The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

https://instagram.com/grahamhill999/

By Graham Hill

The usual headlines appeared as soon as the new car sales figures were announced. Headlines such as New Car Sales Fall Off A Cliff made it seem like new car sales had dropped by 50% from the previous year. They didn’t, the drop was 7% or 100,000 cars dropping from just over 2.5 million in 2017 to just under 2.4 million in 2018. So not the disaster that reports would have you believe.

With an average of 200,000 new cars being registered every month keeping us in second place to Germany in the EU is hardly a major disaster. Believe it or not Jaguar increased by 4% but then their problems, along with their sister marque, LandRover have suffered from a drop in demand in China, the US and Middle East.

It seems that the main drops were amongst the volume producers such as Ford, Vauxhall, Nissan and Audi. Changes to the emissions regulations threw a massive spanner in the works. Manufacturing slowed as some manufacturers struggled to meet the emissions levels with some stopping production altogether. Then having sold off all the pre-emissions tests cars there were no new cars in stock to sell so drivers either extended current agreements or took on a used car.

So my feeling, given the circumstances is that new car sales in 2018 were pretty buoyant. My real concern was over alternative fuels. But first a few words about diesel cars. 62% of new cars bought in 2018 were pure petrol cars compared to 32% pure diesel. You may think this is a good thing given the reports about emissions and the need to get diesel cars off our roads. The fact is that it is old diesel cars that we need to get off the road. New diesels are virtually particulate (soot) free and whilst NOx emissions are a little higher CO2 emissions are lower so in terms of damage there is very little to choose.

The question that never seems to be raised is that of mileage. Clearly, if people drove their cars less they would reduce emissions irrespective of the fuel used. The sad news is that just 5% of new cars registered in 2018 were either diesel/electric or petrol/electric hybrids. And even worse for the environment was that just 0.7% were pure electric cars. This of course wasn’t helped by the Government removing the grants completely from hybrid cars and reducing those on electric cars.

The car industry was in good shape last year but the move towards a better environment is flagging badly! Something needs to be done and the Government needs to give better direction to diesel/petrol drivers as we are about to see warnings in the press again about the Ozone layer as a result of the increase in petrol car drivers increasing CO2 emissions. By Graham Hill

Before you think I’m getting all political – I’m not. I’m talking about one of the major successes of EU membership and that is safety systems on cars. Across the whole of the EU safety standards have been set to protect drivers, passengers and other road users – very successfully. But will this still be the case after Brexit when we take over the rules and regulations ourselves?

My hope is that we will continue to maintain the high standards that, like many EU laws, we were responsible for in the first place. If you drove around Spain or Italy in the 70’s and 80’s you would have taken yours and everyone else’s lives around you in your hands the moment you got behind the wheel.

But with the introduction of consistency throughout Europe when it comes to car safety you can feel relatively safe in every country you drive in. But will this apply moving forward? There have been times when the UK manufacturers have questioned some of the enforced safety features imposed upon us by the EU but will that mean that there will be two levels of safety applied when we build cars in the UK?

Safety costs money so if the car manufacturers can save money – will they do so, especially if the safety feature doesn’t count towards the global NCAP safety tests. If we export to Europe we will need to meet the EU standards but will they apply in the UK especially as we are more and more price driven? As an example take the Indian car market where above all else cost is the main factor followed by cost to run, mileage and performance.

Safety is way down the list of priorities so manufacturers manufacture to meet the needs. And that includes European manufacturers. In a recent case a VW Polo was reported to be given 0 stars on the global NCAP test without it affecting sales. I believe they improved the safety of the cars and as a result achieved a higher score but that was a good case of car manufacturers meeting demand. In the UK Polos achieve either 4 or 5 NCAP safety stars.

By removing ourselves from Europe I sincerely hope that we don’t remove ourselves from some of the good things they were responsible for. I wouldn’t like to think that it would be safer to drive a new car in Europe than in the UK. By Graham Hill

£500 Overspend On Petrol: Drivers can spend £500 per annum more than necessary depending on where they fill up.

