The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The number of plug in car grants could reach the Government’s latest target much quicker than expected after 11,000 applications were made in February. The surge came about because the £5,000 Government grant was to be replaced by a new grant structure for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV) as of 1^st March.

The new structure, consisting of 3 tiers, is now in force. For cars with zero emissions and a range of more than 70 miles (category 1) there is a grant of £4,500 on offer from the Government. Vehicles with a lower zero emission range than 70 miles (category 2 & 3), such as plug in hybrids, with either a petrol or diesel engine there is a £2,500 grant.

There is also a price cap, so category 2 & 3 cars costing more than £60,000 will receive no grant although category 1 cars with a zero emission range of over 70 miles will attract the full £4,500 grant. According to the Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) a total of 16,000 low emission plug in vehicles were ordered in January and February compared to 14,500 for the whole of 2015.

So clearly zero and low emission cars are gaining acceptance helped along by some very attractive deals from the leasing companies. OLEV explained that the new grants are set to run till March 2017 or until 40,000 sales of category 1 vehicles and combined sales of 45,000 category 2 & 3 vehicles have been reached. To date a total of 67,000 grants have been provided and on current trends the Government targets could well be reached before the end of the year.

The Department for Transport would not confirm that due to the increased pace of hybrid and zero emission car sales they would review their targets but given their ultimate objective that all vehicles should have zero tailpipe emissions by 2050 it is highly likely that they will continue to encourage the sale of low emission vehicles with grants, albeit that they are likely to reduce in time.

On the other hand support is likely through improving lease rates as manufacturers aim to hit their lowering emission targets across their vehicle ranges. So if you are looking to help save the planet keep an eye out for my great hybrid deals as a preference to buying outright. There could be even greater savings than the grants offered by the Government. By Graham Hill

I know we all get a little irritated when we see the sign ahead slowing us down to 40mph and the 3 lanes we were happily trundling along about to reduce to a mere single lane but I didn’t realise that when this happens that the roadworkers are in serious danger.

Not of being run over by an inattentive speeding motorist, although this does happen, but in danger of being duffed up by a motorist who feels annoyed that he has been slowed down, abused, spat at, hit with all sorts of projectiles etc. Labourers near Wivanhoe in Essex have been subject to increasing violence from passing motorists whilst creating a new cycle lane, with one motorist caught brandishing a knuckle duster.

The local council has now followed other councils with similar problems and issued workers with police style body cameras to hopefully act as a deterrent as well as provide proof in the case where an attack takes place leading to a prosecution. Other councils suffering similar problems are in the North East and Midlands leading to the issue of these cameras to workers. Reports of attacks range from workers being punched to being shot at with an air rifle.

Ten companies that carry out roadworks have reported 441 incidents in one year alone, including 174 physical attacks. With this scale of incidents it probably won’t be long before all roadworkers are issued with body cams and even portable CCTV to record any illegal behaviour or attacks by motorists.

A sad reflection on our society when people are just doing their jobs. And if you want to duff up someone find the health & safety pen pusher who decided to cone off 5 miles of road for a hundred yards worth of repair work! By Graham Hill

You will probably remember the sad case of the Glasgow refuse truck driver who fainted at the wheel resulting in an accident causing six people to lose their lives and several more to suffer injuries.

The driver had suffered fainting attacks since 1976 but this was unknown to his employer who was held responsible, as any employer would, for the actions of their employee and for allowing him to drive their truck in the first place.

This was still the case even though they claimed that the driver had not told them of his condition. But this raises an interesting point because I only recently found out that it is unlawful for an employer to ask a job applicant about their disability or health until after they have been offered the job.

How crazy is that? However, you can apply for the medical records on the applicant, provided he or she agrees, under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. The medical practitioner (normally the applicant’s GP) is then obliged to provide the records requested.

If you are an employer who either provides company vehicles or pays employees to drive their own vehicles on company business by way of a car allowance or pence per mile, you have an obligation to ensure that they have the appropriate licences and do not suffer from health conditions that may affect their driving.

As an employer you are able to carry out regular assessments on drivers to ensure that they are still fit to drive. And as an employee if you have a condition that may affect your driving you are equally obliged to make your employer aware. By Graham Hill

There’s an app for that is rapidly becoming part of everyday conversation. Having created an award winning app myself that enables users to compare lease deals or simply to evaluate a deal to see if it represents good value, I know that app boundaries are limitless.

The latest app relating to motoring is aimed at younger, less than responsible, drivers that could help to prevent an accident, reduce their insurance premiums and help parents to worry a little less. The app has been created by employee tracking specialist, Romex. The app uses the driver’s phone to detect whether the car is exceeding 4 miles per hour via the phone’s GPS system.

At this point the app locks the device disabling calls, texts, emails and social media accounts, amongst other distractions. It can also monitor the speed the car is travelling at and the time spent driving. The company already has a similar product available to fleet users as part of its telematics systems to help companies and drivers to comply with legislation.

The maker has announced that the new app could be available as early as May 2016. Sales director, Steve Arscott explained, ‘It’s called distraction prevention, we’re approaching younger drivers because they’re the ones most likely to be glued to their phones.’ There will be a charge for the service and it will work alongside another of their apps called Guardian, which allows parents to monitor where their youngster is and whether they have been speeding – just as companies can do with their fleet drivers.

