering how much damage would be caused if I ran up the back of the car in front! Obviously, I didn’t do it but have you had similar thoughts? Just me then. But thinking something like that could, in my opinion, be misinterpreted!

Nissan and fellow developers, Swiss University Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, think not but are really keen to incorporate the latest tech into their cars. The brain signals will be collected and interpreted to identify whether more or less driving assistance is needed. Thus ensuring that the driver receives sufficient assistance to make his driving safe.

The system will even be able to change settings in preparation for the driver taking action like turning the steering wheel. They suggest that the technology will make autonomous driving more comfortable by sensing discomfort and changing a few settings.

That’s fine when one of my nutty friends is being driven by an autonomous car but with him sitting behind the wheel I dread to think what could go wrong or he could end up in the front row of Stringfellow’s! Hmm, maybe this needs a little more thought. By Graham Hill

I read loads of motor magazines and just about every week, in at least one, I read complaints from drivers who have had a warranty claim turned down. The motor magazines try to help out, usually by contacting the dealer, manufacturer or warranty provider. Some warranty providers, realising that they are acting illegally, offer to settle the claim ‘as a gesture of goodwill’, which normally infuriates me because it isn’t a gesture of goodwill it’s a legal obligation.

That aside the advice from the dealer goes nowhere near far enough. Once they have challenged the warranty provider, and in the latest case I’ve seen, that is the RAC, and they refuse to settle the claim it seems to be game over. In the latest story, the buyer of a Mini took out a warranty on his 2010 Cooper D bought from an RAC approved dealer. 10 months later the timing chain snapped and caused serious damage to the engine.

The cost of a replacement engine varied between £4,000 and £7,000 which the driver assumed would be covered by his RAC Platinum Warranty but they rejected the claim arguing that the timing chain had reached the end of its ‘normal working life’. As a result of Auto Express’s intervention RAC warranties sent out an RAC engineer to inspect the car.

Unsurprisingly the engineer claimed that the driver should have noticed the problems with the chain prior to it snapping due to a ‘rattling type noise from the timing chain area of the engine’. The report also argued that ‘reasonable steps have not been taken to mitigate the loss’. The driver argued that he hadn’t heard any rattle or noise from the engine prior to the chain failure. The driver also explained that the car had been serviced twice since he bought the car so it had been properly maintained.

Despite the intervention of Auto Express the claim was still thrown out causing me to get very angry! First of all one has to ask if RAC warranties are worth having in the first place? Secondly, why did they not pursue a claim through the Financial Ombudsman Service as the warranty claim was not fit for purpose and the report, that should really have been independent, confused the issue.

The RAC refused the claim because the timing chain had ‘reached the end of its working life’. So why report that the driver should have heard the noise from the timing area of the engine, are they now saying that had he heard it and made a claim he would have been successful?

Then to confuse matters further they say that ‘reasonable steps have not been taken to mitigate the loss’. So are they saying that they would have paid out for a new timing chain but would not pay out for the engine because the driver should have stopped the car as soon as he was aware of a problem as a result of the noisy engine?

There was a very strong case to take to the Financial Ombudsman as well as a complaint to Trading Standards for breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As the car had been recently serviced the engineer would have been the one to identify the noise from the engine, not the driver sitting in the soundproofed cabin.

To be honest I would also have made a claim to the EU Consumer Centre under the EU 2 year guarantee scheme. That normally sends anyone against whom the claim is made into a tailspin!

I applaud the efforts made by all the motor magazines but they really ought to be more aware of the remedies available. By Graham Hill

I know you love a quirky, but serious, story. You may or not be aware that hitting a number of animals whilst driving must be reported to the police. However, the list doesn’t include cats which has upset a few cat owners according to a survey carried out by Carbuyer magazine.

As the law stands if you his a number of animals, including dogs, horses, cattle and sheep you must report the incident to the police but cats aren’t included. The Carbuyer study found that 59% of motorists were in favour of a law requiring you to report ‘cat incidents’ to the police.

The Labour Party have gone one step further in their calls for reform in domestic pet rules by making microchipping mandatory for cats and a new ruling that would require ‘motorists to report accidents where an animal has been injured’.

Animal rights campaigner, Mandy Lowe, sadly said that if the driver makes no attempt to locate the owner, or take the cat to a vet to be scanned for a microchip, the local authority’s waste disposal team will collect it and dispose of it. I’m not an animal person but that would make me sad if someone’s pet was killed and they didn’t know.

Figures from Highways England show that 320 dead cats were found on motorways and A roads over a 2 year period. More Pussy Power and fairness to cat owners is what I say! Can I say that? Hmmm better move on. By Graham Hill

Increased penalties imposed on those still talking and texting on handheld phones is meant to act as a deterrent in order to prevent drivers from being distracted. We all saw the harrowing scenes on the news when a lorry driver, whilst texting on his phone, careered into the back of a car in a traffic jam.