Daily Insurance Claims Hit £33m Per Day: Car insurance payouts ran at £33m every day in 2016 whilst premiums hit a record high.

1.4 Million Drivers Attended Re-Training Courses: Drivers who were caught committing motoring offences attended courses raising £54 million for the police in the process

9,050 Drink Drive Casualties: The highest on record since 2012 with 2016 7% higher than 2015.

Council Parking Revenue Up To £1.58 Bn In 2017: New figures revealed that this produced a surplus of £819 million.

1,024 Children Banned From Driving: Even though they weren’t old enough to drive

39% Drop In Phone Penalties: Motorists caught using a mobile phone whilst driving dropped from 49,694 in 2016 to 30,470 in 2017. This was put down to fines and points doubling. Or maybe it’s down to fewer police and hands-free fitted to more cars.

109 Driving Instructor Investigations: The DVSA cracked down on inappropriate relations between driving instructors and students.

Superfluous Road Signs: 4.3 million road signs were shown by the Department for Transport to be superfluous.

15% Of Motorists Report Being Blinded By Headlights: According to research carried out by the RAC

The Average Fine For Car Theft Was £198: With 80% of crooks receiving a fine rather than a jail sentence.

The Average Age Of Cars On UK Roads Is 8.1 Years: The Department for Transport revealed that the average age increased from 7.8 years in 2015 and 6.8 years in 2003.

8,000 Crooked Car Washes: The CarWash Advisory Service estimated that 8,000 of the 20,000 hand car washes are involved in illegal activities.

5.65 Million Parking Tickets Handed Out In 2017: The Government has pledged to clamp down on private firms.

Pothole Claims Run At £1million Per Month: The AA revealed the scale of the claims.

89,000 Vehicles Stolen In 2017: Vehicle theft went up from 56,000 in 2016 to 89,000 in 2017. Blamed on police cuts and thieves managing to crack keyless technology.

80% Of New Cars Were Bought On Finance: According to Auto Express I gave tips on PCP deals along with revelations. An influencer!

London Reduced Speed Limit: Sadiq Khan said that all roads managed by Transport for London would have a 20mph speed limit

Drivers Overspend £3.4bn On Repairs: Green Flag indicates that drivers spend £3.4bn more than they need to.

20% Reduced Reaction Times: University of Bath reported this drop in reaction time as a result of a hangover.

£106 million Government Investment In EV’s: This investment in vehicle and battery development was matched by £500 million investment from industry.

27% Of Those Killed On Our Roads Were Not Wearing Seatbelts: 1,793 people lost their lives on the roads in 2017, 27% were found not to be wearing seatbelts.

Audi Fined £700m For False Emission Figures: German authorities imposed the fine on Audi for ‘deviations from regulatory requirements’ over V6 & V8 diesel engine emissions.

Diesel MOT Failures Hit 238,871: Following new MOT rules – a fourfold increase.

2.3 Million Cars Clocked: One in 16 cars display a false mileage reading with the Local Government Association calling for the ban of mileage correction devices.

So there you have it – some of the major issues and statistics of 2018. What will 2019 bring us – well we will find out soon enough! By Graham Hill

A Government Select Committee investigation has revealed that hand car washes can be ‘modern slavery in plain sight’. As a result of which they have called for them to be licenced. The Environmental Audit Committee’s probe into working practices at hand car washes (HCW) was told they play host to a ‘spectrum of exploitation’.

They raised concerns regarding the non-payment of minimum wage, workers at risk of trench foot and chemical burns. And untreated wash water having toxic effects on plant and animal life. As a result, the industry and various Government bodies launched a pilot Responsible Car Wash Scheme earlier this year with washes urged to sign up to a set of standards and display a Reasonable Car Wash Operator logo at their sites.