The company is optimistic that they will find an insurance company to partner up with, providing users with a rebate on their policy. The Guardian app can be extended to non drivers for worried parents who want to know where their off spring are. I’m sure it will lead to some very interesting debates between parents and children! By Graham Hill

The Consumer Rights Act came into force in October 2015. The biggest change to consumer rights, included in the Act, was the right to return goods within 30 days for a full refund. This applies to all goods not just cars so please bear in mind if your 3 piece suite arrives damaged or the TV arrives with a scratch on it.

The question is, what constitutes a fault? My reading of the Act was anything that makes the car imperfect. But this view isn’t shared by lawyers who have challenged the right to reject by some customers when representing dealer clients. It’s down to interpretation and degree. The emerging fear from dealers is the freeloader who simply wants a free car for 30 days then return it to the dealer saying he wants his money back claiming that the car is faulty.

In this respect I have a little sympathy with the dealers (yes I did actually say that), because as with most English Law it lacks total clarity leaving it up to a judge to interpret it on a case by case basis and I have to say few judges are actually car experts. In order to protect their long term position some dealers have chosen to fight customer rejections citing that if a car is to be rejected and the client have his money refunded, according to the law, the ‘faults must be present at the point of sale’ AND render ‘the vehicle not satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose.’

The files of a lawyer showed recent claims by consumers to reject their cars to appear to be extreme and misuse of the law. For example ‘The parcel shelf clip was missing’, ‘The cup holder does not work’ and ‘The FM button on the radio doesn’t work. As a consumer you have the right to either reject the car, if you feel that the fault satisfies the test shown above, or you can allow the dealer to fix it.

What the files didn’t show was if the customer had already allowed the dealer to attempt to repair or replace the faulty items, other circumstances that may have prevailed to cause the customer to reject and how long after taking delivery the customer chose to reject. The fact is that the law was created to prevent dealers taking anything up to a year to correct a fault that existed on a car at the point of sale, constantly fobbing of the customer who was left without a car for most of the time.

Was it intended that drivers should be able to drive around in a car for a month then simply return it for a refund because the cigarette lighter doesn’t work? Probably not but without tighter legal tests it is going to happen. Incidentally, this law may not only help the ‘freeloader’ but also customers who suffer from a condition, known in selling as ‘Customer Remorse’. These are customers who buy something then within hours, for often unexplainable reasons, regret the purchase.

It is why a good salesman will often congratulate you on your purchase after he has made the sale. Many people fail to see why the salesperson says things like, ‘I’m so pleased you chose that model, it is my favourite in the range and I should know I’ve been selling these for over 20 years’. It may seem daft – but it works! By Graham Hill

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued warnings about a number of scams that are doing the rounds perpetrated by brokers who are not authorised by the FCA.

They will be looking to take action against such companies when they are found but in the meantime the onus is on consumers to make sure they check that the person providing the finance/advice/services is properly authorised.

Especially the case when you are asked to part with money upfront as a commitment fee or a deposit to secure a car that will be financed. Their advice is ‘We strongly advise you to only deal with financial firms that are authorised by us, and check the Financial Services Register to ensure they are.’

And here’s the rub, if you give money to an unauthorised firm, you will not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. So as I pointed out recently the first consideration should not be the rate that you are offered, be that a lease rate or APR, but the company that offers it and will represent you going forward. You have been warned – yet again! By Graham Hill

If you are a regular reader of my posts you will know what section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act is and the way that it makes the finance company jointly and severally liable in the event that you have a ‘fit for purpose’, ‘miss-representation’ or any other breach of contract claim against the dealer.

The general perception is that first and foremost the dealer is responsible so you immediately take up the problem with the dealer which invariably gets you into a bit of a dispute. However, I am reading about more and more cases whereby the customer has immediately taken up the case with the finance company, which tends to take the side of the customer and roll over, somewhat quicker and easier than the dealer, leaving a very happy client and the finance company to battle out the recovery of any money they have spent from the dealer – not your problem.

In fact it is often the case that before making finance available to a dealer he must sign up to an agreement that simply says that in a dispute with a customer that the funder settles, the dealer is responsible to refund the cost. The agreement, in my opinion, shouldn’t be needed as it is covered off in sub-section 2 of section 75 of the act, as follows:

75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier.

(1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

(2)Subject to any agreement between them, the creditor shall be entitled to be indemnified by the supplier for loss suffered by the creditor in satisfying his liability under subsection (1), including costs reasonably incurred by him in defending proceedings instituted by the debtor.

The fact is that if you have taken out finance on a car, usually HP or PCP, and you feel that you have a claim against the dealer I would suggest that you challenge the finance company and if they ask you if you have already taken up the case with the dealer, point them in the direction of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 75.

As an aside I asked a lawyer friend of mine in the industry why the lender is more likely to roll over and he explained that if you took up the case against the dealer your recourse would be via the fairly wet fish Trading Standards but if you escalate a claim against a lender your recourse would be via the gritty Financial Ombudsman Service and if they investigate a claim they immediately charge £550 per claim investigation (in fact I believe they are allowed 25 claim investigations before they incur a charge). So there you have it. By Graham Hill