The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

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

So far this year BMW has recalled 312,000 cars in the UK over a stalling issue whilst Toyota has issued two notices worldwide for 3.4 million recalls. VW and Seat have recalled Polos, Aronas and Ibiza’s over malfunctioning rear seatbelt buckles. Whilst recalls are becoming more common, if you receive a notice it doesn’t always make it clear as to what you are supposed to do.

Being told that you have a safety recall can be worrying but how serious should it be taken? Are manufacturers forced to issue recalls? How are the recalls issued? In an exclusive interview with Auto Express Neil Barlow, head of vehicle engineering at the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), explained how the system works.

The most critical level of recall is the ‘Stop Drive Recall’. This is very serious but very rare apparently. If this recall is issued it’s a little like an aeroplane being grounded, the car must not be driven. Next level is a Safety Recall. This is the most common recall that the DVSA has to deal with. Neil explained this as follows, ‘Where a vehicle or component is deemed by our engineers, usually along with the manufacturers’ engineers, to present some safety risks.’

Drivers can continue driving the affected car whilst waiting for the problem to be fixed, ‘Unless informed otherwise,’ according to Mr Barlow. The DVSA also gets involved when a manufacturer has ‘non-code actions’ and ‘service campaigns’, where it will assist them to contact owners regarding defects that do not present a serious safety risk.

According to Mr Barlow, they hear about problems mainly from manufacturers and they can sometimes hear about the issues from dealers who have had drivers come in with consistent faults. Drivers can also report issues directly to the DVSA via DVSA online.

8 Dedicated engineers and 350 examiners are on hand to assist with inspections. Once a fault has been identified the engineers discuss a fix with the manufacturer. Car brands are obliged to advise the DVSA if they identify safety-related problems and a recall notice issued if the fault is likely to affect the ‘safe operation’ of the car or may ‘pose a significant risk to the driver, occupants and others’.

Recently there have been several press reports when it came to light that the DVSA recommended a safety recall be issued but the manufacturer initially refused. This has now been cleared up as a result of the DVSA taking legal advice. The result is that the DVSA can insist on notices being issued. If the manufacturers don’t conform the DVSA can take legal action or place a suspension notice on vehicles that are affected to prevent them from being sold.

If you receive a notice you should contact your local dealer or follow the instructions included in the notice. Notices are sent by recorded delivery but the problem faced by manufacturers and the DVSA is that too many drivers don’t respond to the notice. Then sell the car to an unsuspecting purchaser.

As Barlow pointed out it is possible for drivers to check their cars to see if there is an outstanding recall notice by visiting www.check-mot.service.gov.uk. Drivers may have to pay for remedial work when it relates to ‘non-code actions’ but work done under a safety recall should be free of charge. 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

I recently announced in my newsletter that the Government was going to pull the plug (get it) on electric vehicle and hybrid grants in November. Hybrid cars that have an electric, zero-emission, range of less than 70 miles were to have their grants reduced to zero and the grants for full electric vehicles were to drop from £4,500 to £3,500.

Whilst drivers brought forward their purchases to benefit from the last of the grants the Government forgot to mention that there was a pot of grant available and when that pot went so did the old grants and the new grants were to kick in.

So imagine the shock when car dealers and leasing company staff rocked up for work on Monday to find that the new grant structure was effective from Monday morning. Presumably, because the old pot of grant money had gone by Sunday night. The Government revealed that qualifying car sales increased by 6 fold following the Government’s announcement.

I covered the announcement in a previous blog/post so I won’t repeat but we are already behind most of Europe when it comes to charger infrastructure and the take-up of hybrids and EV’s is still low even though the higher uptake of the two is the reason given by the Government for people buying hybrids and EV’s. More would take electric vehicles if there was less anxiety over the range, hence the popularity of hybrids.

Personally, I think that removing the grants on hybrids is a bad move. Many used it as a stepping stone towards a full electric but they are now being pushed out of the market and back into petrol and diesel cars purely because of cost – retro-move! By Graham Hill

Those who take out a PCP or PCH that end up giving their car back at the end of the lease know how annoying it is to have to pay for repairs to their alloy wheels. A few years ago the average cost was about £30 – £50 to have one alloy repaired. But since the introduction of Diamond Cut Alloys that cost has increased to about £95 – £110 per wheel so I thought it would be useful to mention a new Alloy Wheel Protector.