The Environmental Audit Committee recommended a trial licensing scheme for HCW’s to tackle the ‘widespread and flagrant rule breaking’ across the industry. The committee says that authorities should start by ensuring that car washes in supermarket car parks are compliant with labour laws. Much more to come I suspect.

According to car warranty providers Warranty Direct mobile phone and speeding offences are decreasing. They have found out that using a mobile phone whilst driving offences have dropped by 44% and speeding offences have dropped by 8.5%. They came to this conclusion after analysing data from the Ministry of Justice over the last 5 years.

They put this drop down to increases in fines and penalties introduced in March last year. Really?? Their analysis showed that each time penalties or fines have been increased this has been followed by a drop in prosecutions. Last March not only saw fines increase, the penalty points awarded if you were caught using a mobile phone behind the wheel also increased from 3 points to 6 points.

The CEO of Warranty Direct, Simon Ackers, said to What Car, ‘It’s great to see these updated driving laws have had a significant, positive impact on driving behaviour in such a short space of time’. ‘I don’t believe it’s just the increased financial penalties, either; motoring authorities have increased their efforts to raise awareness of the dangers of unsafe driving’.

According to road safety website, Think, you’re 4 times more likely to be in a crash if you’re using a mobile phone whilst driving. OK, I don’t have a problem with the above but could some of the drop in prosecutions possibly be down to the drop in the numbers of police out and about able to catch those breaking the law?

In Sussex, where I live, you can go days without seeing a police car and I don’t think they have a local plod. Speed cameras were switched off years ago and even little hidey holes that mobile speed detectors used to hide away in to catch you speeding are no longer used. So it’s great that offences are down but is it because fewer people are breaking the law. I personally don’t think so. By Graham Hill

The EU’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) says the number of fake parts fitted to cars on British roads is on the increase. They have estimated that over £2 billion of fake tyres and batteries alone are fitted to cars across Europe. In the UK investigations have revealed that the most common fakes fitted to cars are filters and lights but the fakes that can put lives in jeopardy are brake pads and airbags.

The IPO has explained the huge increase in fakes is mainly due to problems identifying the fakes from the originals. In order to sort the problem out the IPO has joined forces with manufacturers BMW and Audi, selling platforms Amazon and eBay as well as numerous part suppliers. They have come together to issue guidance on how to spot fake car parts.

One of the recommendations was to have dealers or garages source parts for you and fit them rather than source parts yourself and then ask a dealer to fit them. You might save money by sourcing parts yourself but if the dealer sources the parts then he is responsible for the job from start to finish including the parts he provides. They can’t guarantee a part that you provided yourself.

Audi pointed out how difficult it was to identify the fakers from their websites that are looking more and more professional and as genuine as the websites of genuine providers. Their ‘Brand Protection Team’ finds it more and more difficult identifying the crooks from their website. The first indicator is the price that is ‘too good to be true’. The next is spelling. Often there is the slightest of spelling mistakes that alert them and should alert you. That applies not only to the website but also the packaging.

I remember years ago a friend that owned an electrical shop ordered in some Sharp calculators that were at giveaway prices. They looked exactly the same as the original, the logo looked exactly the same but when you looked closely Sharp was spelt Shrap. He asked everyone who came into the shop to tell him what was wrong with the calculator. Hardly anyone saw it as the logo looked so genuine.

The quality of the packaging can also be a giveaway. Some manufacturers also put small marks on the packaging to make it easier to detect fakes. What Car suggests that you take your car to a recognised garage, one that is signed up to the Motor Industry Code Of Practice for Service and Repair.

I feel that a central database of all fakes found by Trading Standards, Customs and Excise and other regulatory bodies be posted on a ‘Fakes’ website to alert consumers about the fakes and how to identify them. By Graham Hill

As an avid reader of my regular newsletters and blogs, you will know that you need to run your diesel engine at over 50mph for a minimum of 20 minutes at least once a month in order to clear out the catalytic converter (the same applies to some petrol engine cars).

