The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Years ago Ford had a reputation for announcing new models long before they were in a position to launch. As a result pressure was on them to get the car into the marketplace whilst interest was at its highest. Subsequently, anyone who bought the brand new model with lots of new features became Ford’s own testers.

My ex wife became one of them when they brought out a brand new shape Fiesta. It looked great and the Ghia had loads of brand new features. Unfortunately the car spent more time in the local dealers during its first 6 months than in the hands of my ex.

But as newer cars rolled off the production line all of the faults were fixed and eventually my ex ended up with a car without rattles, windows that worked, no oil leaks and a rear window that didn’t drip water onto her shopping every time she operated the rear wash/wipe. Whilst it was irritating there were no health and safety or security issues just minor irritation that got sorted. Scoot forward a few years and you find Apple uses the same principle whenever they have a new iPhone to launch.

Remember the bendy big phone and the phone with the aerial built around the phone that lost the signal if you held it? So it should come as no surprise that when the recent head of steam started to build up around the desirability to have ‘Connected Cars’ that stuff would be released before being fully considered and fully tested. What us cost accountants would refer to as the ‘what if’ considerations. Many manufacturers have rushed to release apps that can be downloaded onto your phone that will remotely connect to your car.

The app will remotely monitor and control the car, locate it and even lock and unlock it. Yes I did just say that. The trouble is that not enough ‘what if’s’ were considered before the products launched leaving the new owner and the car vulnerable when sold. Fleet operator Ogilvie found that they still had access via their apps to a Tesla, BMW i3 and a Nissan Leaf after the cars had been sold although they pointed out that the Nissan could not be stopped or started via the app.

As more manufacturers join Jaguar Land Rover with their inControl, Tesla with MyTesla, Volvo OnCall, Vauxhall’s OnStar and Nissan Connect less attention could be given to security if it meant that the technology could be launched in no time flat. Some manufactures say they will delete the old account once the car is sold and one amazingly said that if they are called by the customer or fleet manager they can disable the App. Really? That sounds pretty secure – not! Tesla said that it is up to the old owner or new owner (or thief) to advise the change of ownership.

To prove the point Fleet News reported one ex Tesla owner able to access his MyTesla account a year after the car was sold. It is only now that leasing companies are discussing the end of lease procedures and a resolution that would see the disabling of apps. As part of the handover process. But what about private owners? Who will instruct those with Connected cars how to protect their privacy and new owners make sure that the previous owner no longer has access to their car. What a mess! 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

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

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

Recently I have seen a move away from diesel cars towards petrol. Part of the reason is because petrol cars have seen an improvement in their resale values at the end of leases making them, in some cases, a little less to lease. Part is because fuel consumption has been improving as petrol engines become more efficient with some petrol engines capable of close to the same fuel consumption to that of their diesel equivalent.

Also, since the VW emission debacle people have become twitchy over the emissions credentials of diesel engines. The truth is that the new Euro VI engines are about as clean as petrol engines but with lower CO2’s so if that is your argument for moving to petrol it is flawed. But there is a new consideration, that of entering and parking in city centres.

Some authorities in London are imposing charges for polluting vehicles with a suggestion that all diesels are more polluting than petrol, which isn’t true in the case of Euro VI engines. Last April 2015 Islington Council brought in and annual surcharge of £96 if you drive a diesel car with Hackney proposing a £50 surcharge for 2017. They are thinking of increasing this further if the car is pre-2001 due to the higher emissions.

Other cities considering similar schemes are Birmingham, Bristol and Leicester along with congestion charges with a premium if you happen to drive a diesel. Maybe someone should suggest they get all the facts first! By Graham Hill

If you are thinking of driving around Europe this summer, especially if you are driving through France, you will need to carry a breathalyser, especially as not only in the UK, but also in Europe, they have woken up to the benefits of breathalysing motorists in the morning rather than at night.

It is far more difficult to assess whether you are over the limit in the morning, after a skin full the night before, than at night when you have just had a couple of drinks. And with barbeques coming into season in the UK, which I’m told leads to more morning after convictions than over the Christmas period, you need to take precautions to safeguard your licence.

If you agree you may think it is wise to invest in a fairly expensive but accurate breathalyser being sold by Alcosense called the Ultra. It costs a whopping £249.99 but is considered to be one of the most accurate consumer devices. It can be set to the regulations of the country you are in at the time, including France and the US, both of which calculate readings differently.

Once your breath has been detected and analysed by the software algorithm the device will give a reading. It tells you what percentage of alcohol has been detected in your breath then also flashes green, amber or red that indicates whether you are over the limit, under it or completely in the clear.

It also indicates how long it will be before you are fully sober again. So if you are the sort of person who drinks into the wee hours then wonders in the morning if you are safe to drive this could be a valuable investment. By Graham Hill

Sat. Nav’s are great, I wouldn’t be without mine having thrown out my AA map book many years ago but there are times when you wish you had your old map book in the car instead of the bloody sat nav, especially when you are just about to join the end of a queue of stationary traffic.

They are a little better these days, especially if my system has found a major delay on say the M25 (now run by NCP I believe) it will announce that due to heavy congestion it has created another route. Which is fine but the problem arises when you can see the orange cars on the screen, a few miles ahead, turn red, just as you reach a turning that should take you away from the congestion.

So off you toodle expecting the system to recalculate an alternative route. Oh no – that would be too much to ask. For the next 20 miles it constantly tries to get you back to where you turned off the original route. It will even try to fool you by not telling you to do a U turn but sends you off down a single track B road.

At this point you need to zoom out cos I’ll guarantee that it is about to send you completely round the houses to where you left the original route an hour ago! There are now parts of London that I know better than most black cab drivers!

So manufacturers who are designing undesirable things into new cars such as hair dryers and heated gear knobs please turn your attention back to Sat Nav’s because if that bloody woman keeps trying to get me back to where I’ve purposely driven away from I’m filing for a divorce! PS. Second thoughts don’t ditch the hair dryer! By Graham Hill

Have you ever appealed against a parking fine? Obviously I’ve appealed every time I ever received one, even if I was parked on a traffic warden’s foot which was on a set of double yellow lines whilst he was leaning on a post that says ‘No Parking’, because that’s me.

I see it as my civic duty, however not everyone is prepared to go through an appeals procedure that can take up to 3 months, even if it gives you enough time to arrange a Quick Quid loan to pay for it when they finally tell you to grow up! But I have good news, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) has launched a new portal.

The purpose is to speed up the appeals process when appealing against a parking fine. The pilot scheme, which I’m pleased to say will be rolled out in Brighton & Hove, is a great move as that is normally where I get ‘done’, along with Croydon! I remember on one occasion I received a ticket in Croydon, South London, the day after they changed the time rules for parking on single yellows from between 6.00pm to 6.00am to 11.00pm to 6.00am and yes I got a ticket from a warden at 10.50pm. Ridiculous!

I digress, so this new service has been set up with consumer complaints company – Resolver (good name). Following a successful pilot the portal will be rolled out to every council in England and Wales by the end of this year. If you receive a Penalty Charge Notice for parking or bus lane contraventions in England or Wales, other than London which is controlled by TfL, you can appeal online as opposed to the current procedure whereby you have to appeal in writing.

You can appeal using your smartphone, tablet, laptop or PC – that is great! According to TPT 0.5% of people issued with fines appeal and of those 50% have their fines overturned. The system will expand and will already include Dartford Crossing fines and Durham congestion charge. Excellent news, just got to find the app now! By Graham Hill