The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The Chancellor announced last November that grants would be extended till 2020 but they are still to clarify the rules. For the moment the Government has confirmed that the current grants will last till at least the end of April whilst they continue their review.

Whilst the Chancellor confirmed that a scheme would last till 2020 they only confirmed that the current rates would last till the end of March. I hope that for the sake of the industry the DfT doesn’t simply extend the current rules a month at a time, especially where orders are placed on cars that won’t be delivered till after the end of April.

The best information we have at the moment is that the Department for Transport will advise any changes in due course. However, this hasn’t encouraged manufacturers to come up with some cheap rates for this month although we have just had a reduction on the all-electric Nissan Leaf.

The current structure, that many think will continue, is as follows: Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 70 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £4,500. Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 10 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500.

Finally, cars with CO2 emissions of between 50g/km and 75g/km that can travel a minimum of 20 miles emission free – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500. The latter two categories exclude cars costing over £60,000.

I somehow feel that if we are to encourage investment by manufacturers in low and zero-emission cars we need a more serious approach by the Government. We are badly lagging behind Europe when it comes to fast charge points and if they end up lowering the grants we will be back to fighting over the emission differences between petrol and diesel. By Graham Hill

You may have read the sad story last weekend about the accident that took place in Arizona when a lady was killed by an autonomous Uber car. traveling at 40 miles per hour when it hit her whilst crossing the road with her bike. The car, an XC90, modified for driverless travel and operated by Uber, had a backup driver behind the wheel.

There were no passengers in the car and investigations are underway but the accident has certainly caused US States, the Government and operators to re-think the potential dangers. Arizona chose to impose very few regulations on autonomous cars in order to attract operators away from neighbouring California which attracted a lot of operators and developers but imposed tough regulations.

As a result, it now looks like the US Government will step in and create countrywide regulations that will overrule individual states. It has also caused many operators in both the States and around the rest of the world to review their safety systems and ask whether the drop in regulations in Arizona and other states has caused development in some developers to drop safety down the list of priorities.

The real worry for many is that there was a driver at the controls of the car that had the accident, acting as backup, and still an accident happened. Was the driver locked out of the controls at the time of the accident? The eyes of the world are now on the findings of the investigation. Much depends on what is uncovered as to how soon we will get to see autonomous vehicles on the road.

And if I may make a final point, I don’t see the benefit of a driverless car if it still needs a driver – just putting it out there. By Graham Hill

Over the past 3 years car thefts are up by 30%. In the past the cars were stolen by joyriders or in the case of prestige cars, stolen to order, stuffed into a container and on its way to India or South Africa within 24 hours of being stolen.

But these days there is a higher likelihood that cars will be stolen to sell on to unsuspecting buyers after changing its identity. As 50% of stolen cars are never recovered and with only a small proportion being shipped abroad you have to be on your guard if you are buying a car privately.

If you buy from a dealer and the car was found to be stolen you will still lose the car but you have much greater legal protection. But if you buy the car privately and the car is discovered to be stolen you could lose the car and the money you paid for it.

But even worse you could be arrested for handling stolen goods. To add to the pain it’s highly unlikely that your insurer will pay out if you make a claim. Andy Barrs, head of Police Liason at TRACKER, has some suggestions as to how you can protect yourself.

When inspecting the car check to see if new registration plates have been fitted and if they have ask why? Thieves may be trying to disguise its identity. Make sure that both sets of keys are present and working as this could also indicate that the car is stolen.

Check the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for visible signs of alteration. Also, go to the GOV.UK ‘check you’re not buying a stolen vehicle’ website for valuable advice. An HPI check records mileage so if a car has been cloned you may see a discrepancy in mileage records. Take care there’s a thief about as they say! By Graham Hill

We still measure the environmental cleanliness of cars by the number of CO2’s that they emit even though, according to many experts, it’s NOx and particulate emissions from older diesels that are causing the most damage. Having said that, those running city and town centres, seem to have ignored the word ‘older’ and tar all diesel cars with the same brush.

Could this be because by demonising all diesels they can screw every diesel driver, who thought he was helping the planet and doing the correct thing by going diesel, and charge premiums for entering and parking in the centre of town, irrespective of the age of the vehicle. And as a result, contribute to the coffers of the Government and local authorities. Or am I being cynical?

Anyway, off my soapbox, do you know who produces the cleanest cars, by CO2 emissions, in Europe? Do you want to know? I’ll tell you anyway, the top five are:

1.    Toyota – 101.2g/km,
2.   Peugeot –  104.5g/km
3.   Citroen – 105.5g/km
4.    Renault – 106.6g/km
5.   Suzuki – 114.9

So there you have it, a choice list for your next car! By Graham Hill

Each year since 2014 Cox Automotive have pulled together 27 leading motoring journalists to decide upon their choice of best cars in the current year, in this case it’s 2018. Their car of the year is the somewhat understated XC60. The car only just pipped the number two car, the Skoda Kodiaq by a single point with the 5 Series BMW coming in 3^rd. Alongside the Car of the Year award the XC60 also won Best Medium Crossover award.

The award is not before time. For years the Volvo range has led the field when it comes to safety equipment but they are now shaking off the ‘old person’s’ image and bringing them up to date with some of the best equipment fitted as standard. Well done Volvo. The other winners were:

• Best Supermini – SEAT Ibiza
• Best Small Hatch – VW Golf
• Best Family – Peugeot 3008
• Best Executive – BMW 5 Series
• Best Luxury – Rolls-Royce Phantom
• Best Estate – BMW 5 Series
• Best Small Crossover – Citroen C3 Aircross
• Best Medium Crossover – Volvo XC60
• Best Large Crossover – Skoda Kodiaq
• Best Coupe – Lexus LC
• Best Cabriolet – Mazda MX-5 RF
• Best Hot Hatch – Hyundai i30 N
• Best Performance – Kia Stinger

So there you have it with several cars on our latest list of deals and offers. By Graham Hill

Did you know that the police can issue a ‘marker’ on the cars registered to drivers who have previously been disqualified for drink driving? No, I didn’t either but they can and in some counties they do. But it depends upon the force.

The idea is to flag up drivers wh have offended once and keep an eye on them. Research has shown that 12% of those banned for drink driving re-offend, rising to 30% of high-risk offenders caught at more than twice the legal limit. I would caveat that by saying that those % figures apply to those who are caught, with so few traffic cops on the road now I would suggest that the figure is probably higher.

This process doesn’t just apply to drink driving, it can apply to any offender suspected of possible re-offending. The police attache a ‘digital marker’ to the offender’s vehicles. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) cameras can then alert police to the driver’s status to help them better target known offenders.

However, Auto Express found out that only a handful of police forces take advantage of this facility and digitally mark vehicles. Cheshire police have 1,041 active markers which create an intelligence slide for every disqualified motorist containing personal details and any vehicle registered to them at the time of disqualification.

In Cheshire, between 2010 and 2016 57% of all banned drivers lost their licence as a result of drink driving. Merseyside police has a policy that markers will be attached once a driver is convicted and/or disqualified from driving. At the other extreme, the Met and City of London Police are two of the forces that admit to not using intelligence markers.

The Met subsequently clarified, when asked, that they would do so if there was ‘credible evidence’ that someone was driving while disqualified. West Yorkshire, in the meantime, said that they felt the attachment of intelligent markers to all drink drivers was neither ‘justified or proportionate.’ Although they admitted to having 80 live Markers.

Well, you learn something every day! Hope I provided that something for you today. 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