The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Let me ask you a question, what irritates you most? Pot holes, speed bumps or 20mph speed limits? For me there is little to choose but each of them has an affect on the way we drive with two meant to make roads safer and the other one simply slowing us down as we don’t particularly want to destroy our tyres and suspension.

Whilst you try to work out the one that destroys tyres I can tell you that speed bumps could be a thing of the past (hurrah and hurrah), to possibly be replaced by the wide use of 20 mph speed limits (damn, damn, damn). A report out at the end of last year by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) – yes I thought they only approved drugs also – suggests that local authorities do away with speed bumps as they lead to erratic driving which increases pollution.

As a replacement they have suggested variable speed limits and ‘no idling zones’. Statistically 64% of air pollution in urban areas is caused by road traffic costing the UK £18.6 billion each year. I wish they would explain that figure, I guess as it’s NICE they mean in consequential health issues but how do they prove that it’s not down to the sufferer’s lifestyle or place of work?

Anyway, moving on, they want to stop idling in certain areas but this has also caused me concern. You know the old strip lights that are still used in open areas, offices, kitchens etc.? Well I remember reading somewhere that if you turned one of these lights off then switched it back on a little later the starter used up more electricity than if you had left the light on for over 2 hours (can’t remember the exact time), so my point here is could the same principal apply to stop start engines that are meant to reduce pollutants into the atmosphere?

Could constantly starting the engine kick out more CO2’s and other noxious gasses into the atmosphere than simply leaving the engine ticking over? Just a thought – but a very good one Graham I hear you say. I digress. They suggest that 20mph limits be introduced in areas of regular congestion and drop motorway speed limits to 50mph in order to create steady traffic flow.

They recommend the wider introduction of congestion charging and laws to prevent parents from leaving cars idling whilst delivering children to school. I’d have thought a gentle tip off in the local hooligans’ shell likes should solve that one! Other rather entertaining proposals suggest new houses with living rooms at the back of the house, furthest away from roads (umm what about bedrooms?), car free days for some areas and siting cycle lanes away from main roads.

I’m all for saving the planet but do these people really think these things through? To avoid congestion in the centre of town during the rush hour won’t be solved by introducing a 20mph speed limit when you are lucky to achieve 3 mph on a good day. Still removing road humps will be a good start as far as I, and most Ferrari divers, are concerned. By Graham Hill

Failing to disclose an active medical condition can not only result in a serious accident but also a prison sentence. This happened recently when a woman fell asleep at the wheel as a result of suffering from obstructive sleep apnoea, a condition that isn’t uncommon.

Having fallen asleep her car crossed to the other side of the road and hit an oncoming car head on causing the death of the other driver. After pleading guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and the court finding out that she had been diagnosed the condition 2 years earlier she was clearly heading for prison.

As soon as she had been diagnosed with the condition that could affect her driving she should have immediately informed the DVLA but of course this has raised the issue of when should the DVLA be advised and by whom. Whilst there may be a list of conditions that you must report if you have them I certainly don’t know them other than eyesight.

So should it be the responsibility of the GP already under pressure to treat lots of sick people in his waiting room? And even if a driver is diagnosed with a condition that should result in immediate confiscation of their driving licence there is an obvious incentive not to advise the DVLA knowing that they would have to submit their licence.

But the risks to their lives, the lives of passengers and other road users are too great to ignore this situation. The current procedures are a mess. Once a driver has been diagnosed with or believes they have a condition that could prevent them from driving they must apply for an independent assessment from a doctor in order to obtain the doctor’s approval.

But the DVLA doesn’t require evidence of this and the driver is allowed to continue driving pending the assessment. Road safety charity Brake have been assessing some of the safety issues and have so far come up with a recommendation for drivers to have an eye test before taking their driving test and a minimum of every 10 years thereafter.

It’s a start but far too weak in my opinion. In the meantime, having been the victim of a driver falling asleep in a car approaching and drifting across the road in front of me, I can tell you that it’s a scary experience. I mounted a dirt bank and avoided an accident with miraculously not even any damage to my car, but it could all have ended much much worse!

Be vigilant, you never know when you will need to take avoiding action. And if you are suffering a dangerous condition get checked out, it could save several lives. By Graham Hill

Under new laws that come into force from 24^th April 2017 most serious speeding offenders will be fined 50% more. The Sentencing Council has issued new guidelines to be implemented in all magistrates’ courts in England and Wales.