So it mystified me when car manufacturers started to change their sat nav and in-car controls from a twiddler on the steering wheel, or in the centre console, to touchscreen. In my opinion even more distracting than texting on your mobile.

Years ago all we had to look down at was the speedo and anything that flashed red, warning you to stop. Or if you were a bit of a boy or girl racer the rev. counter warning you before you sent your engine into the next county.

With this in mind, I was shocked to see South Korean tech firm Harman, now owned by Samsung, bring out something close to a cinema screen fitted into the dashboard of a Maserati in order to showcase their latest tech.

Within the screen, that stretched the length of the dashboard was a 12.3” digital instrument screen, a 12.4” curved portrait layout display at the bottom of the centre console, and a widescreen 28” QLED screen that can operate in ‘ultra-slim’ mode or extend upwards to show maps or – wait for it – streaming video!

Are they nuts? Whilst I can understand that they are showcasing what they are capable of doing this is hardly the way forward until we get to autonomous cars that will need something distracting to take away the boredom of not driving. But this tech was fitted into a standard(ish) car.

Harman explained that the Tech could be available for fitting into cars within 18 – 24 months ‘depending on the car maker’s needs.’ They also showcased a similar setup intended for city cars in a Mini. I’m all for building in latest tech for drivers and passengers but I feel they are going one step too far with this latest development. By Graham Hill

When I read the latest changes to the way that leases would be accounted for in the books of large companies, being introduced by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), I started to get Deja Vu! You see when I first came across leasing (contract hire) I was General Manager in a PLC with over 700 vehicles in the fleet that we owned outright.

One of the departments that I was responsible for was Transport and the fleet of vehicles. They were costing us a fortune but more than that they were shown as assets on our balance sheet but the outstanding HP finance was shown as a liability. The net effect was negative. OK, technical bit over.

At the time, contract hire was only advantageous to large companies with cars that were covering big mileages. For most businesses, the off-balance sheet recording of contract hire has been an advantage because without the assets and liabilities being recorded it presents a stronger picture. It is also easier to simply record a monthly rental cost than applying the writing down process to owned assets.

Here’s where it gets interesting. After absolutely donkey’s years of negotiating the IASB has ruled that contract hired vehicles should, in future, be recorded ‘on balance-sheet’. BUT this rule will only apply to companies reporting under IASB rules, mainly those companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange.

All other companies operate under the UK Generally Accepted Principles (GAAP) which remains as is so the vast majority of firms will remain unaffected. However, as this situation could affect some of the biggest fleets in the country running thousands of vehicles the daily rental market has pricked its ears up.

Whilst January 2019 will see the new IASB rules on leasing come into force another standard, IAS 16 will come into force relating to rental vehicles where the rental period is up to a year. These will remain off-balance sheet for all companies.

As a result, the daily rental companies have got themselves excited because they receive massive discounts from manufacturers – up to 50% off the recommended On The Road price. Despite this discount, the reason why their rates are not lower than contract hire rates is utilisation – which can be as low as 40%.

This means that cars are sitting around costing money for longer periods than they are actually being hired. This pushes up rentals massively. However, if the cars are rented out on 12-month contracts the utilisation is 100% so they could reduce the monthly cost substantially from their daily rate bringing them closer to contract hire rates.

Clearly, if the rental companies brought out such a product specifically for the large fleets, as happened with contract hire, could we see a new product offered, not only to smaller businesses but also to consumers.

Plenty of discussion going on in the industry, both for and against, but with the uncertainty of Brexit a 12-month contract, priced sensibly, has some merit.  By Graham Hill

A study into the use of mobile speed cameras has found that 20 forces across the UK are now using speed cameras for other purposes. They have found that the quality of the photos taken by the latest equipment is now so good that, even at speed, it can capture the driver and detect whether he or she has a seatbelt on or is holding a mobile phone.

Whilst this is a good move towards safer roads Sarah Sillars, chief executive of IAM RoadSmart, was reported by AutoExpress as saying, ‘What we need are clear and consistent guidelines on what the cameras are being used for.’

I agree that we should be aware that police and local authority cameras can be used to determine whether you are breaking the law. Knowing that local authority town centre cameras can be used to convict those causing criminal damage, or worse, acts as a deterrent. In the same way, knowing that police mobile cameras could be used to catch those not wearing seatbelts or using a mobile phone, would also act as a deterrent as well as provide evidence for prosecutions. The move has to be welcomed given the fact that there are so few police on our roads. By Graham Hill

Highways England have been trialling smart LED road studs at the Hindhead Tunnel in Surrey. The trial was successful and they are now being installed at the Switch Island junction near Liverpool where the M57 and M58 meet a trio of A roads. 90,000 cars use the junction every day with a crash occurring every 2 weeks. The smart LED road studs work in conjunction with the traffic lights guiding cars into the correct lanes.

