The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

How safe are our roads? This general question often refers to the general condition of our roads, how well they are maintained in bad weather, the safety of our cars and how well the cars are maintained. But what about the health of our drivers? Could drivers’ health affect the safety of our roads?

It would seem that whilst most drivers take things like drink driving very seriously and wouldn’t dream of driving a car without wearing a seatbelt it seems that they are nowhere near as vigilant when it comes to their health. Watching TV with a little bit of a squint is maybe a bit of an inconvenience and not focusing too well when reading the paper may be a little uncomfortable but what about driving?

As responsibility falls upon drivers to self regulate their eyesight how many actually meet the minimum standards? Many drivers are shocked when they finally feel the need to have an eye test and find that they badly need to wear glasses. If you drive with faulty eyesight you can be prosecuted but it’s a bit late if you are dead or badly injured in hospital or you have hit a cyclist or pedestrian that you didn’t see.

With an estimated 4 million drivers considered to have deficient eyesight, i.e. more than 10% of all drivers, how dangerous are our roads? We can add other conditions to poor eyesight, many of which are not considered as dangerous. This time of year there are those with hay fever who take anti histamines that, whilst a legal drug, can impair the driver’s ability to control a car.

Those with a bad back pain can be distracted because of the discomfort or could take strong painkillers that could impair their driving and slow down reaction times. Conditions such as sleep apnoea are not fully understood by those suffering who may believe they simply feel tired occasionally but if you have the condition it is even more important that you stop driving more quickly than those simply feeling a little groggy.

The fact is that our roads are made more dangerous by those who drive on them with a range of medical issues from poor eyesight to a dodgy knee. Is it about time that we all took greater responsibility and stopped putting ours and other’s lives at risk. Always read the labels of any medicines you are taking, even when they are bought over the counter, and follow the warnings. By Graham Hill

In the current Health and Safety obsession by the EU and lawmakers in all civilised countries I find this next piece very hard to believe can still happen, especially in the UK. If you are a recent reader of my musings you may not have read the piece I put out regarding the sort of health and safety attitude that existed in the US in the 1970’s.

Briefly, Ford had a car called the Pinto which happened to be the biggest selling ‘sub compact’ car in the US at the time. Unfortunately the design of the car was unsafe, they had placed the fuel tank in such a position that if the car was hit from behind the tank exploded.

More than 500 people died as a result of the Pinto bursting into flames when they were either driving or were a passenger in the car. Many more received severe burn injuries. When a burn victim sued Ford for the faulty design it was uncovered that Ford engineers had known about the problem for many years. But Ford management had carried out a cost – benefit analysis and concluded that it wasn’t worth the $11 per car to fix the problem by recalling all of the cars compared to the cost of recompense payable to the victims.

They believed that if the problem remained unfixed they would face claims from 180 burn victims and the families of 180 victims killed. They placed a monetary value of $67,000 on a burn victim and $200,000 on a death. They added to these costs the cost of replacing the cars. They concluded that if they fixed the problem it would save them $49.5 million in compensation and car replacement costs but the cost of repairing the 12.5 million cars affected would set them back $137.5 million.

So they concluded that the cost of paying out for losses and injuries was a better option than paying out for the cars to be repaired. This of course raised a number of issues that the US Government jumped on and Ford ended up with huge costs and penalties to pay. One would assume that this couldn’t possibly happen again in this day and age with a higher moral obligation placed on companies along with massive legal consequences.

But then I read about the recent problems experienced by Vauxhall Zafira owners. I had seen several YouTube videos of Zafiras catching light and cars being pretty much instantly destroyed. For ages Vauxhall denied the existence of a problem but after 300 Zafiras caught fire they were forced to take a more responsible approach. The problem was found to be in the car’s heating and ventilation system which led to a recall of all Zafiras, known as ‘B’ models on sale between 2005 and 2014.

