The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

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 The rates are keen but compared to the latest designs of A3, Golf, A Class and 1 Series the Mini is no longer current.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

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

If you think it’s OK but you haven’t had your eyes tested for a few years – if ever, you should think about it seriously or risk losing your licence – instantly! Three constabularies are stopping motorists and asking them to read a number plate 20 metres away. If they can’t they are being prevented from driving by having their licence revoked on the spot.

The initiative is being run in Hampshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley. The results will be analysed and decisions made as to whether to roll out across England and Wales. Safety organisation Brake and Vision Express are calling for a vision test when car licences are renewed every 10 years. Joshua Harris, Campaign Director for Brake said, ‘It is frankly madness that there is no mandatory requirement on drivers to have an eye test throughout the course of their driving life.

Only by introducing rigorous and professional eye tests can we fully tackle the problem of unsafe drivers on our roads’. Research by the Association of Optometrists, published in November last year, found that 35 per cent of optometrists had seen patients in the previous month who were driving, despite having been told their vision was below the legal standard. Based on this figure, it is estimated that around one million people could be driving illegally.

There is a lot of evidence to show that accidents including fatalities could be avoided if there was a statutory requirement on all motorists to have an eye test. Campaigners have also called for a so-called Poppy’s Law, making it a legal requirement for medical professionals to report patients who are unfit to drive.

This followed the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke, who was killed in 2016 by a 73-year-old motorist who had ignored warnings from his opticians not to drive and was not wearing his glasses at the time. A disgrace and unnecessary tragedy. By Graham Hill

For those concerned about the environment, the new Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP) were considered to be well overdue when you consider how easy it was to fiddle the emissions test under the old regime known as NEDC. It wasn’t just VW fitting equipment that could be switched over during the emissions tests to give a false reading.

Others fitted undersized wheels and stuck tape around doors, bonnets and boots in order to avoid any drag. So now we have the cars being properly tested we see emissions levels increasing. The cars are the same but the emissions levels have increased due to more accurate testing. Which is fine unless you happen to be a company car driver.

As an interim measure and so as not to sting company car drivers for driving the same car the revenue has applied a conversion equation to bring the CO2 emissions back to where they were under the old tests. However, the CO2 levels are still around 10% higher than previous thereby increasing the BIK tax on cars that drivers may have been driving for the past 2 years and the new cars are generally 20% higher so replacing a like for like car could increase your benefit in kind tax substantially.

Whilst the fleet industry has called on the Government to amend the BIK tax tables so as not to penalise drivers of company cars, as usual, they’ve done naff all. This has led to a move towards car allowances allowing drivers to select their own car, firstly to save the BIK tax but also allow them to potentially drive better cars. As I’ve reported before let’s say that a company negotiates preferential terms with a dealer to take 200 Ford Mondeos a year.

As a result, they receive 25%  discount on all cars that is fed into their contract hire rate. Normally the best a consumer would receive is a discount of 15% built into the contract hire rate but if a new model is coming out the dealer and the manufacturer may allow a discount and bonus of 35% to be built into the contract hire rates.

This means that a consumer could achieve a lower rate than some of the biggest fleets in the country. Or maybe a Vauxhall Insignia or Mazda 6 works out cheaper because for the same reasons the rates are incredibly low. So for employees, the time may have come when they hand back their company cars and take a car allowance then talk to me to get them into a low rate car. By Graham Hill

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to appear on ITV’s Tonight programme that went out last Thursday (6^th September). However, with just half an hour available and the main theme of the programme the decision that drivers face as to whether to choose a petrol, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric car next they dropped what was to be a section on finance.

All had their merits, petrol – short around the town trips, diesel for high mileage drivers, hybrids in town but with no ability to plug the car in at home or at work, plug in’s if you have access to electricity and electric for those on low mileage in a city subject to congestion charges with easy access to chargers.

However, they sent a couple on a trip from their home in the north to a party in the south of England in an electric car. A trip that would normally take 4 hours but actually ended up taking over 6 hours, making them 2 hours late. The reason, finding somewhere to charge up the battery en-route. They found at service areas chargers that were broken as well as chargers that couldn’t fast charge. It seemed like a nightmare and got the couple very irritated and worried that they could end up stranded.

One gentleman with a plug-in hybrid found that he needed to charge his car for 6.5 hours at home using the domestic power supply in order to be able to cover something like 25 miles on just the electric motor, think he should change to Duracell Ultra batteries! The programme also questioned the environmental differences claiming, as many others have, that the manufacture of electric vehicles and their batteries come at an increased environmental cost and they still affect the environment as there are particulate emissions from tyres and brakes.

So whilst not all great news electric is the direction of travel and since BP bought out Chargemaster EV charging network we will see many more fast charge points with the next generation able to ‘fill up’ a car in just 5 minutes. Added to which there are already cars that can be used as electricity storage devices. Left plugged into the house electrics any stored electricity could be used when the cost of energy is high then charge the car overnight when energy is low.

Lots happening but I’m yet to be convinced. And the idea of charge points in lamp posts – as was shown on the programme is likely to end up with drivers in A&E as they come to blows as to who was at the lamp post first and whose needs are greater. By Graham Hill

When I first started to write my report on Personal Contract Purchase I did it as an aid for viewers of the Rip Off Britain programme that featured me as their expert dealing with cases involving members of the public who had been treated poorly by either dealerships or finance providers.