This exercise doesn’t spew the particulates (soot) out of the exhaust, it creates a chemical reaction that destroys the particulates without destroying the environment. However, for some drivers, it isn’t possible to do this on a regular monthly basis so a company called Cataclean has come up with a solution – literally, that you add to your fuel.

They claim that by adding it to the fuel it will react within the catalytic converter to not only clean the filters but also all the surfaces within the converter making it not only more fuel efficient but also more efficient at removing NOx and Carbon Monoxide from the exhaust gasses.

In fact, Halfords ran a recent promotion saying that if your car failed its MOT test on emissions after using Cataclean they would refund your money (for the Cataclean that is). They claim that the additive causes the fuel to combust more evenly and efficiently whilst not affecting the fuel in any way.

You can buy it currently in Halfords for both petrol and diesel engines for £15.99 for 450ml. Users have given it a 5 star rating. If you want to know more about the product and how it works go to  https://www.cataclean.com/products.htm

By Graham Hill

Disturbing news has been issued by Matthew Avery, head of research for UK safety company Thatcham Research. Suspicions were raised when they found components fitted to cars, sent for crash test assessment, marked, ‘For Crash Test Only’. The items marked included airbag modules and ISOFIX child seat mounts.

Matthew revealed that they had found previous instances of components being marked ‘Euro NCAP only, for crash test only’. With these and similar markings appearing in cars from various makers. The findings by Thatcham were confirmed to Auto Express by Euro NCAP, the body responsible for setting the test criteria. They said it had ‘Come across parts …. Airbags, seat foams etc. which have unusual or suspicious labelling’.

Whilst Euro NCAP set the safety standards and carry out the testing, conforming to very tight test procedures, in order to issue an NCAP Safety rating, after these tests researchers from organisations such as Thatcham, which test cars in conjunction with NCAP, periodically carry out a strip down audit, inspecting individual components. It’s during these audits that Thatcham and NCAP have found suspiciously marked parts.

Avery said, “Sometimes we’ve tested a vehicle and on the back of a module it says ‘Euro NCAP test’, that seems very suspicious to us.” Whilst some of the components come from 3^rd part suppliers, Thatcham and NCAP ask the manufacturers for explanations after such markings are found. In response, they have received a variety of explanations such as ‘Well no that’s a genuine component, that’s an early version’. But as Avery pointed out these are not stamped they have the notes crudely written on the components using marker pens. When they see that alarm bells ring.

NCAP went to lengths to explain that they follow up every suspicious incident asking the manufacturer to explain what is going on. They visit factories and component suppliers in order to interrogate all involved. A common thread is for manufacturers to explain that a batch of cars may be ordered internally by the safety department and that they may use Euro NCAP as special marking to identify the cars as they pass through production. ‘In some cases, this reference is written onto parts, in order to ensure that production isn’t delayed’.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) came out strongly on the side of manufacturers and disputed any possible wrongdoing and NCAP also said that they had no proof of any suspicious ‘fiddling’ of the tests by manufacturers but Avery is not convinced. Whilst marked components over the last year have become rare, according to his report to Auto Express, it could be that manufacturers are more careful as a result of ‘dieselgate’.

Personally, I find it very strange when you see very few people on the production line of a car manufacturer, because of the incredibly high level of automation, that they would then put cars together using parts marked with a marker pen. It somehow doesn’t make sense. I also found a comment made by the SMMT to be a little strange. They said, ‘It can be necessary to identify certain safety-critical components in order to confirm they are the latest, approved specification parts’. So would one assume from that statement that there are cars fitted with earlier, non-approved ‘safety critical’ parts being fitted at the same time on the production line?

All very suspicious and after the diesel scandal and the latest scandal relating to the rollout of new technology by German manufacturers how much can we trust the manufacturers? By Graham Hill

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