Diamondbrite has brought out a new alloy wheel protector. The cost is £199 per set and has to be fitted to the wheels by a qualified fitter. The protector sticks to the edge of the wheel rim to form a toughened polymer barrier between the alloy and the kerb.

It can be fitted to used and new wheels and can be removed if need be. They can be left on the wheel when changing tyres or they can be removed. They can be created to blend in with the wheel shade or you can make a statement with a range of different colours.

The Diamondbrite protector works particularly well on Diamond Cut Alloys. So having the protectors fitted when new can save a great deal of money at the end of your lease. It also keeps the wheels looking good all the time you have the car. The protectors come with a 12-month warranty, cost £199 including fitting. There are fitters all over the country, contact Diamondbrite to find out more and your nearest fitter. www.jewelultra.com. 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

A company has been set up to deal with end of lease or rental charges when consumers or businesses receive excessive charges for damage repairs, excess mileage and late or missing service history. They will fight your case on a now win, no fee basis and so far they have had a success in 66% of the claims they have handled.

On average they have recovered £355 per claim for their clients which represents about a 54% saving on their original bill. The company takes a 30% cut of the money refunded or saved. Whilst I feel that these guys could help out most of what they suggest will be covered in my PCP report as end of lease charges are the same whether you take the car on a PCP or on a PCH.

The biggest issue for most is hiring a car abroad. You return to find that your credit card has been used to pay for some repairs to the hire car that you weren’t even aware of with no proof that damage had been caused. In those cases an outside agency could be really useful.

In the meantime download my 200 page guide by visiting www.grahamhilltraining.com  By Graham Hill

If you’re like me you’re probably getting sick to death with hearing about it every single time you turn on the news or a political programme but it’s already starting to affect us. But we also have to be aware of the fact that Brexit is becoming a bit of a ‘catchall’ for all things wrong in a variety of industries.

Mini is bringing its ‘planned annual maintenance’ forward to 1^st April 2019 just after we officially leave the EU. This will mean that the factory will shut for a month whilst they carry out urgent repairs but most understand that a slow down in sales has resulted in a drop in demand.

So they will shut the plant for a month to carry out ‘maintenance’ whilst the order book hopefully recovers. The official reason is that immediately following Brexit they could run into a major parts supply issue so they are taking precautions sooner rather than later – really?

In my view they need a change in design. You have to add in a Chili Pack to any of the models to get to the basic spec. of most competitors. The rates are keen but compared to the latest designs of A3, Golf, A Class and 1 Series the Mini is no longer current. Up the spec. levels and make the cars funkier. Low sales have nothing to do with Brexit.

In addition to the Mini factory shut down Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) have announced a 3 day week at their Castle Bromwich production plant affecting 3,000 workers. Again down to poor management. The factory builds XE, XF, XJ Saloons and F Type sports cars. Having been given the new emissions test rules in September 2017 they had a year to meet those standards.

It is my understanding that when their cars were tested they were failing the new tests which meant that they had to change the design of their cars to bring down the emissions. In turn, they shut down their order book and when customers couldn’t get their new Jaguar they simply turned to other manufacturers such as Mercedes, BMW and Audi.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have expressed concerns for a bad deal or no deal Brexit. The average new car price is set to increase by £1,500 when imported into the UK under WTO tariffs with our exported cars into the EU increasing by £2,700 making our cars less attractive with the production plants potentially moving to the EU.

And not just the car builders, there is a raft of manufacturers that will feel the negative results following Brexit. From car carpets to dashboards there are component manufacturers that may feel the need to set up plants in Europe as the new duty charges and cost in delivery, especially if we see queues at the ports, result in costs increasing significantly.

The problem is that I’m not seeing a solution. Whilst most leavers that I know believed in the rhetoric that was being bandied about at the time of the vote that the likes of Germany and France wouldn’t want us to have no trade deal – which I believe is true but if I was in Belgium, Austria and say the Netherlands with no car manufacturing, seeing the opportunity of enticing UK manufacturers into their countries would be a great encouragement to vote no at any deal.

Time will tell but I’m seeing some very painful times ahead. Getting out is one thing but getting out with the right deal is something completely different. 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

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