The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

I have been very vocal about many of our disgraceful recording systems that affect peoples lives. Take the Credit Reference Agencies. Virtually every penny of the £1.6 trillion of consumer debt was approved after consulting one, two or all three credit reference agencies.

 

And yet did you know that there is no legal obligation on any lender to record your transactions on any of the credit reference agency platforms? It’s ridiculous and amateurish! There is also no obligation on car finance providers to record their transactions on HPI and Experian platforms.

 

That’s right they don’t have to record if your car is on finance – it’s purely voluntary. In law as long as you ask the seller of a car if the car is on finance and as long as he says no, if it is on HP, PCP or conditional sale you are an innocent buyer and you own the vehicle. The finance company cannot get the car off you.

 

So when you read about a driver who has been confronted by a finance company who shows them that the car they bought privately was on finance with the finance company and that the person they bought the car from had no right to sell the car, therefore they own the car – it’s nonsense. They may even ask the driver if he checked the car on HPI. And when drivers have said no the finance company has said they must hand the keys over – supported by the motor magazine.

 

The problem is that if you hand over the keys you have no further rights to the car unless you were bullied. The point here is that because there is no legal obligation to record finance details on HPI (or Experian) there is no legal obligation on you to check before you buy.

 

So much for all the hype around HPI and the need to check HPI to see if the car is on finance. But even worse Auto Express (AE) and the BBC have revealed that even though new rules have been introduced covering written off cars and the need for insurance write-offs to be recorded on the platforms – they aren’t and as a result write off cars have found their way back onto the road.

 

An undercover BBC investigation found that written-off cars are being repaired and sold to unsuspecting motorists after passing their history checks

 

A BBC investigation has found that cars previously sold as write-offs at salvage auction are passing their vehicle history checks, and being sold at major second-hand car dealerships to unsuspecting buyers.

 

The undercover research, shown on BBC1’s Rip Off Britain, echoes the investigation AE published in March, which found cars that have been deemed insurance write-offs following serious accidents are passing vehicle history checks with a clean bill of health.

 

Vehicle history checks are relied on by countless buyers every year to reveal whether a car is subject to outstanding finance, has mileage irregularities, has been stolen, has previously been scrapped or has been deemed an insurance write-off.

 

While Auto Express’s research focussed on the loopholes that allow these written-off cars to pass their history checks, and highlighted examples of these cars being sold via online classified sites, the BBC sent undercover reporters to the UK’s largest used car retailer, Evans Halshaw, and two other big-name dealership chains, Arnold Clark and Car Store.

 

The researchers found cars that had previously been sold at salvage auction as write-offs had passed their background checks, and their true history had not been uncovered by the retailers. Forensic car expert John Dabek told the BBC he was surprised the dealers hadn’t spotted the cars had been repaired following serious accident damage.

 

The retailers involved either blamed the data systems they relied on for history checks or said they had carried out all the checks they could.

 

Prior to the BBC’s investigation, Auto Express uncovered a number of cars, that were sold at a salvage auction having been classified as ‘Cat S’. This means they were written off after sustaining serious, structural accident damage, and were only allowed back on the road after having been properly repaired.

 

Despite this, all of these models passed the vehicle history checks offered by both HPI and Experian AutoCheck, and were being marketed to consumers as never having been written off.

 

AE found 10 cars that had been sold at a salvage auction as declared Cat S write-offs, making a note of the VIN plates displayed in the salvage listings. They paid for HPI and Experian AutoCheck history checks, cross-referencing VINs and registration plates with the reports. Some of the cars generated alerts for outstanding finance or mileage discrepancies, but not one check from either HPI or Experian flagged any of these cars as an insurance write-off.

 

Auto Express was alerted to this issue by a reader who uncovered inconsistencies with history-checking companies after buying a used car he discovered had previously been sold via a salvage auction. As well as a conventional history check, the reader used a company called www.vcheck.uk, which crosschecks a car’s write-off status against salvage auction records.

 

After AE learned of this problem, they contacted vcheck and were provided with a number of cars that had raised similar concerns.