They originally claimed that the problem had only come to light in 2014, following which they instigated a full recall in December 2015. However, when questioned by MP’s a couple of weeks ago, Peter Hope, customer experience director at Vauxhall, admitted that they had known about the problem as long ago as 2009 when the first fire was reported. Their excuse was that when cars are completely destroyed by fire there is very little evidence left to analyse in order to establish the cause of the fire.

The good news is that unlike the Ford Pinto no-one was even injured but that isn’t the point. At what stage does a car manufacturer take responsibility and carry out a very detailed investigation when consistent things go wrong with one of their car models? The estimated cost of repairs is £33.6 million – tough! Only now, in the month of August 2016 is a further 235,000 Zafiras, as agreed with the DVLA, being recalled to have the fault fixed.

Shame on you Vauxhall for putting customers through all this when it could have been avoided. When Vauxhall denied responsibility drivers no doubt made insurance claims for their losses, paying an excess and losing no claims bonus. This simply isn’t good enough and after making the cars safe again they should prepare a plan to pay those affected compensation, something, according to Peter Hope is not at the moment being considered. What a disgrace! By Graham Hill

For the first time in a decade the number of employees paying Benefit In Kind (BIK) tax has increased according to statistics released by HMRC for the years 2014/15. It may only be a 1% increase from 940,000 to 950,000 but it has all of the so called experts weighing in with opinions as to why this has happened.

Whilst Brexit is being flung around by a few they should reflect on the fact that these figures relate to 2014/15 when the referendum was but a glint in PM Cameron’s eye. In amongst the more believable reasons is that for the first time engine development has managed to pretty much keep pace with the increasing demands by the chancellor on BIK tax.

So whilst he has dropped the CO2 threshold year on year engines have become more efficient chucking out fewer CO2’s and therefore neutralising the effect on tax. Another view is that companies that had maybe reverted to car allowances, to allow employees to avoid benefit in car tax, or allowed employees to obtain their own cars, which they would drive for business and charge back company miles on the tax and NI free mileage rate, had moved back to company cars.

The reason for this move away from employee owned cars (known as the Grey Fleet) to company cars is not suggested to be financial but Health & Safety. Companies are responsible for the safety of cars driven by employees on company business, even when the cars are owned by the driver. So if an employee has an accident whilst driving on company business in his own car and the accident can be attributed to the car not being regularly serviced, the company is held responsible for the consequences.

Crazy but true. We are still nowhere near the peak of company owned cars of 1.16 million recorded in 2006/7 but the treasury must be pleased with this turn of events. They collected £1.9 billion from company car tax and NIC in 2014/15 so a nice little earner from them. Last time the number of company cars matched the current figure was 2011/12 when the tax and NI collected amounted to £1.66 billion.

This is as a result of tougher CO2 banding and of course the increase in cost of cars. Personally I continue to see a steady growth in the number of SME’s financing cars personally rather than through their business. Especially since the rates, provided by most leasing companies, are pretty much the same for business and personal applicants. By Graham Hill

I have been reading one of the first cases I have seen that put the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to the test. I won’t go into the fine detail but a customer bought a 10 year old used car from a dealer. A short while after buying the car a light appeared on the dashboard.

The client called the dealer and complained, in turn the dealer told the driver to either bring the car back for them to inspect or call out the emergency roadside assistance, provided with the car. The client did neither and continued to drive the car whilst the dealer tried on 3 occasions to contact the customer. The driver then decided to exercise his rights to reject the car under the new Act, the dealer refused to accept the rejection and the case went to court.

Now clearly the driver did all the wrong things and it was found that the car needed a faulty crankshaft sensor replaced costing £49.69 but my real problem with this case is: when is a car considered to be of Unsatisfactory Quality? And the final statement from the dealer’s lawyers threw doubt on the decision.

First of all having a warning light appear on the dashboard for something more than low oil or water would cause me immediate concern. And whilst the diagnosis was that a faulty sensor needed replacing is this enough to reject the car? We all tend to suffer from the fear that when something goes wrong on a car – could this be the start of a string of faults? I have never heard of a crankshaft sensor, let alone one that goes faulty.

