The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Drivers in the UK have spent more than £3m buying International Driving Permits since February in preparation for a no deal Brexit.

UK motorists have bought 584,000 International Driving Permits (IDPs) since February 2019 in order to still be able to drive in Europe following a no deal Brexit.

This means drivers have spent in excess of £3.2 million on them in the last six months, according to figures revealed by transport minister Michael Ellis in response to a written Parliamentary question.

Previously, IDPs were available from 89 Post Office branches, as well as from the RAC and AA. Around 100,000 were issued each year to British motorists looking to drive outside Europe. In February, though, the rules were changed so that IDPs were only available from 2,500 Post Office branches and nowhere else.

The Government issued advice to drivers saying UK driving licences may no longer be valid in EU and EEA countries following a no-deal Brexit, which could have occurred on 29th March or 12th April 2019, before the deadline was moved to 31st October

This led to a spike in demand for IDPs, with 282,000 applications in March and 163,000 in April. A number of Post Offices saw long queues, prompting a House of Lords report to call for IDPs to be available online.

Nicholas Lyes, head of roads policy at the RAC, commented: “It’s truly astonishing that more than half a million International Driving Permits have been issued since the Government took the service in-house. In one month alone, the number of IDPs issued was almost three times higher than the amount normally issued in an entire year.

“This shows that people who were planning to take their vehicles abroad most definitely heeded warnings about being ready to drive in the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit. During the Spring, this led to long queues and even shortages of IDPs at some Post Offices.

“As we head towards the next Brexit deadline of 31st October 2019, it is vital that Post Offices are set up to cope with a sudden surge in IDP requests so that drivers are not confronted with frustrating pre-holiday delays. However, much of this will be dependent on the terms of the UK’s departure from the EU.” By Graham Hill Thanks To Auto Express

New tyres come with grading that show their performance in the wet, noise levels and fuel efficiency. However, new cars with maximum tread are only in that condition for a limited time, the question is – how do the tyres perform once they are worn and in particular when the tread drops to the legal limit of 1.6mm.

With this in mind Michelin has stepped up its campaign for mandatory tests of tyres at the legal tread depth limit in a bid to reduce waste, cut CO2 and lower costs for customers.

It has backed an EU resolution by France, which, if adopted, could see tyre performance rated when worn as well as when new. The new procedure could be adopted this autumn, and a working group has been set up at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to define the procedures for these tests, the reference tyres and regulatory thresholds.

Michelin says that although many tyres perform well when new, there are huge variations in performance at the 1.6mm legal minimum. It also claims that manufacturers can engineer tyres to perform well when worn but choose not to because there is no testing.

Michelin has campaigned for several years against the best practice theory of changing tyres at 3mm, suggesting it is too wasteful and quoting a study by Ernst & Young that predicted that running tyres to 1.6mm rather than 3mm would mean a reduction in tyre production of 128 million units in Europe alone, along with a CO2 saving of 6.6 million tonnes, and cost savings of more than £6 billion.

Some of that saving would be felt by fleet operators, many of whom adopt the best practice of changing tyres at 3mm. Having the confidence to run tyres until 1.6mm thanks to official testing would also allow employers to meet health and safety requirements.

Pierre Robert, vice-president of the ambition test programme at Michelin, said: “Dry grip improves by up to 10% on a worn tyre, and 70% of road accidents occur on dry roads. Fuel consumption is also better on a worn tyre, with up to a 20% improvement.

“But wet grip decreases, and currently it is difficult to predict performance. Tyre ratings when new are not necessarily a good indicator of performance at 3mm or when worn.”

Michelin also claims that as vehicles are increasingly equipped with new safety technology, it becomes more important that the tyres perform well to ensure the car’s features work properly.

Robert insisted that good performance when worn is a choice by the tyre manufacturer, as water dispersion ability at the legal minimum can be designed into the tread.

Tyres are currently tested and graded for fuel efficiency, wet weather performance and noise when new, giving consumers a clear indicator of performance in these areas.

