The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The introduction of new phased driving licensing system for young and newly qualified drivers is supported by the majority of people, new research suggests.

A survey, conducted on behalf of the road safety charity Brake and insurance company Axa UK, found 63% of respondents were in favour of the change, with just 16% against.

Brake say drivers under the age of 25 are four times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash if they are driving with others – claiming peer pressure leads to young motorists showing off.

New restrictions would see amendments made to the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act to ban passengers under the age of 25 in the driver’s first year or six months.

The Act already bans drivers if they get six points in their first two years of driving.

It has been backed by Support for Victims of Road Crashes – an advisory to the Department of Transport (DfT) – and National Police Chief’s Council Roads Policing lead Jo Shiner.

Extra restrictions on newly qualified drivers, which would have seen curfews and limits on passengers in the car, were dismissed in January 2022, because there was a recognition that young drivers needed to use cars for employment.

Government statistics show as many as a quarter of new drivers are involved in accidents in their first two years on the road.

The Government met with road safety campaigners in May to discuss the proposals. 

A new report – Driver testing and education –  published today (Friday, July 14) by Brake and Axa UK, challenges the Government to conduct a high-level strategic review of road safety, because safer drivers mean safer roads for all.

The top recommendation from the report is to implement a progressive licensing system that provides safeguards for learner and newly qualified drivers.

A progressive licensing system – which introduces elements such as a minimum learning period and a lower blood alcohol limit, while also reducing the number of similar-aged passengers a newly licensed driver can carry – has proved successful in reducing road deaths and injuries of young drivers in other countries, the charity says.

For example, a similar system in New Zealand led to a 23% reduction in car crash injuries for 15–19-year-olds, and a 12% reduction for 20–24-year-olds. 

There is good evidence that additional hazard perception training is another effective way to improve driver safety, it said.

Ross Moorlock, interim CEO at Brake, said: “This report shows that nearly two-thirds of drivers surveyed said they would support a phased or progressive licensing system, and only one-sixth (16%) would be against it.

“This overwhelming majority demonstrates that there is clear public support and appetite for a system like this, and for ensuring we prioritise the safety of young drivers on our roads.

“We ask the Government to ensure that in another six years we aren’t still asking for a system that we know could help safeguard young and new drivers on our roads.”

The issue was discussed at a recent Fleet News at 10, with proposals to ban drivers under the age of 25 from carrying young passengers as part of a ‘graduated driving licence’ scheme broadly welcomed by fleets.

However, some have suggested that any changes to the licensing regime should avoid penalising those who drive for work.

The report from Brake and Axa also focused on other aspects of system change, lifelong learning and further testing such as clearer speed limit signs on single and dual carriageways, more driver education and awareness around stopping distances, and a further call for a reinvestment in active travel schemes.

Axa Commercial CEO Jon Walker said: “This study raises a number of issues around driver education, testing and licensing that warrant further consideration.

“It’s concerning to see that 71% of respondents were unable to identify the correct distance they should keep from the car in front and 59% chose the incorrect national speed limit on dual carriageways.

“We therefore urge the Government to undertake a high-level strategic review to explore the issues raised in more detail, including the introduction of a graduated driver licensing scheme.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

HMRC faces having to refund employers millions of pounds after wrongly refusing tax relief from national insurance payments paid on car allowances, a UK court has ruled.

Two employers – Wilmott Dixon and Laing O’Rouke – have successfully argued that car allowance payments made to its employees were ‘relevant motoring expenditure’ and therefore should qualify for relief from Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs).

Both cases were heard together. Laing O’Rourke was appealing an earlier decision which had ruled in favour of HMRC, while the UK’s tax authority was appealing a previous ruling in favour of Wilmott Dixon being able to claim the relief.

This week, after considering the evidence, two judges in the UK’s Upper Tribunal ruled in favour of the employers, leaving HMRC potentially having to repay Laing O’Rourke £2.2 million in NICs from tax years 2004/05 to 2017/18 and paving the way for many more claims. 