 

How do vehicle history checks work?

 

Experian AutoCheck and HPI – the two biggest players in the business – told AE that they exclusively rely on the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud & Theft Register, or MIAFTR, to determine if a car has been written off.

 

MIAFTR is a nationwide database run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and 97 per cent of insurance companies subscribe to it. When an insurer writes off a vehicle, those subscribing to MIAFTR place it on the Register as a write-off. Some history-check businesses outsource to these two companies. The AA relies on HPI data, for example, while the RAC uses Experian.

 

1. MIAFTR is non-mandatory, and not all insurers use it

It is a legal requirement for insurers to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when a car is written off, but it is not a requirement for them to use MIAFTR to do so – MIAFTR acts as an electronic funnel, automatically informing the DVLA of write-offs, assuming these are uploaded to MIAFTR.

 

The MIB told AE that “97 per cent of the motor insurance market currently subscribe to the MIAFTR database to load the details of their written-off vehicles”. There are 203 UK motor insurance companies authorised by the Bank of England, meaning six do not use MIAFTR; it therefore follows that cars written off by these six insurers are unlikely to be detected by history checks.

 

2. Third-party-only insurance

 

The MIB suggested that a car may not be detected as a write-off “if the vehicle is not comprehensively insured”. Because third-party insurance does not pay out for damage sustained to the insured vehicle itself, such cars will not have been declared a total loss by the insurer, so may not be on MIAFTR.

 

3. Delays in updating MIAFTR

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau told us some insurance firms “load manually or in batches” when placing cars on MIAFTR, creating potential delays. Some of the cars AE analysed were auctioned as write-offs more than a year ago and were still not detected by the history checks they ran, though.

 

Furthermore, data obtained via a Freedom of Information request shows the DVLA was informed of 7,676 Cat D and Cat C cars in the 2018 calendar year – even though Cat D and Cat C write-off classifications were replaced by Cat S and Cat N in October 2017.

 

This means that vehicles placed on the DVLA’s database as Cat C and Cat D in 2018 must have been assessed as write-offs the previous year under the old classifications, with a delay of at least three months.

 

4. Weak legislation

 

Legally, insurers must inform the DVLA when a car is written off, but the MIB says “there is no mandated timeframe for supplying write-off data to the DVLA”, creating potential delays even in the official database. The closure of the Vehicle identity Check (VIC) scheme in October 2015 could also have a part to play.

 

The VIC scheme saw a ‘marker’ placed against Cat C cars (now Cat S) on the DVLA database. These cars had to pass a VIC test, where an inspector would assess them before the DVLA would remove the marker and issue a new V5C logbook. The VIC test didn’t assess the quality of repairs, but if inspectors noticed a “serious defect which would make the car dangerous”, they would issue a prohibition notice, and the car could not be driven. Cat S write-offs now only need to pass an MoT test before being put on the road.

 

5. Paper-based write-offs

 

Further DVLA data obtained via a Freedom of Information request reveals that 4,870 vehicles were written off via paper notifications over the past five calendar years. These cars bypassed MIAFTR when being placed on the DVLA’s database, so would be unlikely to show up in checks.

 

6. History checks relying solely on MIAFTR to check for write-offs

 

MIAFTR is non-mandatory, subject to delays and may not hold records for written-off cars that only had third-party insurance. So for history-checking firms to rely solely on its data to determine a car’s write-off status is problematic.

 

How widespread is the problem?

 

Write-off category	No. vehicles on MIAFTR	No. vehicles on DVLA database	Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA	No. vehicles on MIAFTR	No. vehicles on DVLA database	Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA
	2016/17	2016/17	2016/17	2017/18	2017/18	2017/18
Cat A	8,926	8,851	75	9,502	9,370	132
Cat B	105,805	115,325	-9,520	109,417	119,559	-10,142
Cat C	325,324	367,093	-41,769	152,084	177,089	-25,005
Cat D	166,718	211,100	-44,382	83,783	110,407	-26,624
Cat S	343	0	343	101,798	123,579	-21,781
Cat N	432	0	432	140,694	148,431	-7,737
Total	607,548	702,369	-94,821	597,278	688,435	-91,156

 

Auto Express obtained data from the DVLA showing how many write-off ‘transactions’ the agency processed during financial years 2016/17, and 2017/18. The MIB provided AE with the number of write-offs it held records for over the same periods. Data from both organisations is for vehicles, so includes trucks, vans and motorbikes, as well as cars.