Michelin says it supports the implementation of a minimum threshold for wet braking when worn to ensure consumers a minimum performance for all tyres on the market, which could see some manufacturers withdrawing tyres from the market if they fail the test.

Michelin also believes rolling resistance and noise should continue to be tested when new, as these improve with wear, although it does not want to change the labelling structure from the new tests.

Testing worn tyres
Michelin provided two circuit tests – one for handling and one for braking – to compare the performance of worn Michelin tyres with identical cars fitted with worn tyres from another premium brand.

For the braking test, we were asked to apply maximum braking force on a very wet road surface from 50mph to measure the stopping distance (calculated by GPS), while for the handling test we drove on a short lap with a mixture of wet and dry corners, gaining an impression of how the two sets of worn tyres performed.

Our braking test, taken twice on the same tyres – first for the Michelin, then for the other brand – showed a difference of more than 15m between the two, the other brand taking almost four car lengths more to stop.

The handling test showed the electronic stability control activating sooner and for longer in the rival brand tyre compared with the Michelin.

It is possible that other brands’ tyres perform better than Michelin when worn, but until mandatory tyre tests come into force, we won’t know before we make the choice. Michelin appears confident enough to face the challenge. By Graham Hill with thanks to Business Car.

In last night’s edition of Rip-Off Britain, we followed a police team as they stopped cars without insurance. A number recognition camera mounted in the back of a police van identified vehicles without insurance and when found would alert a policeman down the road who would pull over the driver.

Without insurance, drivers were issued a ticket with a fixed penalty along with 6 points on their licence. Then to add to the pain the car was immediately uplifted and taken to the police compound resulting in additional charges.

I had no sympathy for those with no insurance but they found drivers who had purchased insurance online only to find that even though they could show that they had a certificate and proof of payment out of their bank account they had their cars impounded and ended up in court. One driver who had been scammed received a fine and points on his licence for not having a licence even though he was paying monthly, hade a certificate and policy, both of which looked fine but were fakes.

The police warned about the scams. In it’s most simple form the scammers advertised on Social Media offering insurance at 75% off (that would never happen) and only a mobile phone number as a contact point. You would receive a policy and certificate – all fake. The scammer will normally want the whole premium upfront although the man in the programme was paying £120 monthly.

The next scam was an actual broker providing a genuine policy and certificate but with all your details changed. It would show a different address, age, no claims bonus etc. When all added up it would cause the rate to drop substantially with the scammer pocketing the difference in premium. The scammer will normally expect all the premium upfront.

The last scam would result in you receiving your policy and certificate from a broker but the broker then cancels the policy without the knowledge of the driver and receives the refund of the insurance premium. Again the broker will ask for the whole of the premium upfront.

If you want to check to see if your car is insured click on the link and enter your registration number: https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/#  By Graham Hill

As anyone who is looking to change their cars can tell you, like for like cars are rising in car and lease cost. Normal inflation, raw material increases, poor exchange rates, removal of discounts by European manufacturers, lack of stock, poor used car values and emission rule changes resulting in upgrades to engine and exhaust systems have all contributed to the increases.

So whilst you can offset some of the increases by changing to another vehicle altogether with some extra discount attached the EU is set to impose some new regulations that come into force in 2020 that will increase ALL cars. As we are set to retain these rules with or without a deal we won’t be able to avoid the increased costs.

New rules regarding safety features are set to be imposed on all new models launched from 2020 and all new vehicles sold 2 years later. This means that new cars that haven’t been fitted with the new safety features can be sold up to 2022, after which they must all be fitted with them.

A total of 11 standard safety features will be introduced at a total cost to the manufacturer of over £1,000, in some executive models substantially more. For most mid or top end cars this isn’t a great deal of money compared to the cost of the car but for entry models it will have a substantial effect.

The main changes proposed are as follows:

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB): This is now fitted as standard to many mid and upper range cars whilst others include it as part of a safety package. The system senses an obstacle in front and applies the brakes for you. Considered to be a life saver this will have general support. AEB is now part of the NCAP safety test where fitted but whilst it is available on 51% of all cars sold in the UK, according to the SMMT only 30% of cars have it fitted as standard. Cost of fitting: £200 – £1,300.