Both cases follow the landmark Total People tax ruling from more than 10 years ago, when HMRC lost a case at the Court of Appeal involving grey fleet mileage claims.

Total People’s long-running legal battle related to an NI refund claim based on the difference between the HMRC 40p per mile (ppm) approved mileage allowance payment (AMAP) rate (now 45p) and the 12ppm paid by the employer plus an additional lump sum paid to the employees for using their private cars on business.

The value of the amount claimed was approximately £146,000 or around £1,000 per employee, which was subsequently paid by HMRC.

In what was the first test case following the Total People ruling, Laing O’Rourke argued in a First Tier Tribunal, two years ago, that its car allowance scheme should also qualify for relief from NICs on payments made to employees.

HMRC argued that relief did not apply, because the payments could not be defined as relevant motoring expenditure. Judge Tracey Bowler agreed, ruling in favour of HMRC.

Hearing Laing O’Rourke’s appeal in the Upper Tribunal, however, the Honourable Mr Justice Michael Green and Judge Jonathan Cannan decided that Judge Bowler had “erred in adopting a narrow definition” of relevant motoring expenditure. As a result, they allowed Laing O’Rourke’s appeal, ruling the company was entitled to repayment of NICs paid in relation to car allowances.

In the case of Willmott Dixon, the judges also dismissed HMRC’s appeal. The company had previously argued that car allowance payments made to its employees were relevant motoring expenditure and should qualify for relief.

HMRC had refused to refund Willmott Dixon for NICs paid from 2004/05 to May 2014 relating to car allowance payments made by the firm.

It argued that the car allowances were earnings and not relevant motoring expenditure, but in what was a landmark ruling for fleets last year, the First Tier Tribunal ruled in favour of Willmott Dixon.

This latest ruling agrees with that original decision and has also now found in favour of Lang O’Rourke, exposing HMRC to further cash allowance claims.

Definition of relevant motoring expenditure

What will be of interest to employers and fleets is that the judges in their ruling said that the definition of relevant motoring expenditure is concerned with the nature of the payment by the employer to the employee, in particular, whether it is in respect of the use of a car.

They say if it is a payment for relevant motoring expenditure, then “one way or another there is relief” for the qualifying amount.

However, they added that the provisions do not focus on how the employee spends the money. Relevant motoring expenditure, they agreed, should be given a wide meaning which includes expected use, potential use and availability for use.

Car allowances at the construction and property firm, Wilmott Dixon were paid to employees based on a grade which was allocated to that employee. The more senior an employee, the higher the grade.

The amount paid did not depend on the number of business miles driven by an employee.

Separate business mileage payments were intended to reimburse an employee for the fuel costs of actual business miles driven.

An employee who was entitled to a car allowance at a certain grade could choose to select a car from a lower grade choice list and be reimbursed the difference in the car allowance for those grades.

HMRC had argued that it should not attract tax relief, because it was calculated by reference to grade, not by reference to actual business use, and some employees who received the allowance did no business miles.

However, the court again disagreed with HMRC. In their ruling, the judges said: “The grade of employee affected the amount of the car allowance which was based on the type of company car that an employee of that seniority would have been entitled to if they had chosen that option.

“Again, the fact that some employees did no business miles cannot affect whether those who did are entitled to the relief.

“In our judgment, the FTT (First Tier tribunal) was correct to conclude that the payments made by Willmott were ‘in respect of the use by the employee of a qualifying vehicle’.

“The payments were made to ensure that the employee had a suitable vehicle available for business use.”

John Messore, managing partner at specialist consultants Innovation Professional Services, who represented Willmott Dixon, told Fleet News: “If it’s a separate payment, i.e. not salary but a car allowance, anyone who has done any miles can claim the difference against that car allowance. It opens the floodgates for every single taxpayer in the UK.”

Messore noted that, while the ruling was good news for employers, many were reluctant to try and claim the cash they were now entitled to back.

Nevertheless, he said he was working with a number of companies who have lodged claims with HMRC and he was confident that, following this ruling, they will similarly succeed.