And simply replacing the sensor without stripping down the engine to check the crankshaft would worry me greatly and I would most certainly want to reject it. Added to which this is what the lawyer said at the end of the case: ‘The final element was that any damage which is caused by the claimant’s own negligence is not something the trader is liable for.’

I could understand that statement if the problem wasn’t the sensor but the crankshaft itself but they claimed the fault was just a faulty sensor which wouldn’t cause secondary damage to the car. So why make the statement, was the damage more than just a faulty sensor and there was a cover up going on?

The case is over but it has left a bad taste in my mouth and it tastes like a load of bull’s droppings. Not that I’ve tasted bull’s droppings but you know what I mean! By Graham Hill

It doesn’t seem that long ago when we used to ask the customer for the colour choice of their next lease car before we were able to quote because the colour of the car had such an effect on the resale value of the car at the end of the agreement.

And those that bought their new car insisting on something like Beige, Brown or Fern Green, regretting the colour choice when no dealer would be prepared to take the car in part exchange, for fear it would never sell. But since most manufacturers have now reduced their colour ranges to somewhat more standard colours we no longer have to ask the question but it’s useful to note the popular colours every so often to see the change in trends.

Advice from British Car Auctions (BCA) is that whilst a colour may be popular it may not suit the car. White can look the dogs on some 4WD cars whilst you could double as a pimp or drug dealer on another. Always worth having a chat with the dealer if not sure and always try to see the car in real life as opposed to a video or photos, they can look vastly different!

I’m surprised they could find 10 colours to list but for your edification here are the top 10 car colours: 1) Black, 2) White, 3) Grey, 4) Blue, 5) Silver (shocked), 6) Red, 7) Brown, 8) Green, 9) Orange and 10) Yellow.  By Graham Hill

Employers have a duty of care to their employees when driving on company business even if they drive their own car and claim a mileage allowance or receive pence per mile expenses. However, that doesn’t extend to the daily commute (unless the driver is on his way to a customer or somewhere business related other than their normal place of work).

However, according to AA DriveTech more employees are killed whilst commuting to and from work than those killed whilst on company business – rather chilling! I should caveat this by saying that the figures include those commuting by car, motorcycle and pedal cycle and whilst I have picked this information up from a report I know that if an employee has an accident whilst driving home after an employer has forced the employee to work unreasonable hours the employer can be held responsible.

But the legalities are not the point of this blog post, it is to make everyone aware of the dangers of driving when commuting. Whilst an employer may not believe he is responsible for an employee’s welfare during their commute the consequences can be equally damaging to the business and the employee. Whether an accident happens whilst on the way to work or out on company business the loss of the employee or the time taken to recover is the same.

So you may like to take note yourself and pass on to colleagues and employees the findings of AA DriveTech who have found that there are three dangerous periods when commuting with most accidents happening at differing places.

Between 4.30-7.00am most accidents happen on bends and rural roads. Between 7.00-9.00am the most dangerous places are T junctions and urban roads and in the evening between 4.00-6.00pm most accidents take place within 30mph zones. So now you know, bear in mind if you commute during these times. By Graham Hill

Is in car technology running ahead of legislation now? The Act of Parliament that controls the way that data is handled is the Data Protection Act 1998 and whilst there have been some periphery changes over the years we still rely upon the Act to ensure that we are all protected from miss-use of our data.

But in the days when this Act found its way onto the statute book things were vastly different. Most cars didn’t even have a hands free telephone system fitted let alone the mass of connectivity now fitted into cars. Arguments are appearing all over the place as to who owns the data and it all gets very confusing to the likes of you and I.

Of course not all information is sensitive and can be used by manufacturers to develop new cars and systems as well as provide accurate data to buyers. We all know how inaccurate fuel miles per gallon figures are but with so much data being recorded a manufacturer could average out fuel consumption across thousands of cars and come up with a far more accurate figure than they do at the moment.

But the question is – how to they arrive at this average? They would need to identify when you are driving around town compared to driving across country or on a motorway to measure Urban and Extra Urban figures. And how can this be done? Using GPS used by your sat. nav., even when you are not using the sat. nav.