 

There is a significant difference between the two organisations’ databases, with nearly 100,000 fewer written-off vehicles a year appearing on MIAFTR compared with DVLA records. Even after removing from the equation Cat A and B vehicles – which must be scrapped and can never be driven again – these numbers give a clear idea of the discrepancies between MIAFTR and the DVLA’s database.

 

What do the organisations involved say?

 AE sent HPI and Experian details of three sample cars that were previously written off but passed their history checks. HPI consumer director Fernando Garcia told us: “Where third- party data is found to be inaccurate or factually incorrect, HPI will work with these partners to ensure that consumer safety remains the main priority and is not compromised in any way.”

 

Stressing that HPI “constantly monitors the quality of the data it generates and receives”, Garcia said: “If the consumer conducts an HPI Check and it did not show the Vehicle Condition Alert Register information, they would be covered by our guarantee if they adhere to our terms and conditions.”

 

An Experian spokesperson said the company understands “the cause for concern with the three vehicles highlighted”. Experian explained that it uses MIAFTR “to check whether a vehicle has been marked as ‘written off’ by an insurer”, but that “as none of the three vehicles were recorded as a total loss, they did not show as ‘written off’ on the vehicles’ provenance reports. We will continue to work with our data and insurance industry partners to establish the circumstances behind these three vehicles”.

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, the organisation that runs MIAFTR, added that “Cat S write-offs will receive a V5C document from DVLA… [that] should alert keepers to the status of the vehicle”. The MIB also stressed that “CAT S and N vehicles can be repaired and legally driven again”.

 

The DVLA simply said: “Insurance companies are required to notify DVLA of all accident-damaged vehicles.”

 

What are the potential consequences for car buyers?

 

Safety

 

It is impossible to tell from photos how well these cars were repaired after their accidents, but buyers of Cat S and Cat N vehicles are typically advised to commission an independent mechanical inspection before making a purchase – a course of action far less likely with a car believed not to be a write-off.

 

Financial loss

 

Cars that have been written off are worth significantly less than their non-write-off counterparts. Anyone who bought a car at standard market value and subsequently finds out it was declared Cat S or Cat N stands to make a substantial loss when they sell it on, assuming its true history is subsequently detected in history checks, or the owner finds out it was written off. It is an offence to knowingly sell a written-off car without declaring its write-off status.

 

How can buyers protect themselves?

 

The majority of written-off cars are loaded onto MIAFTR and picked up by history-checking companies, but AE’s investigation will undoubtedly raise concerns among second-hand car buyers. Consumers seeking additional reassurances could consider paying for a mechanical inspection, which should determine whether a car was repaired following a serious accident.

 

Buyers are also offered some protection by a history-check guarantee. Both HPI and Experian AutoCheck will pay up to £30,000 to ensure buyers do not suffer financial losses as a result of their checks – although terms and conditions apply to these guarantees.

 

A third option is to make use of www.vcheck.uk, where you can get a basic check against salvage records for free.

 

Of course the fourth option would be to only take new cars supplied by GHA Finance! By Graham Hill

Having just posted huge losses of £3.6 billion and with Land Rover languishing at the bottom of the reliability charts and Jaguar not far behind they are now into more expense as they issue a major recall of 44,000 cars that may be emitting more Carbon Dioxide than was recorded in Official certification.

 

The recall covers versions of the Jaguar XF, XE, E-Pace, F-Pace and F-Type as well as the Land Rover Discovery, Discovery Sport and Range Rover Sport, Evoque andVelar, made between 2016 and 2019 with petrol and diesel engines.