HMRC has 30 days to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Almost a third (28%) of working adults are still hybrid working with one-in-six (16%) solely working from home, potentially increasing an employer’s grey fleet risk.

Venson Automotive Solutions says that if an employee’s place of work clause in their contract has changed to home working, their privately owned car will automatically join the ranks of the grey fleet, when used for work related travel.

Employers who are unaware of their legal obligations to ensure staff owned vehicles used for work related travel are properly maintained and legally compliant, may be unknowingly missing duty of care requirements, it warns. 

Simon Staton, client management director of Venson Automotive Solutions, explained: “Employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees.

“With around half (49%) of UK drivers admitting to skipping essential servicing and vehicle repairs amidst the cost-of-living crisis, it is more important than ever that processes are in place to manage aspects such as driver licence checking, insurance validity, vehicle condition and mileage audit amongst grey fleet vehicles.

“Businesses and fleet managers, therefore, need to review their Driving for Work policies as working from home looks set to stay for some businesses.”

It is not only service and maintenance of grey fleets that businesses must consider. Grey fleet vehicles are often older than company owned cars so can contribute disproportionately to a company’s carbon footprint.

By promoting workplace benefits like salary sacrifice schemes, not only can employees make savings over a retail deal for electric vehicle, but the implementation of such an arrangement supports the ‘green’ agenda for businesses, says Venson.

“Of course, for many employees, buying a new car is a stretch just now,” said Staton. “The key benefits of salary sacrifice, however, include a fixed all-inclusive monthly fee so drivers don’t get unexpected maintenance costs.

“Employees also get National Insurance savings, ‘hassle-free’ acquisition, with no credit check or deposit needed and fleet discounts and for some organisations a beneficial VAT position reflected in monthly costs.”

He concluded: “With hybrid and homeworking becoming a permanent fixture more cars risk edging into the grey fleet.

“Business owners and fleet management teams must keep on top of this to ensure they are not putting their firm or employee at risk, especially with an aging, less well-maintained UK car parc.

“They might also want to consider alternative options like rental or EV pool cars for those occasional driving for work employees.

“It all helps to cut the burden of managing a grey fleet and reduces CO2 emissions at the same time.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A record number of drivers ended up in the dock accused of speeding last year, but drug driving and mobile phone prosecutions fell.

Analysis of the 2022 Criminal Justice Statistics carried out by the AA, reveal that almost a quarter of a million drivers (245,043) appeared in court accused of speeding last year, the highest since records began.

The number of drink-driving cases brought to court also rose during 2022, up by 1.8% to 33,099.

However, the AA’s analysis shows that there was a 16% reduction in cases of drug driving and a 15.5% fall in drivers pursued in the courts for using a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, said: “These figures serve as a reminder of the huge consequences both poor and illegal driving can result in.

“Those willing to gamble when behind the wheel should think again.

“Some may say that record speeding cases are just a reflection of too many cameras, but speeding can be life ending and life changing, so it is only right that those excessive speeders are properly punished.

“While the number of cases for using a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel and drug driving have fallen, we are not fully convinced that this is due to improved compliance.

“Our own studies show that a quarter of drivers regularly see others picking up a phone when behind the wheel, meanwhile a reduction in dedicated traffic officers means some drivers feel they can get away with certain behaviours.”

The analysis also showed that more than 55,500 cases were heard for vehicles being on the road without tax, a 12.3% increase compared to the previous year.

Similarly, more than 101,057 people found themselves in court for failing to supply information after being required to do so by the police, up from 96,799 in 2021.

Last year, 83,100 drivers were in court for driving without insurance, down 11,000 cases compared to 2021, while more than 3,000 drivers stood accused of driving without a valid MOT.

In total 710,738 cases came to court for motoring offences last year with 642,236 resulting in a conviction. This means that nine out of 10 motoring cases that end up in court result in a guilty verdict, showing that drivers are highly unlikely to be acquitted.