Is it right that somewhere in the Big Data database there are recordings of where and when you traveled in your car at any point in time? These are questions that need to be addressed by the Government and a new version of the Data Protection Act worked on before Big Brother takes over our lives. By Graham Hill

Bits & Pieces: a) It seems that insurance companies are finally seeing the benefit of having a dash cam (digital camera fitted to the dashboard, windscreen or behind the rear view mirror) with dash cam maker Nextbase coming to an agreement with insurance comparison website, Constructaquote.com.

They will offer those with a dash cam fitted a 15% discount on insurance taken out through their website. This is particularly beneficial to those who privately finance a car but predominantly use it for business as these cars carry a premium that the 15% will help to neutralise.

b) The Government is looking into the proposals for driverless cars to be used on the streets of the UK. Consultations have started on the implications such as a rewritten Highway Code, street signs and the safety features such as lane departure and emergency braking. You can read the consultations by visiting www.gov.uk/government/consultations.

c) Glass’s Guide, the well known valuation experts, have suggested that the decision to exit the EU won’t affect used car prices till quarter 4 2016 at the earliest. Like most ‘experts’ they predicted the first to suffer would be fuel prices and property prices whilst I predicted – no change in my musings straight after the Brexit vote. Before the vote petrol at my local Tesco was £109.9 pence and yesterday – yep, it was the same! By Graham Hill

Electric vehicle sales continue to increase with a constant stream of new developments coming from manufacturers and providers of charging points and batteries. On the downside Electrocity, the providers of rapid charge points at motorway services, have announced a new charging scheme for those using their rapid chargers.

In future they will charge £6 per half hour to charge your car, currently provided for free. Whilst some believe this move to be premature others feel that it won’t affect electric vehicle sales as drivers only tend to use motorway fuel stations as a quick fix, waiting till they are off the motorway to fill up.

The same will apply to electric chargers. At the moment the charging points can be a little congested but by charging for charging (did I just say that) drivers will no doubt plan their journeys better. Another charge point provider, Chargemaster, is developing inductive charging, the same type of wireless connection that is used to boil our kettles. They claim that they can charge up to 10 plus cars at any one time at the workplace.

Mercedes are developing inductive charging for their cars and will be rolling out the first car to have it fitted, the S Class Hybrid, in 2018. The system will then filter down to the cheaper models. Technology giant Qualcomm, who licence the technology to Chargemaster, claim that the next generation of EV’s will have both methods available, inductive and the traditional plug in.

Formula E, the electric car racing series already use inductive charging for their medical and safety cars. So the system is already proven. For those worried about the safety of such devices when say a cat or dog walks onto the pad, that would be placed under the car at home, the unit stops charging and an alert is sent to your smart device.

I still can’t understand why the industry doesn’t standardise batteries with a quick swap facility at battery centres, you pull in, the old battery is slid out with the charge noted, a fully charged battery is slid in and the driver is charged for the difference in charge. Simples. Maybe I should patent this idea! By Graham Hill

I have read on many lawyer’s web sites that following the biggest change to the all inclusive Consumer Rights Act 2015, the ability to return goods that do not conform to the conditions laid down in the new Act, that consumers have confused this with the terms of the Distance Selling Act.

The new Consumer Rights Act replaces many old acts such as the Sale of Goods Act (last revision 2006) Unfair Terms In Consumer Regulations and the Supply of Goods & Services Act along with other minor acts. But not totally as I will explain in a moment.

In the new act you have 30 days, during which, if the goods are, in simple terms, Faulty, Not As Described or Unfit For Purpose you can claim a refund. You don’t have to give the seller the opportunity to repair the item and you certainly don’t need to go to court to claim your money back.

A word with your local Trading Standards Office or Citizen’s Advice Bureau should do the trick. If you choose the Court route you will probably be offered the free Small Claims Court Mediation Service once the other party has filed a defence. Well worth considering.

