The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Now here is something really interesting that proves you can learn something new every day! And this piece of information could affect every single driver with his own insurance as well as companies running fleet cars. It all came about after I read a question regarding 3^rd party damage, following a car accident, when the damage is caused to local authority owned property.

For example if you were to hit a road sign or street light or maybe smash into a bollard or worse still damage barriers or even the road surface. I was shocked to read that a company running a fleet of vehicles was billed £46,000 for barrier repairs without realising the length of the replacement barriers.

The warning was raised by claims management company actually called Claims Management & Adjusting. They had found that in particular fleet operators were being targeted by local authorities for some obscene repair costs. As it turned out the claim mentioned was for a much shorter stretch of barrier as the authority had claimed in yards but the length was only a third as the measurement was actually in feet, not as stated in yards.

After pointing it out the claim was written off. The claims company also claimed a success when an invoice for £56,000 worth of re-surfacing work was challenged after obtaining information under the Freedom Of Information Act that showed a larger stretch of road had been repaired for £750.

It would seem that not only are there a few disproportionate claims for damage but Highways England has allowed certain contractors to decide upon charges and repairs without further reference as long as the claims were under a threshold, commonly £10,000. This caused me to look further into this situation and what a can of worms it turned out to be.

Most people are of the opinion that you only have to report an accident to the police and your insurance for the following reasons; if someone has been injured (report to police and insurance), there is a claim going to be made against you by another motorist (insurance only) or you are going to make a claim on your insurance for damage repairs to your own car or your contents/passengers (insurance only).

However, knock down a bollard and cause little or no damage to your car you may think that this is the responsibility of the local authority and simply drive off. In fact you have caused damage to a third party’s property so by driving off you could be committing a criminal offence. But then you may think that no-one saw you so where is the evidence but with CCTV cameras and people with mobile phones everywhere you may find that several weeks later you receive a bill for the damages.

But having not reported the accident to your insurance company within a certain period (see your policy) they may no longer be obliged to pay out. It seems  that it can take several months for a local authority to make a claim against a driver. Whilst I’m told that every car insurance policy will cover you for third party damage, that isn’t just someone else’s car or someone’s front wall, it also covers you for what is known as ‘street furniture’ which includes road signs, bollards, hoardings etc.

But if you fail to meet the terms and conditions of your insurance policy or they can prove contributory negligence you could be facing a hefty repair bill. In addition you are obliged to stop after an accident and pass your details to anyone involved or the owners of property that has been damaged. If there are no casualties you don’t have to involve the police.

However, if you have damaged privately or authority owned property you must report the accident to the police if the owner of the property is not available to take the details from you. So as you can see this is a bit of a minefield and what may have seemed like a minor accident could potentially leave you thousands of pounds out of pocket! By Graham Hill

Back in March of this year Ford made a fairly major announcement at the Geneva Motor Show that few newspapers or car journals picked up. They announced a new service scheme that would initially be rolled out to fleet customers but could finally be made available to all customers of Ford cars and vans both new and used.

As the manufacturers compete against large networks of independent service providers and small garages they have come up with a cheap and competitive option, mobile servicing. Specialist mobile service vans have been around for a few years to service commercial vehicles, that are often parked for hours on site or outside buildings, in which the drivers are working, saving the owners time and cost by having their vehicles serviced by a mobile unit during down time.

Initially Ford have successfully rolled out 8 mobile service units, as a pilot scheme, within the M25. They have now been operating for over a year. Ford’s chairman, Andy Barratt, announced that he plans to increase this number within the M25 to more than 100 operating out of Ford Stores and Transit centres. The scheme will be extended nationally if seen to be successful.

The first cars that will be included in the scheme will be the Ford premium brand, Vignales, sold through their 68 Ford Stores. It’s an interesting concept that other manufacturers will be looking at very carefully. By Graham Hill

I don’t know about you but speed cameras totally confuse me. Many have been shut down around the country because they were too expensive to keep going which is strange because I would have thought anything more than a couple of fines a week and they would be in profit.

I’m a believer in speed cameras being installed near danger spots such as schools, old people’s homes and play areas but as we know they were often put up behind a bush, tree or building where there was no extra danger to pedestrians or other drivers, they were there to catch motorists and boost the coffers of the local authority or those managing the cameras.

Well that’s what I thought but I clearly got that wrong with so many shut down. On the other hand those who argue against speed cameras would claim that they are unnecessary as the number of detected motoring offences more than halved between 2004 and 2014, from 4.33 million to 1.62 million, in their minds proving that cameras are unnecessary. Really?

Maybe it has something to do with the huge drop in active speed cameras. Having reviewed the situation a committee of MP’s have suggested that relatively low cost average speed cameras should be used more widely. These would help to replace the large drop in traffic police who not only caught those speeding but also acted as a deterrent parked at the side of motorways or simply cruising our roads.

The committee have recommended that revenue generated by fines should be re-invested, through road safety grants, rather than kept by local authorities. Even with the shut down of many Gatso’s 90% of all Fixed Penalty Notices in England and Wales are detected by cameras. Exceeding the speed limit resulted in 254 fatal accidents in 2014, 16% of all fatal accidents, as well as 1,199 serious accidents.

Whilst the committee has recommended the use of average speed cameras there are some experts that have said that you have to ask why people speed and in many instances it is a result of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so these people get away with a fine and points for speeding when in fact they were committing a much more serious crime.

Speed cameras also allow those driving carelessly or without due care and attention to get away with a relatively small fine and 3 points. Personally I’m not sure what the answer is but time will tell if the roads are made safer through the installation of average speed cameras on motorways and A roads. By Graham Hill

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

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 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