I would ask the question – Are the number of drug convictions and using a mobile phone whilst driving down because of a lack of police? If that’s the case the lack of police makes the rise in drink driving convictions look even worse. Speeding can be caught on cameras but to charge a drink, drug or mobile phone abuser we need a law enforcement officer so the situation could be very much worse than the situation reported. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

This Piece was aimed at companies with fleets of company vehicles but with so many great tips included I felt the need to include it in with my newsletters. I particularly support the ‘Splash and Dash’ way of charging your car. Firstly it frees chargers up and as you pump in more electricity into the batteries as they fill up the charge rate slows down. Onto the piece:

Charging is regularly identified as one of the biggest concerns both organisations and drivers have over the transition to electric vehicles.

After all, a battery electric vehicle with a flat battery is unusable while, without proper planning, they could spend a significant amount of time during the day being charged instead of being put to work.

This means a robust charging strategy which includes when and how BEVs are charged is a must.

There will be no one-size-fits-all answer for this: it will not be the same for all organisations and will likely not be different for different vehicles on the same fleet.

An important first step is to assess the duty cycles of BEVs and their range, and match them to the available charging options. It may be that vehicles do not need to be charged every day.

For organisations which operate a back-to-base model where vehicles are left at a central site overnight, it makes a lot of sense to install workplace charging infrastructure so they can be plugged in when parked up, ready to be used the following morning.

Workplace charging can also be used during the day by company car drivers who commute to work or travel between company premises, as well as other employees who drive EVs.

If employees take their EVs home at night and they have off-road parking, it may be possible for them to have a charge point installed at their dwelling and plug their vehicle in there.

However, when that is not possible – it is estimated that between 30% and 40% of UK households do not have a drive – or if a BEV needs to do long-distance journeys, then the charging strategy should also include the public charging network.

The use of telematics and route optimisation software makes planning where drivers charge much easier, as they can show the location and type of chargers in relation to the vehicle route.

The technologies can also allow organisations to time charging to coincide with drivers’ breaks, minimising disruption to the working day.

Telematics can also be used to confirm that employees are rapid charging to 80% and not lingering to slow charge to 100%, which is seen as the most productive balance of work availability against charging time.

Organisations also often try to minimise use of using rapid charging on the public network as it is the most expensive option, and low operating costs are an essential part of their electrification objectives.

Additionally, in cases where there is limited charging provision such as in remote areas, telematics means work can be planned around the few charge points that are available, making EVs usable in places where there might otherwise be difficulties.

Here we look at the three charging options, the challenges surrounding them and how they can be used by fleets.

Workplace/depot charging

Most organisations will look to install some workplace charging, even if it is only a handful of points to support electric company car drivers or visitors.

For fleets where vehicles are left on-site overnight, the charging provision will need to be much larger.

In both instances, an organisation needs to consider a number of factors when installing workplace charging infrastructure.

Firstly, if the site is leased, then the organisation will need to speak to the landlord to gain permission to carry out the work.

It also needs to consider how many charge points are needed. To determine this, a company will need to consider the number of EVs operated both currently and in the future, the number of available parking bays and the available budget for the installation.

It also needs to consider what speed of charger is required and this will depend largely on the amount of time the vehicle is parked.

If it can be charged overnight, for example, a slow charger may be sufficient, but if the required turnaround is faster, a rapid charge point may be needed to give them the extra range to fulfil all tasks

Consider also the speed with which the vehicle can draw the charge. It varies considerably and ultimately limits how fast the vehicle battery can take on the power.

There are also big differences in the cost of buying and installing charge points. For example, a 7kW charge point capable of charging two vehicles at the same time can cost around £2,000 to install, while a 150kW rapid charger is upwards of £35,000.

An organisation should also assess the electricity supply to the premises to check it has the capacity to power all of the chargers needed.

If it doesn’t, two main options exist. A smart charging system could be used and this will be able to spread or reduce the speed of the charging sessions but still ensure all vehicles are ready when they need to be.

However, if this is not suitable – for example, if all the vehicles have a short turnaround before they need to be used again so need to be charged at the same time – then an upgraded substation may be required at the site.

Before April 2023 the organisation was responsible for footing the considerable bill, but Ofgem has ruled the cost now has to be spread across the electricity distribution sector instead.

