The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

One very important thing to remember is that a contract hire agreement:

IS NOT A LOAN AGREEMENT!

I have run training courses and seminars for leasing company employees and executives, dealership staff and consumer groups. In each, when I talk about contract hire agreements I tend to describe them as more like an insurance policy. The problem is that many consumers don’t bother reading the terms and conditions because they believe them to be similar to a loan agreement.

A loan agreement provides you with some key information regarding the finance, amount borrowed, loan term, interest rate, APR, monthly payments etc. This summary is followed by a dozen or so terms and conditions, pretty much falling in line with the Consumer Credit Act  1974, with most of the terms and conditions much the same between each lender, whether it is a bank or a supermarket.

The fact is that once you have the money you can buy a car following which everything is down to you, when, where and how you have the car serviced, the type of insurance you take out, the tyres you fit, when, where and for how long you take your car abroad and how you deal with warranty claims. It’s all under your control.

However, take a car on contract hire and you don’t own it. The leasing company owns it and wants you to take care of it whilst you have the use of it. Because they end up having to sell the car at the end of the agreement and want it to fetch as much as possible at auction. They also want to maximise their profit out of the deal and the profit comes from many places. However, in extreme ignorance, consumers and SME’s with decide upon a car based purely on the rate and totally ignore the contract they are about to sign.

I have pulled out of my files 7 recent contract hire agreements and each one is substantially different from the others and each contains terms that are incredibly vague and confusing. It’s frightening for someone with the knowledge and experience that I have let alone those who are not financially astute.

Here is an example from one of the contracts:

Except where the Customer deals as a Consumer (as such term is defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994) or if in Scotland this Agreement is a Consumer Contract (within the meaning of Sections 12 and 25 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977) the Vehicles hired under this Agreement are hired without the benefit of those terms implied by Sections 8. 9 and 10 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which terms are (except where the Customer deals as Consumer defined as before) expressly excluded.

Got it? I know what it means but most people would find that incredibly confusing and could leave a customer seriously out of pocket and without a car following a warranty claim. And that’s just one of a hundred terms. So even if you take time to read through the terms and conditions you may still be as knowledgeable as if you hadn’t read them in the first place. It’s a scam.

The fact is that none of the contract hire companies are registered charities and they all need to return profits so think of the monthly rate as just one part of an equation aimed at relieving you of money. Oh, and part of their equation is cost so some employ school leavers on minimum wage to take calls from customers with little training so you can’t expect a high level of customer support if any at all. And raise a problem with a bucket shop broker and you’ll be given short shrift with the response – sort it out with the leasing company! By Graham Hill

According to car warranty providers Warranty Direct mobile phone and speeding offences are decreasing. They have found out that using a mobile phone whilst driving offences have dropped by 44% and speeding offences have dropped by 8.5%. They came to this conclusion after analysing data from the Ministry of Justice over the last 5 years.

They put this drop down to increases in fines and penalties introduced in March last year. Really?? Their analysis showed that each time penalties or fines have been increased this has been followed by a drop in prosecutions. Last March not only saw fines increase, the penalty points awarded if you were caught using a mobile phone behind the wheel also increased from 3 points to 6 points.

The CEO of Warranty Direct, Simon Ackers, said to What Car, ‘It’s great to see these updated driving laws have had a significant, positive impact on driving behaviour in such a short space of time’. ‘I don’t believe it’s just the increased financial penalties, either; motoring authorities have increased their efforts to raise awareness of the dangers of unsafe driving’.

According to road safety website, Think, you’re 4 times more likely to be in a crash if you’re using a mobile phone whilst driving. OK, I don’t have a problem with the above but could some of the drop in prosecutions possibly be down to the drop in the numbers of police out and about able to catch those breaking the law?