 

JLR will contact owners to book their cars into their local dealer for repairs to be carried out free of charge. The recall came just weeks after the Land Rover Discovery TD6outperformed a number of other cars in independent real-world pollution tests thanks to the impressively low levels of nitrogen oxide emissions it produced. By Graham Hill

 

Incorrect emissions tests could attract some massive EU fines, hopefully, this action will avoid the possibility of the added pain of fines. By Graham Hill

I read with interest the case of Alexia Ohene as reported in What Car. Alexia bought a used  car but sadly 14 days after taking delivery the car developed a problem with its clutch. The garage agreed to take the car back to repair but couldn’t take it for 5 days due to a backlog in the workshops. However, they offered Alexia a loan car but he would have to collect the car which he couldn’t.

 

He, therefore, decided to reject the car as he had the car less than 30 days, something he is fully entitled to do under the Consumer Rights Act. When he mentioned this to the dealer he was met with a shower of abuse and threats to take him to court. They insisted that he keep the car saying that it would be stupid to reject it and they would deduct a mileage charge for the miles he covered and the cost of fitting some bumper protectors that the customer had requested.

 

The car had undergone a new MOT, service and inspection prior to collection so the clutch problem should have been identified and this failure of a major component was certainly grounds for rejection. What Car suggested, and I agree, that Alexia, shouldn’t get into an argument but simply send a formal letter to the dealer, by recorded delivery, simply stating that he wishes to reject the car as a result of suffering the failure of a major component within the first 30 days of ownership, quoting the Consumer Rights Act.

 

The dealer had no right to charge for mileage use and if the bumper protectors could be removed without damage there should be no charge for removing them. They then go on to say that if the customer still has problems that he should contact Trading Standards – again I agree but you now have to contact trading standards through the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, not a major issue but it takes longer.

 

They then suggested that the customer contact the Motor Ombudsman, something I don’t recommend as dispute resolution. You can only have your complaint listened to if the dealer is signed up to the Motor Ombudsman which is paid for by the very companies that are signed up. Think you’ll get a favourable solution? In my opinion a complete waste of time.

 

What he should have done in the circumstances is pay a deposit of say £100 on a credit card. This means that under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act you can now get the credit card company to take back the car as under Section 75 they are jointly and severally liable for the quality of the car. And if you don’t get a result from the credit card company you can take it up with the much fairer Financial Ombudsman.

 

It’s a shame that the motor magazines don’t go quite far enough or have enough knowledge when coming up with solutions. By Graham Hill

Whilst the three biggest problems preventing drivers from making the switch, i.e. price of cars, range and charging infrastructure a new challenge has emerged. If an electric or plug-in hybrid car breaks down or is involved in an accident it needs specialist recovery. Fleet News has investigated the implications.

 

The two main issues are battery complications and the fact that electric vehicles (EV’s) cannot be towed or moved unless the car can be switched on to enable the car to be put into neutral, freeing up the wheels that will be locked in gear.

 

To reduce the risk of battery fires or electrocution, most EVs use circuit breakers that disconnect the high-voltage system if an impact is detected.

 

The emergency services will also seek to disconnect any high-voltage components on electric vehicles if they are required to attend. These added complications  mean recovery firms can have a tougher job of collecting these often heavy vehicles.

 

When a BMW i3 operated by Speedy Services was involved in a collision, it took 15 hours for the vehicle to be recovered by the company’s appointed recovery agent, the AA.

 

“When the first AA man turned up, he said he didn’t know anything about electric vehicles,” said Gareth Jones, transport compliance manager at Speedy Services.

 

“A second man arrived later. He was concerned that the battery was damaged and there could be a health and safety issue around transporting hazardous materials.”

 

The i3 was immobile because there was no power to it.  Jones said they couldn’t disengage the handbrake and the electric motor was locked, so the wheels wouldn’t turn.

 

A third AA vehicle – a flatbed truck with a winch – was able to recover the car. But the operator first had to work out the weight of the car and the angle it would need to be pulled at, to see if the winch was powerful enough.