At the moment the most serious speeding offenders face fines that have a starting point of 100% of their weekly salary, this will go up to 150% of weekly salary (no I didn’t either). The upper limit doesn’t change though which clearly favours the better off amongst us.

The upper limit remains at £1,000 or £2,500 for those caught on a motorway. Again, in my opinion, arse about face. Speeding in a built up area should carry a bigger fine than on a motorway. As 10 times more people die on country roads (60% of total) it doesn’t make sense to penalise motorway speeders more than non motorway speeders.

A speeding offence is considered to be serious if you are caught driving at 51 miles per hour in a 30mph zone, 66mph in a 40mph zone,  or 101mph on a motorway etc. Some experts are calling for 3 month bans applied to those driving at speeds that drop them into the serious speeding zone.

I believe that would have a greater affect on those who speed but is it the answer – I really don’t know. For information the average fine in 2015 was just £188 with 166,695 offenders being sentenced. By Graham Hill

MOT tests do not prove that a car has no faults. On many occasions I have written about this issue and explained how buyers have been handed a brand new MOT certificate with their used car as proof that the car is faultless. Most safety items are checked along with emissions but it won’t reveal that a car has an oil leak or any other mechanical fault unless it falls within the scope of the test.

A full mechanical check on the car should confirm if the car has a faulty gearbox or engine or any other potentially expensive faults. Having said that the scope of the MOT test is extending annually to include new technology which also means that examiners are expected to take an annual, online, test. However, it has been revealed that just 35% of MOT testers have taken their test with just up to the end of March to pass.

Following which the testers will put their licence in jeopardy. The question is does this put drivers at risk if the MOT tester isn’t up to speed with the latest requirements? The Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority (DVSA) thinks not as they have announced that the examiners will be treated leniently this year, as this is the first year of change and the online examinations, but a tougher approach will be taken in future if examiners don’t conform to the new rules. Concerns have been raised regarding driverless cars.

Development in this sector is gaining traction but concerns have been expressed by various bodies regarding the preparation, or rather the lack of it, when it comes to the safety testing and MOT test criteria in relation to autonomous cars fitted with extra sensors and complex electronics. The Department for Transport simply says that work in this area is ‘under review’. Finally on the subject of MOT testing the Department for Transport has finally launched its proposals to extend the first MOT test from 3 years to 4 years.

The consultation paper recommends that the initial MOT test for cars and motorcycles be extended to 4 years from 2018 saving motorists more than £100 million annually. Transport Minister Andrew Jones (no I haven’t heard of him either) suggested that our roads are some of the safest in the world and vehicles are much safer than they were 50 years ago when the MOT test was set at 3 years.

Personally I would suggest that we need to see how many cars fail their first MOT at 3 years before deciding if we can extend to 4 years. Strange that wasn’t mentioned. By Graham Hill

As most of us know you can give the same set of statistics to two different people and they will each read something completely different into them. Let’s take the way you will finance your next car, assuming it’s a new car. Statistically around 87% of new cars financed by consumers were financed on a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) with around 6% financed on Personal Contract Hire (PCH).

So you may draw from the statistics that by far the best product is PCP as 87% of the market can’t be wrong. Let me explain that PCP is the most popular amongst car dealers, that’s why it is the most popular amongst consumers – they’ve been sold to! And, as has been reported widely recently, there is a grave lack of education amongst consumers when it comes to financing one of their biggest financial commitments – their car.

PCP has replaced HP as the most popular way to finance your new car, let me explain why – it makes the lender and the dealer more money even when the most toxic measurement ever created, the APR, is exactly the same on the same car. At this point you may be aghast.

Let me give you a quick example, you see a car that costs £22,000, you put down a deposit of £2,000 and look to finance the car over 3 years with the intention of owning the car after 3 years and, if it is still OK, running it for maybe another 2 years. But currently the cash flow is a little tight so you need to look at the figures. Let’s look at HP based on 36 payments with you owning the car after 3 years. And to keep it simple we’ll work on an APR of 10% assuming also that there are no additional fees and charges.

The monthly figure calculates out to be £645 x 36 payments = £23,220. OK, now let’s look at a PCP with the loan amount being the same, £20,000, APR the same at 10% and a final payment of £10,000 to own the car, the monthly figure calculates out to £406 per month. Wow a monthly saving of nearly £240! But if you then pay the final figure and own the car in the same way that you owned the car at the end of the HP agreement you pay 36 x £406 = £14,616 + final payment of £10,000 = £24,616, a whopping £1,396 more in interest charges.