In Sussex, where I live, you can go days without seeing a police car and I don’t think they have a local plod. Speed cameras were switched off years ago and even little hidey holes that mobile speed detectors used to hide away in to catch you speeding are no longer used. So it’s great that offences are down but is it because fewer people are breaking the law. I personally don’t think so. By Graham Hill

The EU’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO) says the number of fake parts fitted to cars on British roads is on the increase. They have estimated that over £2 billion of fake tyres and batteries alone are fitted to cars across Europe. In the UK investigations have revealed that the most common fakes fitted to cars are filters and lights but the fakes that can put lives in jeopardy are brake pads and airbags.

The IPO has explained the huge increase in fakes is mainly due to problems identifying the fakes from the originals. In order to sort the problem out the IPO has joined forces with manufacturers BMW and Audi, selling platforms Amazon and eBay as well as numerous part suppliers. They have come together to issue guidance on how to spot fake car parts.

One of the recommendations was to have dealers or garages source parts for you and fit them rather than source parts yourself and then ask a dealer to fit them. You might save money by sourcing parts yourself but if the dealer sources the parts then he is responsible for the job from start to finish including the parts he provides. They can’t guarantee a part that you provided yourself.

Audi pointed out how difficult it was to identify the fakers from their websites that are looking more and more professional and as genuine as the websites of genuine providers. Their ‘Brand Protection Team’ finds it more and more difficult identifying the crooks from their website. The first indicator is the price that is ‘too good to be true’. The next is spelling. Often there is the slightest of spelling mistakes that alert them and should alert you. That applies not only to the website but also the packaging.

I remember years ago a friend that owned an electrical shop ordered in some Sharp calculators that were at giveaway prices. They looked exactly the same as the original, the logo looked exactly the same but when you looked closely Sharp was spelt Shrap. He asked everyone who came into the shop to tell him what was wrong with the calculator. Hardly anyone saw it as the logo looked so genuine.

The quality of the packaging can also be a giveaway. Some manufacturers also put small marks on the packaging to make it easier to detect fakes. What Car suggests that you take your car to a recognised garage, one that is signed up to the Motor Industry Code Of Practice for Service and Repair.

I feel that a central database of all fakes found by Trading Standards, Customs and Excise and other regulatory bodies be posted on a ‘Fakes’ website to alert consumers about the fakes and how to identify them. By Graham Hill

As an avid reader of my regular newsletters and blogs, you will know that you need to run your diesel engine at over 50mph for a minimum of 20 minutes at least once a month in order to clear out the catalytic converter (the same applies to some petrol engine cars).

This exercise doesn’t spew the particulates (soot) out of the exhaust, it creates a chemical reaction that destroys the particulates without destroying the environment. However, for some drivers, it isn’t possible to do this on a regular monthly basis so a company called Cataclean has come up with a solution – literally, that you add to your fuel.

They claim that by adding it to the fuel it will react within the catalytic converter to not only clean the filters but also all the surfaces within the converter making it not only more fuel efficient but also more efficient at removing NOx and Carbon Monoxide from the exhaust gasses.

In fact, Halfords ran a recent promotion saying that if your car failed its MOT test on emissions after using Cataclean they would refund your money (for the Cataclean that is). They claim that the additive causes the fuel to combust more evenly and efficiently whilst not affecting the fuel in any way.

You can buy it currently in Halfords for both petrol and diesel engines for £15.99 for 450ml. Users have given it a 5 star rating. If you want to know more about the product and how it works go to  https://www.cataclean.com/products.htm

By Graham Hill

Disturbing news has been issued by Matthew Avery, head of research for UK safety company Thatcham Research. Suspicions were raised when they found components fitted to cars, sent for crash test assessment, marked, ‘For Crash Test Only’. The items marked included airbag modules and ISOFIX child seat mounts.

Matthew revealed that they had found previous instances of components being marked ‘Euro NCAP only, for crash test only’. With these and similar markings appearing in cars from various makers. The findings by Thatcham were confirmed to Auto Express by Euro NCAP, the body responsible for setting the test criteria. They said it had ‘Come across parts …. Airbags, seat foams etc. which have unusual or suspicious labelling’.