 

“The operator had to literally drag the car up onto a flatbed truck. It was the most annoying day,” said Jones. Speedy Services has been operating three BMW i3s, which have been converted into vans, for the past two years. This incident was the first the fleet encountered.

 

“We were flabbergasted that companies like the AA seemed unaware of how to deal with it,” said Jones.

 

“I don’t think the UK is geared up to recover vehicles of this type yet. It hasn’t put us off EVs though. We’ve all got to move forwards and embracing new technology is a core part of our business. What we have to do is look at how we are going to stop it happening again.”

 

In a statement, the AA said all its patrols are trained to work safely on EVs. However, it did point out that where EVs suffer damage in the event of an accident, there could
be additional health and safety considerations before recovering the vehicle. This may require further risk assessments or equipment. In order to make the scene safe, it may also include specialist support for road traffic collisions.

 

The Institute of Vehicle Recovery (IVR) delivers specialist training to enable recovery firms to handle electrified vehicles correctly. It has seen a lot of demand for its EV course.

 

Mark Hartell, vice-chairman of the IVR, said: “It is vital that all technicians, and those responsible for sending them out, appreciate the hazards and specialist knowledge required to recover this type of vehicle.”

 

Jones advises fleet operators to ensure that recovery firms are aware they are being called to deal with an electric vehicle, whether directly or through an accident management provider.

 

Pete Williams, RAC road safety spokesman, said: “Our approach to EVs and hybrids is consistent with how we deal with conventional petrol and diesel vehicles. In the event of an accident, if requested to recover an EV vehicle by the fleet manager, we would send a flatbed lorry.

 

“EVs present a particular challenge as most cannot be towed normally and should be transported with all wheels off the ground. It is a similar situation with many other modern vehicles, including crossovers, SUVs, 4x4s, pick-ups, vans and automatics.

 

“In response, we have developed our new All-Wheels-Up equipment that effectively brings flatbed recovery capability to our standard long-wheel based orange patrol vans. To date, 600 have been equipped with this new kit. So a single van can recover an EV – saving the driver valuable time.”

 

The total number of fully electric cars registered in the UK rose by 59% last year, accounting for about 1% of total sales. Plug-in hybrids are more popular, making up 2.8% of sales.

 

A recent survey by Kia found that 87% of fleet managers have encountered increased demand for electrified vehicles, but the majority feel that the cars won’t be suitable for another two to five years.

 

Kia’s Fleet Green Perspectives Report found that 65% of fleets operate plug-in vehicles, an increase of 27% in the past year.

 

It seems that we need to go much further if we are to convince drivers to embrace EV’s and move across from petrol and diesel cars. We only seem to be scratching the surface and paying lip service to those who want to live in a cleaner environment. By Graham Hill

At the start of 2019, rumours swept the internet that speed camera tolerances on certain motorways were so strict, they would issue tickets if drivers exceeded the 70mph limit by just 1mph.

 

This would have been worrying had you not read my report last week on the accuracy of car speedo’s.

 

The stories  and rumours turned out to be untrue and unfounded. But rather than allow misinformation about speed camera ‘thresholds’ to circulate unchecked, Auto Express asked the UK’s 45 police forces via Freedom of Information requests how strictly their 3,224 speed cameras enforce limits.

 

The majority of the forces that responded to Auto Express said their cameras would only activate when drivers exceed the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2mph, in line with prosecution guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

 

This means cameras won’t issue tickets until someone is driving at 35mph or more in a 30mph limit, or 79mph or more on the motorway, for example.

 

The Metropolitan Police, which uses a less strict, 10 per cent plus 3mph threshold, say this is “a proportional response to the high volumes of traffic” in the capital. Lancashire Police also sets its cameras so that they activate at 10 per cent plus 3mph, and says that this has been done “to ensure greater tolerance or discretion”.

 

A number of forces wouldn’t tell us their camera thresholds, arguing that knowledge of these would encourage drivers to speed. All police forces that told us their thresholds said these applied to both fixed and average speed cameras.