Alcohol Interlock: Also known as built-in breathalysers these sensors will pick up if the driver is intoxicated and does not allow the car to start. Cost of fitting: £500 – £1,200.

Lane-Keep Assist: Fitted to many cars as standard this warns the driver if he’s drifting out of lane. Cost of fitting: £300 – £700

Accident Data Recorder: Best described as the accident black box in an aircraft. It will provide information to insurance providers in the event of an accident as well as vital information to those looking at ways to prevent accidents going forward. Cost of fitting: £300 – £500

Intelligent Speed Assist: This uses GPS mapping and speed sign recognition to warn drivers when they exceed the speed limit. Cost of fitting: £160 – £220

Parking Sensors: Most people are aware of them and their use. It looks as though rear sensors will be mandatory, not front. Cost of fitting: £100 – £250.

Driver Drowsiness and Distraction Monitors: As the name suggests the system picks up erratic driving behaviour as well as drifting out of lane. Cost of fitting: £150 – £400

These are the main additions aimed at reducing deaths and serious injuries across Europe. The aim is to eliminate road deaths by 2050 although it looks as though we aren’t on target as road deaths in the UK alone has flattened out. In 2017 there were 1,720 compared to 1,792 in 2016 which was the highest since 2011. So there you have it, the reason why rates are set to increase from 2020.

However, in the long term these changes will help to bring down the cost of autonomous cars as these will be essential developments when autonomous cars are designed made cheaper if the technology is already available. By Graham Hill

A point I make every time I read a doom and gloom story about a driver who bought a used car then find out that they have a fault that leads to an unaffordable repair. Choose a new car and finance for 3 years (unless the manufacturer’s warranty lasts for longer) and you are pretty much assured that you will be covered for any faults unless you haven’t looked after the car.

In a What Car report I read about Alistair Hill (no relation) who bought a used Vauxhall Astra GTC VXR 276bhp. from a dealer. The car was no longer covered by a warranty when the engine started to misfire. As the car had only covered 29,000 miles he believed the fault would be minor buit when the dealer checked the engine they found that it had a split piston.

This meant a new engine was required. He complained to Vauxhall who offered to contribute 30% towards the replacement engine which still left Alistair with a bill of £5,000 that he couldn’t afford. What Car got involvd and as usual provided little advice but in this case there wasn’t much in Alistair’s favour.

He had assumed that the car had been serviced when he bought it but it wasn’t and in fact the car was due its regular service but believing a service had been carried out he missed a service. You wouldn’t have this confusion if the car was new when you got it.

He is now without a car that needs an engine that he can’t afford. Vauxhall refused to increase the amount they would contribute as the car hadn’t been serviced properly and he had no warranty on the car. He may have a case under European law but whichever way you cut it he is stuck with a lot of agro in his life because he bought a used car. Point proven yet again! By Graham Hill

It’s obscene the way that some law firms advise dealers on what to do to deprive consumers of their legal rights. If you are a regular reader of my news items you will have read how dealers are advised to repair faulty cars during the rejection period of 14 days ‘under warranty’.

This is because if you reserve your right to reject the car but allow the dealer to fix the problem he only has one chance to fix it. But if he repairs the car ‘under warranty’ that does not count as his one chance so in law if the car hasn’t been fixed he can have another attempt.

So what are they now saying to dealers to deprive customers of their rights? Again it is to do with faulty cars just after ‘purchase’. I say purchase but what I mean is financed on a PCP or Hire Purchase agreement. They are telling dealers to forcefully explain that if there is a problem with the car it is their responsibility and to bring it back for them to sort out.

The reason for saying this is that if you have a rejectionable complaint you should take it up with the finance company and not the dealer as it is the finance company that owns the car and is responsible for the quality of ‘the goods’. But if you complain to the finance company according to the lawyers they are more likely to roll over and agree to a rejection or a repair than the dealer would.