The project is likely to be the first of many tech upgrades that will be introduced by Highways England across the country to make roads safer. The first project in Liverpool will cost £3 million and consist of just 170 studs. Oxford-based Clearview Intelligence is undertaking the project using the smart studs. Highways England is looking to make our road network intelligent with smart studs being able to communicate with cars in the future.

Eventually, the smart studs should be able to provide information on road conditions, weather and traffic conditions helping to pave the way for autonomous cars. They will also be able to facilitate communication between autonomous cars and normal cars. Accidents will be detected and emergency services alerted. When in full production the developers estimate that the cost of installing the smart studs will be £10,000 per mile which is apparently a low cost.

The idea sounds very impressive, I can’t wait to see them in action.  By Graham Hill

The AA has carried out a survey amongst drivers and found that two-thirds felt that they could get away with careless driving due to a lack of traffic police. Researchers asked over 19,500 drivers a variety of questions about driving offences. In response to the questions, 65% said that they felt that they were unlikely to be caught or punished for tailgating or hogging the middle lane of a motorway. 55% said they felt they would get away with driving a car in a dangerous or defective condition.

49% felt that they would get away with not wearing a seatbelt and 44% felt that they would escape prosecution for jumping a red light. When asked about visibility of traffic police, 65% felt there was no visible presence on local roads compared to 43% suggesting no visible presence on motorways.

The drivers were next asked if they thought cameras alone could do the job of detecting careless driving instead of physical police. 71% believed that they couldn’t but only 45% believed that greater powers should be given to Highways England traffic officers when it comes to enforcement.

AA President Edmund King commented on their findings by expressing concern that a lack of officers on the roads meant that drivers felt they could get away with careless driving and other serious motoring offences.

Whilst using a mobile phone when driving is one of the most dangerous offences more than half felt they could get away with it without fear of being caught. This is causing concern to both the AA and the Government who are keen to stamp it out.

In summary, the report has revealed that drivers are taking less notice of the law as a result of fewer cops in cars patrolling our roads and motorways. Whilst everyone agrees that cameras can act as deterrents something more needs to be done to prevent accidents and serious or fatal injuries. The only solution – get more cops in cars. By Graham Hill

Of course, they are making the right noises but are they making the right noises for the wrong reasons? I rarely supply electric cars, even with all the publicity surrounding the benefits to the environment and low running costs.

The original argument was that they were too expensive and the range wasn’t sufficient. Whilst we have managed to supply some electric cars at heavily subsidised rates, in some cases at lower rates than their petrol and diesel equivalents, they were still not taken up in numbers, even when the potential customers rarely took their cars on long trips. Mainly driving them around their local town. Even then, they still refused to lease them.

Look below the surface and you can see that if all drivers reverted to electric cars the Treasury would lose an absolute fortune. On the other hand, thanks to mayor Khan and Chris Grayling, we have suddenly found diesels demonised as destroying the environment and an opportunity for the Chancellor to hit diesels hard with initial registration tax and initial road fund licence.

In addition, for years, the Government encouraged manufacturers to develop diesel engines capable of achieving close to 100 miles per gallon, resulting in businesses turning virtually 100% to diesel cars. As a result of the Government’s changed green policy towards diesel engine’d cars they have now hit innocent company car drivers with added benefit-in-kind tax because their companies have provided them with diesel cars, as was recommended by the Government. I believe that there’s a stitch up going on here.

Am I right? Am I being unfair on the Government? Well, one of the reasons why I have come to this conclusion is a report I read regarding the installation of EV charge points installed in 2017. Top of the list was France with 11,987, next was Germany with 7,937 followed by the UK at an abysmal 2,833. 4^th was Switzerland, just behind the UK at 2,716 with Norway 5^th at 2,116.

As usual, it is my view that whilst the Government strongly supports a cleaner environment and a wholesale move to electric cars in public, it is secretly holding back the growth of electric cars in order to screw over drivers of petrol and diesel cars through increased taxation in the short term. By Graham Hill

Following complaints and serious concerns expressed by drivers on Smart Motorways the Highways Agency has had a rethink and decided to place refuge areas, wherever practical, at distances of 1 mile and not 1.5 miles as is the case at the moment.

They will also extend a system, currently in operation, that automatically detects broken down vehicles in live lanes. Highways England will also install more refuge areas in locations  ‘with the highest levels of potential live lane stops’ and paint them orange to increase driver confidence.’ That’ll work then, nothing like a lick of orange paint to increase confidence eh!

Clearly something had to be done following a survey carried out by the AA that found 80% of respondents saying that they felt that smart motorways are more dangerous than traditional motorways. The automated breakdown detection system will be rolled out to all smart motorways across the country following a successful trial on the M25.

Smart motorways are now being accepted more but Highways England have found motorists still using lanes that have been blocked off with a red X signal. Whilst they have not been charging motorists for breaking the rules to date, in future they will incur fines as well as penalty points, due to begin this year – you have been warned. By Graham Hill