 

Speed camera thresholds across the UK

Police force	Number of cameras	Camera activation threshold
Avon and Somerset	41	10% + 2mph
Bedfordshire	38	Would not reveal threshold
Cambridgeshire	32	Would not reveal threshold
Cheshire	15	10% + 2mph
Cleveland	4	10% + 2mph
Derbyshire	18	10% + 2mph
Devon and Cornwall	98	10% + 2mph
Durham	0 fixed	10% + 2mph
Essex	63	Don’t use a standard threshold
Greater Manchester	235	Would not reveal threshold
Gwent	21	10% + 2mph
Hampshire	36	10% + 2mph
Hertfordshire	53	Would not reveal threshold
Kent	109	10% + 2mph
Lancashire	34	10% + 3mph
Leicestershire	30	10% + 2mph
Merseyside	18	10% + 2mph
Metropolitan Police/TfL	805	10% + 3mph
Norfolk	26	10% + 2mph
North Wales	28	10% + 2mph
Northumbria	55	10% + 2mph
Nottinghamshire	48	Refused to confirm if threshold exists
Police Service of Northern Ireland	12	10% + 2mph
Scotland	173	Refused to confirm if threshold exists
South Wales	137	10% + 2mph
South Yorkshire	25	10% + 2mph
Staffordshire	286	Would not reveal threshold
Suffolk	4	10% + 2mph
Thames Valley	294	10% + 2mph
Warwickshire	28	10% + 2mph
West Mercia	23	10% + 2mph
West Midlands	33	Would not reveal threshold
West Yorkshire	402	10% + 2mph

 

I should make it clear that this in no way should encourage drivers to break speed limits as they realise they have a ‘free allowance’. Especially in built-up areas and areas close to schools and homes for the elderly.

 

Personally, I would like to see greater enforcement of the ‘Keep Left’ rules. Far too often I see cars hogging the outside lane of motorways causing frustrated drivers to either undertake or end up flashing the car in front potentially leading to road rage. By Graham Hill

The Motoring Ombudsman (not to be confused with the Financial Ombudsman) has revealed that few drivers are aware that they can extend their manufacturer’s warranty beyond the initial period. Really? If that’s the case a few dealership salesmen should be sacked!

 

Anyway, they found that more than half of all participants in a recent survey didn’t know that you can extend the manufacturers warranty. 32% were not aware that you can use an independent provider, you don’t have to take the manufacturer’s warranty.

 

This is quite important as more people are opting for 4 and even 5 year agreements in order to reduce the costs. In most cases that takes you beyond the manufacturer’s warranty period but whether you take an extended manufacturer’s warranty or take one from an independent provider make sure you check what you are covered for.

 

Also, if you decide to take out a 4 or 5 year PCP or PCH remember that you have other costs to take into account. Often new cars come with a breakdown service for the first 3 years which would need to be renewed or replaced. Service and maintenance costs increase as more items need to be replaced or renewed. Then there are often connectivity services and subscriptions that need to be renewed such as Sat Nav updates and alerts.

 

So what may seem like a good deal over say 4 years compared to 3 years, saving £20 per month could easily be eaten up by the added costs in the 4^th year. Graham Hill

Drivers who ignore lane closures on motorways marked with a red ‘X’ will be handed a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) of £100 fine and three penalty points from June 10 2019.

 

At present, only a police officer catching drivers in the act can issue the FPN but the new Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 2019 was passed on May 13.

 

The enforcement will mirror motorway speeding offences. By this it means that the police force where the incident took place will issue the penalty.

 

Edmund King, AA president says; “Although it has taken far too long, this is a welcome measure to improve safety on motorways.

 

“Our research shows that one in 20 drivers continue to drive in red X lanes even when they’ve seen it, and so far Highways England has written warning letters to over 180,000 drivers about their actions.

 

“Red X’s are put up to warn of an obstruction, so drivers must get out of the lane when they see them. We have had several incidents recently where AA members’ cars have been hit in a live lane on ‘smart’ motorways.”