First let me deal with the confusion. You have 30 days to return goods or claim on services that do not meet the conditions of the Consumer Rights Act and claim your money back. Not to be confused with the 14 days you have under the Distance Selling Act when you buy goods or services that you haven’t been able to inspect before paying for them.

In this case you have the right to return goods to the seller within 14 days and claim your money back simply because you don’t like the colour or design of the goods whereas items returned under the Consumer Rights Act must be faulty, not as described or not fit for purpose.

But cases have been going to small claims courts citing the Consumer Rights Act when the consumer didn’t have a leg to stand on because he simply didn’t want the goods after getting them home. So don’t be confused, you can’t return goods under the Consumer Rights Act just because you changed your mind.

30 Day, 6 Month & 6 Year Rules: The 30 day rule is the period during which you can simply ask for your money back if the goods or service don’t conform to the Consumer Rights Act. You can allow the seller to repair or replace the goods but if you allow for a repair and it doesn’t fix the fault you still have the right to claim your money back.

And the onus is not on you to prove that the goods or service are in breach of the Consumer Rights Act it is down to the supplier to prove that they aren’t. This brings me to the 6 month rule. You must allow the supplier to remedy the fault with a repair or replacement after 30 days but within 6 months.

Again, you don’t have to prove that the fault existed when you bought the goods the supplier must prove that it didn’t. After 6 months but up to 6 years you can still exercise your rights if the Consumer Rights Act has been breached but after 6 months the onus is on you to prove that the fault existed.

Car Warranty: I think that it is worth mentioning at this point your legal position when it comes to a faulty car and its manufacturer’s warranty. Apologies if you have read this before as it is something that I bang on about quite regularly. Most new cars come with a transferable 3 year warranty, some more but most with 3 years.

Whenever you read a complaint in the National press, specialist motoring press or popular blogs about a car fault the warranty is considered to be the ultimate redress when things go wrong. It isn’t, it is there to add to the customers’ legal protection but just because the warranty ends on the car it doesn’t mean that the car falls off a cliff and every part on the car is expected to fail.

Outside of fair wear and tear I would expect most components on a car to last at least 8 years of average mileage provided the car has been properly serviced. The ultimate redress is not the warranty, it is legislation, in this case the Consumer Rights Act.

So when a major item such as a gearbox goes faulty after 3 years and 1 month and the manufacturer refuses to accept liability as you are now outside the warranty revert to your rights within the Consumer Rights Act and take the dealer and the manufacturer to court.

What is a Consumer?: The Consumer Credit Act 2006 defines an individual to include a sole trader, small partnership (3 partners or less) or an unincorporated association. As I understand it (and I have read conflicting information) the Consumer Rights Act defines a consumer as  “an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession”.

Not sure how you would determine how much of the use of a laptop computer is for business and how much for personal use. But I have seen suggestions that the ‘spirit’ of the CRA should also apply to SME’s so whilst they may not have the same statutory right of rejection within the first 30 days a court may use as a test of reasonableness the terms laid down in the CRA. The situation is made even more unclear by the scope of control exercised by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The FOS deals with complaints from consumers relating to Finance and Insurance Products with consumers being defined as above by the Consumer Credit Act. Now the CCA completely ignores ‘Unincorporated Associations’, i.e. Limited Companies but if you go onto the FOS website you will see that they also offer their services to Micro Enterprises as defined by the EU, which is a business that employs less than 10 people and a turnover or balance sheet net worth of less than 2 million Euros. And of course this can apply to limited companies So where is the consistency?

Financial Ombudsman Service: The little understood fact is that the FOS acts outside the law. It will use the law as its basis for coming to a ruling, which is legally binding on both sides, but the Ombudsman will consider such common sense things such as ‘was the customer treated fairly?’

The FOS can make an emotional decision compared to a judge who must base his decision on the letter of the law so I always recommend that you consider the FOS before court action. And bear in mind you don’t have to accept the FOS ruling, you can still exercise your right to go to court. And whilst you may run a Micro Enterprise and your complaint would normally fall outside the CCA you can still make your complaint to the FOS and you will be listened to.

By Graham Hill