Whilst Euro NCAP set the safety standards and carry out the testing, conforming to very tight test procedures, in order to issue an NCAP Safety rating, after these tests researchers from organisations such as Thatcham, which test cars in conjunction with NCAP, periodically carry out a strip down audit, inspecting individual components. It’s during these audits that Thatcham and NCAP have found suspiciously marked parts.

Avery said, “Sometimes we’ve tested a vehicle and on the back of a module it says ‘Euro NCAP test’, that seems very suspicious to us.” Whilst some of the components come from 3^rd part suppliers, Thatcham and NCAP ask the manufacturers for explanations after such markings are found. In response, they have received a variety of explanations such as ‘Well no that’s a genuine component, that’s an early version’. But as Avery pointed out these are not stamped they have the notes crudely written on the components using marker pens. When they see that alarm bells ring.

NCAP went to lengths to explain that they follow up every suspicious incident asking the manufacturer to explain what is going on. They visit factories and component suppliers in order to interrogate all involved. A common thread is for manufacturers to explain that a batch of cars may be ordered internally by the safety department and that they may use Euro NCAP as special marking to identify the cars as they pass through production. ‘In some cases, this reference is written onto parts, in order to ensure that production isn’t delayed’.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) came out strongly on the side of manufacturers and disputed any possible wrongdoing and NCAP also said that they had no proof of any suspicious ‘fiddling’ of the tests by manufacturers but Avery is not convinced. Whilst marked components over the last year have become rare, according to his report to Auto Express, it could be that manufacturers are more careful as a result of ‘dieselgate’.

Personally, I find it very strange when you see very few people on the production line of a car manufacturer, because of the incredibly high level of automation, that they would then put cars together using parts marked with a marker pen. It somehow doesn’t make sense. I also found a comment made by the SMMT to be a little strange. They said, ‘It can be necessary to identify certain safety-critical components in order to confirm they are the latest, approved specification parts’. So would one assume from that statement that there are cars fitted with earlier, non-approved ‘safety critical’ parts being fitted at the same time on the production line?

All very suspicious and after the diesel scandal and the latest scandal relating to the rollout of new technology by German manufacturers how much can we trust the manufacturers? By Graham Hill

So far this year BMW has recalled 312,000 cars in the UK over a stalling issue whilst Toyota has issued two notices worldwide for 3.4 million recalls. VW and Seat have recalled Polos, Aronas and Ibiza’s over malfunctioning rear seatbelt buckles. Whilst recalls are becoming more common, if you receive a notice it doesn’t always make it clear as to what you are supposed to do.

Being told that you have a safety recall can be worrying but how serious should it be taken? Are manufacturers forced to issue recalls? How are the recalls issued? In an exclusive interview with Auto Express Neil Barlow, head of vehicle engineering at the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), explained how the system works.

The most critical level of recall is the ‘Stop Drive Recall’. This is very serious but very rare apparently. If this recall is issued it’s a little like an aeroplane being grounded, the car must not be driven. Next level is a Safety Recall. This is the most common recall that the DVSA has to deal with. Neil explained this as follows, ‘Where a vehicle or component is deemed by our engineers, usually along with the manufacturers’ engineers, to present some safety risks.’

Drivers can continue driving the affected car whilst waiting for the problem to be fixed, ‘Unless informed otherwise,’ according to Mr Barlow. The DVSA also gets involved when a manufacturer has ‘non-code actions’ and ‘service campaigns’, where it will assist them to contact owners regarding defects that do not present a serious safety risk.

According to Mr Barlow, they hear about problems mainly from manufacturers and they can sometimes hear about the issues from dealers who have had drivers come in with consistent faults. Drivers can also report issues directly to the DVSA via DVSA online.