 

Since the beginning of 2017, Highways England has issued over 180,000 warning letters to drivers who have ignored the signs in an attempt to stamp out the behaviour. This clearly hasn’t worked so more extreme measures were called for. By Graham Hill

Thatcham Research that carries out safety tests on behalf of Euro NCAP have now started carrying out tests that tell drivers how easy it is to break into their cars.

 

The ratings are ’Superior’, ‘Good’, ‘Poor’ and ‘Unacceptable’. The ratings are awarded based on how well a car performs in a range of security tests. Tey include one that identifies how vulnerable cars are to digital ‘hack’ in keyless cars.

 

11 cars have been tested so far, of which 5 were rated as ‘poor’. There are Ford Mondeo executive car, Toyota Corolla family hatchback, Lexus UX and Hyundai Nexus SUV and Kia ProCeed Estate.

 

At the top of the scale rated as ‘Superior’, were Jaguar XE Saloon, Range Rover Evoque, Audi eTron and Porsche Macan SUV’s along with the Mercedes B Class MPV. The Suzuki Jimny small SUV was the only car to be rated ‘Unacceptable’.

 

According to Thatcham’s Technical Officer, Richard Billyeald, the Jimny was given the rating as a result of, ‘This car scores consistently badly across all criteria, missing some fundamental security features that consumers might rightly be fitted to a new car’.

 

Thatcham have introduced the new ratings system as a result of increased awareness of car buyers and their demand for more information on security risks. It also ties in with the increasing cost of car thefts in the UK. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said that the cost of claims relating to vehicle theft has increased in 2018 by 29% compared to 2017 with claims running at £1 million per day.

 

The ABI pointed out that the main reason for the increase was the increased use of keyless entry systems and the ease with which thieves can hijack the signal from the key fob then use it to unlock and start the car.

 

The ABI went on to explain that drivers are worried about car theft and that the record amounts being paid out in claims ‘in part reflects the vulnerability of some cars to keyless relay theft’.

 

In response, the Society For Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) hit back by explaining that the automotive industry ‘takes vehicle crime extremely seriously’. It added, ‘The latest technology has helped to bring down theft dramatically during the past 20 years. However, criminals will always look for new ways to steal cars; it’s an ongoing battle and why manufacturers continue to invest billions in ever more sophisticated security features and software upgrades’. By Graham Hill

Auto Express investigated how accurate the speedometers were on 10 cars were. They did this by comparing how fast the speedos said they were going with the actual speed, revealed by a VBox meter.

 

Car speedometers are not allowed to ‘under-read’ – they can’t tell you that you’re going more slowly than you really are – but they are allowed to over-read by up to 10 per cent plus 6.25mph. So they could read 50.25mph at 40mph.

 

All the cars that were assessed were well within legal limits, although some read with near-perfect accuracy, while others over-read by 3mph. This, with the different approaches police have to enforcing limits, means some variance will always remain around speeding.

 

Commenting on the investigation, AA president Edmund King said it is “sensible to have some flexibility” with speed-limit enforcement, “as the last thing we need is drivers concentrating solely on the speedo and not the road”.

 

King added that, with speedometers becoming increasingly accurate, “Auto Express’s testing is a valid reminder to drivers not to gamble on their speedo perhaps providing some leeway”.

 

The speedo accuracy test explained:

 

The VBox is a clever piece of kit that uses a GPS signal to measure a car’s speed. It’s very accurate, gauging velocity to within 0.1km/h, so is perfect for assessing speedos.

 

They set their test cars to 30, 50, 60 and 70mph using the built-in speed limiter or cruise control to ensure a steady speed, then used the VBox to measure how fast they were going. This gave them a fair idea of the discrepancy between actual and indicated speed.