If a consumer doesn’t get satisfaction from the finance company they can refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which will determine the case not on the law but whatever he deems to be ‘reasonable’.

Finance companies don’t like dealing with the FOS as it costs them money so better to accept the rejection then go for the dealer who is then over a barrel as most dealers wouldn’t have the resources to fight the legal team of a lender.

The agreements between the dealers and the finance providers are generally heavily stacked against the dealer so the lenders are less likely to fight the consumer if they know they can pursue the dealer for the costs.

So the point I’m making is if you have a complaint about a car that you bought on a PCP or HP agreement take it up with the finance provider NOT the dealer, you ar more likely to get a result. By Graham Hill

A must read report whether you are an employer or you drive your own car on company business, even if it is only to drop off the post at a local post box or post office!

According to this report in Fleet News one in six at-work drivers says they have been involved in an accident when taking a call from a colleague, new research suggests.

The study, commissioned by Driving for Better Business (DfBB), also revealed a worrying lack of checks for employees driving their own car for work, the so-called grey fleet.

It showed that half of business leaders polled (49%) expect their employees to answer their phone at any time, including while driving for work.

Almost half of employees (45%) said they experience stress when they receive a call from their boss while driving for work. One in six employees who drive for work (17%) said they have been involved in an incident when driving for work due to a phone call from a colleague.

Despite it being illegal, one in 20 executive directors and one in eight employees thought the hard shoulder was a safe place to take a phone call.

Meanwhile, six in 10 (61%) employees admitted they do not always, or only sometimes, find a safe place to make or receive a work call when driving for work with just over one in eight (13%) thinking it safe to take a phone call while parked on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

The findings also showed that despite three quarters (75%) of executive directors claiming to ensure employees are aware of their legal obligations in relation to driving for work, nearly half (45%) of employees surveyed who drive their personal car for work said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

It found that managers were not performing checks on grey fleet drivers and 60% of respondents said they were unsure if any or how many employees use their own car to drive for work purposes.

Furthermore, nearly a half of employees who use their personal car for work purposes (45%) said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

The survey reveals that 90% of drivers used their personal cars for work journeys, 75% doing so at least once a week, yet a third of these drivers (33%) were not insured to do so – saying they do not have cover for business use on their vehicle insurance. Only a third (34%) said their employer had checked their driving licence.

The survey also found a poor approach to vehicle checks and maintenance by employees. Nearly three quarters of employees who drive for work (74%) said when they check their tyres they simply take a quick glance to see that tyres look ‘OK’.

Simon Turner, campaign manager for Driving for Better Business said: “The report shows a disparity between what employers and employees are saying when driving for work.”

He says senior managers are failing to communicate and implement a robust driving for work policy to keep those who drive for work safe, particularly for the grey fleet.

“Leaders are failing to carry out basic due diligence checks such as ensuring that all employees have a driving licence or vehicle insurance,” he said.

“At the same time, the study highlights employees are putting themselves at risk while driving for work, not checking that vehicles are roadworthy and exhibit reckless behaviours when using their mobile phone.”

He continued: “Leaders must implement a driving for work policy that enforces legal and ethical obligations on all employees that drive on work-related journeys.

“Regular checks need to be put in place to ensure that employees have read and understood the guidelines laid out in the driving for work policy. In doing so, the associated risk to road users and pedestrians is reduced.”

Driving for Better Business promotes a free seven-step programme of action to reduce occupational road risk. Organisations that introduce the DfBB programme have experienced significant operational, financial and employee benefits.

Turner concluded: “A good practice driving for work policy ensures that at a minimum, organisations are compliant with all relevant legislation and guidelines.

Once implemented, these policies complement more general employee safety and wellness programmes as well as introduce efficiencies that reduce costs associated with employees that drive for work purposes.”

DfBB surveyed 1,006 employees and 255 executive directors from the UK. The survey was conducted by Censuswide. By Graham Hill with thanks to Fleet News.