8 Dedicated engineers and 350 examiners are on hand to assist with inspections. Once a fault has been identified the engineers discuss a fix with the manufacturer. Car brands are obliged to advise the DVSA if they identify safety-related problems and a recall notice issued if the fault is likely to affect the ‘safe operation’ of the car or may ‘pose a significant risk to the driver, occupants and others’.

Recently there have been several press reports when it came to light that the DVSA recommended a safety recall be issued but the manufacturer initially refused. This has now been cleared up as a result of the DVSA taking legal advice. The result is that the DVSA can insist on notices being issued. If the manufacturers don’t conform the DVSA can take legal action or place a suspension notice on vehicles that are affected to prevent them from being sold.

If you receive a notice you should contact your local dealer or follow the instructions included in the notice. Notices are sent by recorded delivery but the problem faced by manufacturers and the DVSA is that too many drivers don’t respond to the notice. Then sell the car to an unsuspecting purchaser.

As Barlow pointed out it is possible for drivers to check their cars to see if there is an outstanding recall notice by visiting www.check-mot.service.gov.uk. Drivers may have to pay for remedial work when it relates to ‘non-code actions’ but work done under a safety recall should be free of charge. By Graham Hill

I won’t go into the fine detail but the driver of an F-Type had the under bonnet pedestrian airbag deploy twice without the need to, costing him £4,000 as the dealer and the manufacturer refused to accept that there was a manufacturing or design fault and therefore refused a warranty claim.

What Car got involved but still no joy. In the meantime, fearing that the airbag would deploy again the driver, Aiden Magee, stopped using the car. What Car then recommended that he lodge a complaint with the Motor Ombudsman. After investigating, their adjudicator stated he didn’t think that it was a manufacturing defect as it only affected around 2% of F-Types. WHAT THE F!!!! Are they serious?

OK, so it isn’t a manufacturing defect if only 2% of electric kettles blow up! Or if the brakes only fail on 2% of a particular model of car. What a disgraceful argument. But it gets worse. But before I get to that I should point out that the Motor Ombudsman isn’t like the Financial Ombudsman, financed by the Government they are an independent profit-making body set up to confuse customers.

They are paid for by their member dealers so they can hardly be considered as independent. In fact in some promotional text I managed to see, they explain that being a member of the group and paying fees gives all members great publicity giving the public confidence in using those signed up to the ‘code’. So it’s a marketing con. Here are the reviews on Trustpilot:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.themotorombudsman.org

As the car was pre-2016 when Jaguar changed its handbook to say that the pedestrian protection system was active between 12mph and 31mph they felt that as he didn’t know that he had to drive the car at speeds of lower than 12mph when approaching obstacles that Jaguar should pay for the first repair. However, as he had been made aware of the constraints when the first airbag was replaced he was responsible for the second deployment.

None of the above made any sense to me. The ‘Ombudsman’ said that the ‘fault’ only affected 2% of all F-Types so not a manufacturing fault but then referred to the fact that there was no note of the way the pedestrian airbag deployed in the handbook, being the reason why the first replacement should have been made under the warranty but even though no pedestrian was involved in the second deployment the car owner should be responsible.

Not surprising I don’t recommend that you ever use the Motor Ombudsman – what a waste of space. I’m currently attempting to find out if legal expense insurance will cover you for warranty claims. By Graham Hill

I recently announced in my newsletter that the Government was going to pull the plug (get it) on electric vehicle and hybrid grants in November. Hybrid cars that have an electric, zero-emission, range of less than 70 miles were to have their grants reduced to zero and the grants for full electric vehicles were to drop from £4,500 to £3,500.

Whilst drivers brought forward their purchases to benefit from the last of the grants the Government forgot to mention that there was a pot of grant available and when that pot went so did the old grants and the new grants were to kick in.

So imagine the shock when car dealers and leasing company staff rocked up for work on Monday to find that the new grant structure was effective from Monday morning. Presumably, because the old pot of grant money had gone by Sunday night. The Government revealed that qualifying car sales increased by 6 fold following the Government’s announcement.