It was to be two pages of bullet points at most. 10 months of investigation and re-writing later and we now have a 200-page report stored under the heading of Rip Off Britain Crib Notes – it’s more like War and Peace. But the one main message that comes through is the lack of clarity, probably because of a lack of education on the part of those selling the product as well as those taking out PCP contracts.

The second seems to be the need to be dishonest. If you download the report by visiting www.grahamhilltraining.com you’ll see what I mean. You’ll also have one over on the dealers as you will probably end up knowing more than them. I don’t know what it is, whether it is considered to be good marketing or simply meant to confuse customers in order to make the sale.

Take my latest battle over the extension cost of my Mercedes with MB Finance who rather foolishly have decided to take me on. I won’t go into detail yet, it will get reported in the press when I get a result, but in order to prevent the case going to the Financial Ombudsman Service they offered a sum of money as a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’. Instead of admitting that what they were doing was illegal and simply come to an arrangement they offer a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’.

The fact is that I never ever accept a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’, because I’m either right or wrong. If I’m right – and it is normally over a legal matter – I expect an apology and a full payout. If I’m wrong I will stick my hands up and admit to being wrong and pay any penalty but offering a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’ will only get my back up!

What really got me started on this subject was an announcement in Business Car in which 2^nd biggest Contract Hire company in the UK, LeasePlan, announced that they were to start remarketing used ex-lease cars online under the name of carnext.com. Nothing wrong with that I was a director of Carsite that eventually was re-branded Tesco Cars that did exactly that but 10 years ago.

What annoyed me was that they say in the piece:- that every car comes with a 14-day money back guarantee as though they are offering some special benefit. As the cars are bought online and delivered to you the cars are automatically covered by the Consumer Contracts regulations, formally known as the Distance Selling regulations which means you have a legal right to return any goods you don’t want for any reason within 14 days. Not an exceptional added benefit. Just be honest.

They then go on to say that every car comes with a 1-year warranty. No, they don’t sunshine each car has a 2 year EU Guarantee attached to it. Whilst we are in the EU the 2-year guarantee is still in force which means any trader selling any product, new or used, must come with the EU 2 year guarantee. So not only have they turned a legal obligation into an added benefit but understated it! Grrr – winds me up! By Graham Hill

Latest casualty figures released by the Department for Transport are for 2016. They show a year on year increase of 7% over 2015. The figures include those either injured or killed in incidents involving drivers over the drink-drive alcohol limits.

The figures showed a total of 9,040 deaths or injuries and has led to calls by road safety charity, Brake for the Government to reduce the legal limit from 80mg/100ml of blood to lower than the 50mg/100ml limit imposed on drivers in Scotland since 2014.

The DfT revealed that approximately 230 people died in drink-related incidents compared to 200 in 2015. Surprisingly the DfT described the higher figure as ‘Not statistically significant’. Going on to say that the data ‘continues a period of stability since 2010’.

Joshua Harris, the director of campaigns at Brake hit out by saying, ‘Today’s figures show that drink-driving is an increasing blight on British roads, and yet the Government sits on its hands and refuses to address the issue.’

Something needs to happen, reducing the limit is only a deterrent if we have enough police testing drivers. If drivers think that they can get away with exceeding the drink-drive limit, wherever it’s set they will continue to drink and drive. By Graham Hill

OK, I have this great new way of charging you for the electricity that you use. In future, you will be assessed by the amount of hot water you use per annum. The more hot water you use the more you will pay for your electricity. As a result, the Government will expect you to use less water and less electricity to heat the water. Makes sense?

Probably a bit of a silly example but the point is that linking the two items doesn’t seem like an obvious way for you to pay for your electricity. You pay for electricity as you use it – seems like a bloody obvious thing to do! So what’s this got to do with cars?

Well, a lot of what we spend on roads and the roads infrastructure is collected in various taxes. First Registration, Road Fund Licence and Fuel Excise Duties being the three main ones that come to mind (congestion charging, scaled parking charges are others). So how do we work out the charge? We charge based on CO2 emissions! No allowance for other emissions just CO2.

It just doesn’t make sense and even with the CO2 emissions, it’s simply assessed on how much comes out of the exhaust pipe over a kilometre. I might be travelling just 5,000 miles a year in a relatively high CO2 emitting vehicle but still pay more in RFL than someone travelling 40,000 miles a year in a car with CO2 emissions that are slightly lower. Again – makes no sense! What does make sense is charging per mile for the use of our roads – a bit like using electricity!

And that is what will have to be considered if we move over to either very low emission hybrids or zero-emission electric cars. To leave things as they are will mean drivers will pay nothing towards the upkeep of our roads infrastructure. So the first out of the blocks is the Republic of Ireland, working on a scheme whereby drivers pay to use roads by the mile in order to fill what could potentially be a fairly large black hole in the finances.

Our government is keeping an eye on what the Irish are proposing, to see if theirs is a model we should copy.  Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, announced earlier this year that whilst he acknowledged that many people felt that pay per mile was the way forward he had no immediate plans to change from the current method of funding our roads.

Unfortunately rather short sighted! Having said that I’m not sure how we would go about collecting the data and making the charges on motorists. By Graham Hill