Many moons ago my dad bought a brand new Cortina and one of the options at the time was electric front windows. I asked if he was going to have the option as it looked pretty cool and his answer was – why? What problem did electric windows address? And besides which it was something else to go wrong.

Hand-cranked windows rarely went wrong and if they did a sharp bang on the inside of the door seemed to sort it out. So when you read daily of car crime increasing because of crooks being able to break into keyless car technology and nick cars and contents on an industrial scale I find myself asking the question – why? Why does the technology even exist?

What problem does keyless entry solve? I understand remote controls, one of the best things ever invented for TV’s and cars. With respect to cars, you no longer have to fumble in the dark to find a hole in which to stuff your key or breath on the door lock to defrost it enough to insert the key and gain entry on a frosty morning.

No more fumbling in the rain and with some diesels, remotely unlocking the car from a distance actually activates the pre-heaters which should be activated before starting the engine. So why this obsession with keyless entry? What is the problem it is solving over and above a remote key.

A remote key is capable of transmitting around a trillion variants of its generated code that allows the car to be locked/unlocked/boot opened etc. The only time the code can be accessed is when you push the button to transmit which is then changed the next time you lock or unlock the car making it incredibly difficult to break into the car.

On the other hand, a keyless device is transmitting constantly making it easy for crooks to harvest the code and unlock then start the car using a handheld computer device to gain entry. The fact is that it isn’t like my iPhone with either fingerprint or facial recognition you need to carry something so why not a remote key?

Personally, I don’t think my life will be in any way enhanced by having keyless entry so with a higher risk of theft and no doubt higher insurance premiums give me a remote control. My Audi is even more dopey. I have a remote control to open and lock the car and boot but when I’m in the car I have to press a button to start it with the remote control taking up space in one of my cup holders. Crazy!

In order to overcome the security issues faced by those with keyless entry I’ve scanned the solutions introduced by manufacturers and found that most either overcome the problem by using a Faraday bag that encases the signal or the remote can either be deactivated (a bit like pressing a button on a remote control) or it will deactivate itself if there is no movement. My solution is much easier, revert back to remote controls!

If you are concerned about keyless entry with your car some manufacturers have allowed for the keyless entry to be disenabled either yourself or by a main-dealer. Call their customer services or call into a dealer to find out. By Graham Hill

In a recent piece I wrote about the grave lack of charge points that will prevent people from buying or leasing Electric Vehicles (EV’s) along with the lack of range and the ridiculously high cost to buy an EV compared to a petrol or diesel car – we have another factor. Batteries.

Despite everything, we are starting to see a rise in EV sales this year that has taken manufacturers by surprise. One would think that the solution would be simple – up the production of EV’s and solve the problem. On the face of it, that should be the solution but it would seem that increasing the supply of steel or say plastic components would be simple, increasing the supply of batteries isn’t so straight forward.

This increased production needs to be planned years ahead so the fact that Hyundai sold its whole year’s allocation of Kona electric models by March and has a waiting list of 2,000, Kia has also sold out of its year’s allocation of 1,000 e-Niro models it’s put pressure on battery supply. And there simply isn’t the production capacity.

And the increased demand isn’t just the UK, global demand has shot up making the problem even worse. EV’s have suddenly moved from being in the doldrums to higher than expected demand causing car manufacturers to up the investment stakes into battery development and production. Nissan, whilst suffering low sales of their Leaf has now reached ‘Inflection Point’ according to Roel De Vries, corporate vice president, global head of marketing at Nissan.

In other words, demand has outstripped expectations. But, as he pointed out, increasing supply of batteries isn’t as simple as increasing order quantities or place additional orders with other suppliers. The global suppliers are at capacity and if new suppliers are to come online it will take two years to get from plans to production.

In order to address the problem Nissan has taken a stake in Automotive Energy Supply and Toyota has signed an agreement with Panasonic to develop and make Lithium-ion, solid state and next-generation batteries. Other manufacturers are following suit. Kia has partnered two battery producers in order to avoid future bottlenecks in battery supply.