You can answer the question yourself – which product do you think the lenders and more importantly the dealers want to push you into? You may be paying substantially less per month and the same APR but the extra interest represents an extra 7% on the amount financed. But now let’s look at a headline, ‘Personal Contract Hire (PCH) is the fastest growing method used by consumers to finance new cars.’ Sub heading: ‘The take up of PCH has more than doubled over the last 18 months’.

Yes it has, 18 months ago it only accounted for 2.5% of the finance used by consumers to finance new cars it is now at 6% and growing so you could conclude from the headlines that PCH is the way to go. But you are unlikely to  see these headlines as dealers don’t like PCH as they have to sell their cars at rock bottom prices with some leasing companies restricting their finance commission to just £200 per car.

So you won’t see dealers falling over themselves to sell you a PCH on a car, even though it may be substantially cheaper than a PCP, but rather selling you into the idea that you could own the car at the end of a PCP, something you are not legally entitled to do at the end of a PCH (although some leasing companies will sell you a car at the end of a PCH at trade value if asked).

In truth only 20% of those who take a PCP actually buy the car at the end of the agreement with most of those using the car as a part exchange as there is some equity in it so the idea of owning the car at the end of the agreement as important is in fact a nonsense – the stats prove it! Finally, in an even more favourable twist in favour of consumers, many fleet operators are complaining that consumers are sometimes being provided with better deals than they are.

That is because the manufacturer and dealer can give away up to 45% in combined discount and bonuses on stock that needs to move to make way for new models, to keep production lines moving, or as a PR exercise to get more brand awareness out there. The problem with this is that when the cars go or they hit their target the deal disappears with monthly rates increasing by as much as £200 + VAT per month.

On the other hand fleets don’t want huge fluctuations in rates, it throws their budgets out. A fleet may have negotiated a deal on Golfs at £200 + VAT per month only to see a batch being offered at £169 + VAT to consumers. However, after the promotion, it wouldn’t be unusual for the consumer rate to jump to £269 + VAT but whilst the deal lasts the consumer has had a bloody good deal! By Graham Hill

Contract Hire or car leasing as some people call it can be very confusing because you can’t always apply what you may consider to be logic. Let’s take metallic paint for example. Some leasing companies will provide you with free metallic paint and given the fact that metallic for most cars costs north of five hundred quid you’d be silly not to take it. But are they actually being generous?

No they’re not because careful scrutiny of some quotes that I run shows that the addition of metallic paint, whilst increasing the cost of the car actually drops the monthly rate. A recent BMW quote dropped the rate by £6 + VAT per month when I added metallic paint.

This may sound daft but it’s all down to the resale value at the end of the agreement. A prestige car with metallic paint is much more desirable in the used market than a solid colour car and this is often reflected in the prices achieved through auction. So from the leasing company’s point of view, whilst they may have to pay an extra £400 for metallic after discount they could be £7-800 better off when they sell the car in 3 years time.

The same can apply to the spec. of the car. We have had a number of deals over the last few months where a better spec car can be leased for less than an entry level car. This can be partly because some extra discount has been given by the manufacturer but is often because of the desirability of the car through auction.

Some examples are the Jaguar XF where the R-Sport was less per month than the SE and the Jeep Renegade Sport was more expensive than the better spec. Longitude. So don’t dismiss the higher spec. because you think that the higher spec. car will cost a lot more per month because the list price of the car is much more.

The VW Touareg R-Line is £377.45 + VAT per month and the R-Line Plus is just £3 + VAT per month more at £380.54 + VAT and yet the spec. is much improved. Contract hire is a product that often defies logic – speak to me! By Graham Hill

Following on from my note explaining that Mayor Khan is trying to reduce the number of diesels driving into central London, the London Assembly is calling on Mayor Khan to do more about the daily gridlock. It is suggesting that they need to replace the daily congestion charge with a road pricing scheme.

It currently costs £11.50 per day to drive around the congestion zone area which would be replaced by charges relating to the amount of time spent in the restricted area. Subject to consultations this new scheme could be introduced as soon as 2018.

According to the Assembly traffic delays costs London’s economy £5.5 billion in 2015/16 which represents an increase of 30% compared to 2012/13. Can’t for the life of me see how they arrive at such a figure. The Assembly pointed to a similar scheme operated in Stockholm whereby you pay between £1-£3 each time you cross in or out of a central zone, with the charges increasing at peak times.