 

“Not many drivers have access to a VBox, but a separate smartphone app or sat-nav can give you an idea of how accurate your speedo is. Here are the results of the tests:

 

Model	True speed at indicated 30mph	True speed at indicated 50mph	True speed at indicated 60mph	True speed at indicated 70mph
Kia e-Niro First Edition	27mph	47mph	57mph	67mph
BMW i3s	28mph	48mph	58mph	68mph
SEAT Arona 1.0 TSI 115	29mph	49mph	60mph	69mph
SEAT Tarraco 2.0 TDI 150 manual	29mph	49mph	59mph	68mph
Skoda Kodiaq 2.0 TDI 150 manual	28mph	48mph	57mph	67mph
Peugeot 5008 BlueHDi 130 manual	28mph	48mph	57mph	68mph
Volvo XC40 D4 auto R-Design	30mph	49mph	59mph	69mph
Mazda MX-5 2.0	27mph	48mph	58mph	68mph
Dacia Duster dCi 115	28mph	48mph	58mph	68mph
BMW 330i M Sport	28mph	48mph	57mph	67mph

By Graham Hill & Auto Express

At the end of November 2018, Middlesbrough Trading Standards prosecuted a car dealership, Evans Halshaw, which resulted in the court issuing a £134,000 fine for an alleged offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

 

That being for their second-time failure to disclose in its advertising that a vehicle it was selling had once been owned by a leasing company.  Specifically, stating that it had “one previous owner” without disclosing that this owner was a leasing company.

 

Trading Standards (in support of a previous opinion by the Advertising Standards Authority) felt that failure to mention this point was “misleading” and could affect the decision of a prospective buyer whether to buy or not.

 

The consumer who complained about it, had found out about its history prior to purchase and so never went ahead to buy the car in the first place.

For several months subsequently other Trading Standards Departments and consumers have used the ruling to force dealers to reduce selling prices.

I for one was extremely happy to hear in April that on appeal, the fine had been overturned.  The judge ruling that the ex-business use of the car would have had no effect on its value. In order to clarify his position and in a veiled criticism of the original prosecution and its original outcome, the judge added that the courts exist to protect consumers against bad bargains where the playing-field is not level – and not irrational prejudice against ex-business use vehicles whose values are entirely unaffected.

In my opinion, this case illustrated a total naivety of those who are responsible for legal decisions. I know more about the motor industry than most in the UK which means I constantly see bad advice being given to consumers and businesses. Most businesses lease their cars and vans these days but some still buy them outright and service and maintain them themselves.

 

So what trading standards was saying was that if a car had been leased it was likely to be in poorer condition than those which were privately owned or owned by a business and in the case of BT maintained in their own workshops. As the leasing companies own the leased vehicles there is no way of finding out whether the car was leased privately or through a business.

 

And even if the cars were leased through a business the constraints on the lessees by the leasing companies are such that the condition of ex leased cars is better than privately owned cars and cars owned by companies.

 

Had the ruling remained ex-lease car values would have plummeted pushing up lease costs to customers. Another declaration that should be made to buyers is whether a car was an ex rental car. But again this isn’t as straight forward as it seems. Stephen Byers stopped the activity of heavily discounting pre-registered cars with his Supply Of New Cars Order 2000.

 

As a result, cars have been sold to daily rental companies at big discounts then sold on as ‘Pre-Registered’ but with the first owner a daily rental company. The problem is that you can’t tell if the car that was first registered to a daily rental company was actually used for rental by possibly a hundred different drivers or was sold as a Pre-Reg with no miles on the clock.

 

The one car that finds itself outside the constraints is the ex-demonstrator which can be a bag of bolts. They are often abused by sales staff who take the cars home at night and over the weekend. One manufacturer revealed that they mop up parts from all over the world from their various production plants which can result in some poor quality cars with many suffering with squeaks and various noises that simply can’t be repaired.

 

In industry, I was general manager in a large PLC and I had the transport department within my control. We had 700 cars and vans and they were meticulously looked after by the drivers but every week we had transporter loads of demonstrators dropped off from BMW’s to Vauxhalls, Hondas to Mercedes all with zero miles on the clock. Frankly, we allowed the salesmen and engineers to use the cars to let off steam in. They were abused and mistreated but were returned fully valeted looking like new cars. I would personally never ever have a demo. By Graham Hill