The other issue is cost which needs to come down substantially. Currently, the battery pack in an EV represents 40% of the total cost of the car and this has reduced from 70% over the last 7 years. KPMG expect the battery cost to drop by another 50% by 2030 to 20% of the cost of the car as a result of cell chemistry and economies of larger scale production.

Autotrader have also pointed out that the cost of producing an internal combustion engine is around £1,000 to £2,500 whilst an electric powertrain is approximately £8,000. But in a typical contradiction whenever we discuss EV’s PA Consultancy predict that parity between electric car cost and diesel car cost will reach parity as soon as next year. Given supply and demand of batteries, I find that very hard to believe.

Tesla pointed out that under-investment in mining over the last few years has led to a situation where raw materials could be in seriously short supply. Lithium is limited and could be the first problem so mining companies are searching for areas to mine to increase supply. Nickel is also another metal that will give supply problems.

Beyond the metals we have Cobalt and other minerals that also have to be mined. And the problems don’t stop with the mining. Specialist group, Security of Supply of Mineral Resources (SSMR) have pointed out that 60% of the world’s Cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo controlled by Chinese traders who use child labour and low pay.

They warn that we need supplies from more stable parts of the world or risk being held to ransom by unscrupulous traders. Who said moving to electric vehicles would be easy? Probably the same people who predicted that leaving the EU would be a breeze! By Graham Hill

So what’s he up to this time I hear you ask? Well Mr Angry of West Sussex here is getting really annoyed that we don’t hear anything concrete from this Government regarding diesel cars vs petrol cars vs hybrids vs electric cars.

He’s called for a national scrappage scheme which I don’t disagree with. The real culprits are the very old cars and vans that can be seen spewing out thick smoke and soot which is clearly not good for the atmosphere and the health of our nation.

Having said that MOT testers now have to carry out a visual check on the exhaust of all vehicles and if they are spewing out smoke they fail – simple as. Back to Mr Khan, he’s calling for a national scrappage scheme, not to put people into newer petrol cars that would be a step in the right direction (not exactly as I’ll explain) but into pure electric vehicles.

Well, first of all, you don’t have to be a financial whizz kid to realise that people that are driving old diesel cars about are either eccentric multi-millionaires that are tight with their money but can appreciate a good deal when they see it or is it because they are financially stretched and can’t afford a newer car otherwise they would be driving one?

So expecting these people to swap their old diesel for either a hugely expensive new electric car or a used electric with a range of 3 miles, on a good day, is pure idiocy! And if we could incentivise the diesel drivers to move across to electric cars what about the infrastructure. I live in a rural Sussex town but with the remnants of an old marriage taking up space in my garage that couldn’t accommodate my car anyway (even if it was empty) and with no power to the garage – charging in my garage would not be an option.

Parking in the road is manic and with lamp posts located on the inside of the pavements, we couldn’t even mount chargers on the lamp posts. The idea that we can convert everyone into EV drivers is a pipedream and not possible until battery technology catches up. A lightweight battery pack that could be easily removed from the car and charged indoors then reconnected into the car when needed could be a solution – but we aint there yet!

In the meantime, the answer would be to get new car buyers, with the ability to charge electric vehicles, to buy EV’s or plug in hybrids, the more sold would bring down the cost of used cars and make them more affordable.

But as the Government has removed the subsidy on hybrids and reduced the subsidy on EV’s it’s hardly a move in the right direction. And even companies, keen to get their company car drivers into EV’s with zero emissions face the challenge from employees that BIK tax this year, even on cars with zero emissions, face a BIK bill of 16% of the car’s overpriced list price.

I should also mention that if you read my 3 part report into the findings by the Germans who carried out a large survey into latest generation diesel cars only to find that emissions of NOx, CO2 and particulates were less than petrol when tested on the road in real world conditions so if anything we should be moving back to diesel as an interim measure.

Sorry Mr Khan, consider the above then I would get back to the drawing board if I were you!  By Graham Hill