I covered the announcement in a previous blog/post so I won’t repeat but we are already behind most of Europe when it comes to charger infrastructure and the take-up of hybrids and EV’s is still low even though the higher uptake of the two is the reason given by the Government for people buying hybrids and EV’s. More would take electric vehicles if there was less anxiety over the range, hence the popularity of hybrids.

Personally, I think that removing the grants on hybrids is a bad move. Many used it as a stepping stone towards a full electric but they are now being pushed out of the market and back into petrol and diesel cars purely because of cost – retro-move! By Graham Hill

Warnings have been issued regarding the non-acceptance of UK driving licences in the EU in the event that we exit next spring without a deal. A report has been issued by the Department for Transport (DfT) explaining what could happen for the benefit of both businesses and private drivers in the event that we leave without an agreement.

UK driving licences will no longer be valid according to licence checking firm Licence Bureau having analysed the DfT report. They have said that in order for UK drivers to travel around Europe they will need two different international driving permits (IDP) from March 2019.

Licence Bureau MD Malcolm Maycock suggested that businesses and individuals should be aware of the issue and maybe start taking action to prepare for it. Especially if businesses need to travel into Europe immediately after Brexit or individuals have holidays planned that require them to drive or hire a car shortly after exit date.

Whilst it is hoped that we won’t leave the EU without an agreement these sorts of issues need to be taken into account. According to the DfT the available IDP’s are based on rules agreed in 1949 and 1968. The 1949 IDP lasts for 12 months and is recognised in Ireland, Spain, Malta and Cyprus, while the 1968 version is valid for 3 years and would be recognised in all other EU countries along with Norway and Switzerland.

And that is just the tip of the detail iceberg that has to be resolved in the event we exit without an agreement. By Graham Hill

If you’re like me and constantly on a diet, which clearly isn’t working or we wouldn’t still be on one, we fool ourselves into believing that we stick exactly to the diet but in truth, we have all the right intentions but when it comes to the crunch we fall short and succumb to chocolate, biscuits, cakes and much more. So whilst we know what we should be doing we do the complete opposite!

It seems that this is the case when it comes to the switch away from fossil fuels to planet-saving alternatively powered cars such as hybrids and electric cars. To prove the point fleet management company CLM carried out a survey amongst car drivers. 400 drivers were asked a series of questions with the following results: 24% said that they would consider a fully electric car, 32% said the same for a plug-in-hybrid and 36% said they would consider a conventional hybrid.

However, in the real world where people swear they are sticking to their diet – but aren’t, these people who say they would go green or greener with their next car are saying it because they want people to believe they actually care about the planet. The truth is that they do care but money talks and if it’s cheaper to buy and run a diesel or a petrol car – that’s the choice made for them.

So back here in the real world, just 0.57% of the cars registered are pure electric, 1.83% are plug-in-hybrids and 3.38% conventional hybrids. That is crazy! Are we all fooling ourselves into believing we can continue as we are because everyone else will switch over to cleaner cars or is it simply down to cost? Or could it be, as CLM MD John Lawrence alluded to – simply down to education?

They found that only 26% of those surveyed could identify a plug-in hybrid whilst 38% could identify a conventional hybrid. On the other hand, 64% could identify a fully electric car. Whilst most of us look on and see how cars are evolving at a rapid rate we struggle with understanding how the vehicles work and how they improve the environment.  If your car usage consists of several short trips around town every day then a Plug-In Hybrid or electric car would be the best but forget the electric and possibly the Plug-In Hybrid if your daily usage requires you to drive long distances.

You could end up spending many a pleasant hour sitting on the hard shoulder of a motorway. So whilst most of us would like to think we are environmentally conscious, in truth we could all do a lot more to bring pollution levels down but for each of us the question is – at what cost? By Graham Hill