The result was a drop in traffic by 22%. The proposal is that they consider a similar scheme but also include an allowance for emissions and adjust the rates accordingly. Before you start writing into Mayor Khan there are discounts and exemptions which the Assembly intends to keep but with no plans to extend further.

If you’re a Londoner I guess you must hope that Mayor Khan doesn’t have another Trump moment and apply the new rules by the end of February! By Graham Hill

What happens to the laws being introduced by the EU after Prime Minister May has started the Brexit process by enacting Article 50? Over the next couple of years, called the transition period, the EU will impose laws on all member countries but where does it leave us as we will still be part of the EU for two years after Article 50 is passed through parliament?

Take the European Court of Justice ruling in the Vnuk case. A Slovakian man was injured when a tractor reversed into a ladder that Mr Vnuk was on. Insurers refused to pay up as the accident happened on private land so it was up to Mr Vnuk to sue the driver privately for his injuries.

His claim went through the courts and failed at eac level until it was referred to the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Justice ruled in 2014 that it was compulsory for all vehicles to have insurance, whether on the road or not, and whether used as a vehicle or machine, which should have therefore protected Mr Vnuk.

The EU’s Motor Insurance Directive states that vehicles such as lawnmowers, disability scooters and golf buggies should all carry insurance, much to the annoyance of our own insurance industry. The Government is, as a result, consulting about changes to the Road Traffic Act in order to meet the EU regulations.

Having expressed concerns regarding the cost of conforming to the EU regulations it would seem that as we are expecting to be outside the EU when the changes have been formalised the lawmakers have introduced a ‘sunset’ clause which means that changes to our current laws, as a result of this directive, can be immediately ditched the minute we Brexit. What a waste of time and money.

The question is how many more regulations will be introduced with ‘sunset’ clauses incorporated into the UK laws before we fully exit the EU? And where do we stand when European workers come into the UK to work on farms and experience similar accidents, will we need regulations to cover UK workers and others to cover EU workers and will UK workers be happy to be refused the same protection as those working in EU countries? And so my concerns about the full implications of Brexit continue. By Graham Hill

There are a great number of misunderstandings when it comes to resolving problems with garages and dealerships. You can avoid the costs of a court case by turning to an Alternative Dispute Resolution company, recommended by the Government as a way to stop courts from getting clogged up.

If you have a dispute with a dealer that you cannot resolve between yourselves you can refer your complaint to an ADR company. In fact the dealer must suggest an ADR company if they are part of a trade body. If they aren’t part of a trade body the dealer must point you in the direction of ADR but they do not have to adhere to the recommendations of the ADR company, which kinda makes the whole process a bit of a nonsense.

If they are part of a trade body the dealer must be signed up to a code of practice against which their performance is judged. I have my reservations regarding this practice, especially as the courts themselves can encourage you to go through a court appointed ADR company in order to avoid taking up court time and the possibility of you carrying the costs if your court case fails.

I just feel that a court appointed ADR service would carry more weight than an independent working with the dealership’s trade body. Time will tell if my reservations were justified. By Graham Hill

One of the great things about new cars is the quietness of them. Improved car design reduces wind resistance and wind noise. Drive a diesel car and you could be mistaken into believing that diesel engines no longer rattle, they do, but because the soundproofing is of such a high standard now, you can hardly hear the engine from inside the car.

Tyre compounds and new suspension systems reduce road noise dramatically and of course hybrids and full electric vehicles are as quiet as a mouse when operating in electric mode. The problem is that many of the changes have come about very quickly so when a driver moves from a 3 year old car to a new car the noise level drops so significantly that he or she loses all perception of speed.

The main indicators such as engine noise, road and wind noise have been all but eliminated in some cars so the fear of many safety experts is that we will see a significant increase in accidents and/or speeding tickets as a result of speeding. Having read about the latest Tesla challenging Faraday Future FF91 capable of developing over 1000 bhp out of its electric engine taking it from 0 – 60 in 2.39 seconds without making a noise, I’m very worried.

Even petrol and diesel engine’d cars pose a threat to safety. So if I or anyone else has convinced you to ditch your 5 year old car for a brand new model make sure that you acclimatise yourself to the noise levels before you start ‘opening her up’ on an A road or motorway. You don’t want to be writing your new car and/or you off in the first few weeks of taking delivery! By Graham Hill