Organisations are still responsible for any groundworks needed on their sites, and this will influence the location of any charge points as the more digging which is needed to lay cables, the more expensive the install becomes.

The closer charge points are to the site’s power supply, the less groundwork needs to be carried out.

Typically, this will be found within a main building, which is why charge points tend to be adjacent to it rather than in the middle of a car park.

Government help towards the cost of installing workplace charging is available.

Its Workplace Charging Scheme (WCS) has so far assisted more than 7,000 businesses and the grants cover up to 75% of the total costs of the purchase and installation of EV charge points, capped at a maximum of £350 per socket and 40 sockets across all sites per applicant.

Organisations can also claim up to the full amount, but slowly roll out the installation of chargers: they do not all have to be installed at the same time.

This means an organisaton could choose one or two sites to trial the full process of planning and installing chargers, and gather data on potential usage for when it rolls them out further.

A further decision to take is whether it should charge drivers for using the charge points.

For vehicles which are used purely for work purposes, the answer is obviously no, but it is more complicated for drivers who do not have job-need vehicles, such as many company car drivers or other employees who have their own BEV.

For these, there are no benefit-in-kind tax implications if an organisation wishes to provide free charging to them as electricity is not classed as a vehicle fuel by HMRC.

However, an organisation may not wish to pay for EV charging at scale so can set a fee for usage.

This could see drivers being billed for either the amount of electricity used or the length of time a vehicle has been plugged in.

Who is using the workplace charge points, when and for how long can be managed through groups on media channels such as shared calendars, WhatsApp or MS Teams, while drivers who stay in a charging bay for too long could be charged an increased amount to deter this.

Charge points can be operated by staff RFID (radio-frequency identification) cards, apps or contactless cards provided by the company which installs and manages the units.

Home charging

For many organisations, having employees charging at home will be the most convenient and cost-effective option.

The cost of electricity will be lower at a domestic premises than at a commercial one, while it will usually also mean the employee does not need to spend any time during working hours charging.

However, this option will not suit all organisations or drivers. As previously stated, it is estimated that between 30% and 40% of UK households do not have off-street parking where they could install a charge point, but in reality the number will be higher due to the practical challenges of installing points in rented accommodation or where parking spaces are not adjacent to the building.

Organisations have also found that some drivers who do have suitable off-street parking and take their vans home at night are unwilling to park them on their driveway if it means leaving their own car on the roadside.

Some employers either provide or contribute towards the cost of a home charge point to incentivise drivers to take BEVS and make the transition as easy as possible.

Some leasing companies can also include the provision of a home charge point as part of a vehicle finance agreement.

The decision whether to supply a home charge point to an employee is also influenced by if the vehicle is a perk or a job-need one. Employers tend to feel they have more of an obligation to provide a home charge point for those workers who need their vehicle to carry out their role.

Home charge points are either 3.7kW or 7kW, depending on the electricity supply to the house, and typically cost between £800 and £1,000.

Public charging network

The public charging infrastructure has a key role to play in the successful uptake of BEVs, whether the driver does not have access to another form of charging or if it is used by motorists for a top-up during longer journeys, for example.

However, it does come under a lot of fire for being inadequate for current and future needs.

Latest Zap-Map figures show that there were 40,496 public charging devices in 23,902 locations in March, a 35% increase on 12 months ago. More than 7,500 of these charge points are rapid or ultra-rapid.

However, the number of chargers which will ultimately be needed is unknown, and estimates vary.

For example, in its Taking Charge: The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy report, the Government said the UK will probably need at least 300,000 by 2030, while the Society for Motor Manufacturers puts the figure at 2.3 million.

Equally important as the overall number of chargers is their location. Department for Transport analysis shows the spread is not uniform throughout the UK, with London and Scotland having much better coverage than regions such as the North West, the Midlands and the South West.

Public charge points fall into three main categories: high-speed on-route and charging hubs, destination chargers and on-street provision.

The high-speed facilities tend to be on or near trunk roads, while the destination charger description covers those found at supermarkets, shopping centres and cinemas: places where the vehicle could be left for several hours while its occupants take part in another activity.

On-street charge points are those, for example, installed in lampposts or on the side of the road and have slower charging rates as they are intended for people to park up and use overnight.

A consistent issue over the public charging network is payment, with traditional concerns over the number of different apps, accounts and RFID cards people need to use charge points from different operators.

This issue still exists but the situation has improved in recent years. The Government has, for example, mandated that users should be able to use contactless payment at rapid charge points.

A number of companies also offer products similar to the traditional fuel card, which allows a driver to use charge points owned by different operators to pay using a single card.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Nine out of 10 local authorities are yet to implement an electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure strategy, with a lack of time cited as the biggest barrier.

In a study conducted by charge point operator Believ, council representatives added to growing concerns that the rollout of public charge points is falling well behind the Government’s ambition to deliver 300,000 by 2030.

Time was cited as the biggest barrier (63%), followed by lack of funding (40%) and then councillor pushback, though the numbers were small (6%).  Almost all (98%) expected it would take more than 12 months to roll out an EV charging infrastructure strategy across their local authority.

A nationwide survey, conducted by Believ in 2022, found that only 14% of local authorities in the UK have dedicated resource for implementing new EV infrastructure. It also found that a lack of funding and guidance from central Government means local authorities can only allocate 15 hours per week to EV projects.

The latest findings come in the context of new figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) and published in The Times that show that in some areas of the UK there are up to 85 EVs competing for a single charge point, and pressure is mounting for local authorities to prioritise the switch to electric.

Perran Moon, interim CEO at Believ, said the recent findings are reflective of the situation on the ground and a lack of urgency in the roll out of vital EV infrastructure.

He added: “Our findings suggest that there is still clearly a hesitancy due to lack of time and lack funding by local authorities to begin the process of rolling out charge point infrastructure. And crucially, local authority’s need the support, expertise, and guidance from charge point operators.”

A separate study, in March, found that nearly half of local authorities believe it will take less than a year to install electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, when it actually takes closer to three.

Liberty Charge found that 85% of local authorities believe it will take less than two years to install EV charging infrastructure, including charge point strategy creation. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The cost of off-peak slow public charging has dropped more than 10% in the past month to 33p/kWh, according to the May 2023 AA EV Recharge report.

Peak and off-peak rates for faster chargers continue to soar, however.

The end of government support for businesses providing charging, under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme (EBRS), has reversed reductions in off-peak and peak faster charging costs.

While some providers have been unable to carry the increased energy costs for too long, AA said it is hoped that this is a short-term blip and that faster charging costs can drop later in the year.

Peak rates for rapid chargers have reached almost £1 per kWh. In a larger EV, that means it would cost around £40 to add 100 miles of charge.

Peak slow charging (up to 7kW) dropped by more than a quarter, from 72p to 53p kWh. Off-peak charging at the slow rate outside a home is now on average below the Energy Price Guarantee of 34p/kWh.

With the Energy Price Guarantee extended until June 30, the AA says kerbside operators have changed tack to better reflect the offering available to electric vehicle (EV) owners with dedicated off-street parking using a specialist EV tariff provided by their energy supplier.

This new drop in charging costs outside homes comes as the eight-month fall in average petrol pump prices ends.

In the past fortnight, petrol has risen from a low of 143.04p a litre to 143.47p, having been in freefall from 166.54p a litre at the end of October.

For those EV owners using flat-rate tariffs, costs remain largely static.

The standard variable tariff for domestic electricity rates will be lowered to 30p/kWh from July 1. The reduction is down from the current 34p/kWh which has been in place since October 1, 2022.

Drivers support equalisation of VAT

A policy which drivers are keen to see equalised is the rate of VAT when charging in the public realm.

Domestic charging VAT is valued at 5% but increases to 20% away from home.

A survey of more than 11,500 drivers carried out last week by the AA found that more than half of drivers (56%) feel that VAT on public charging should be reduced to the 5% domestic energy VAT rate, with the AA calling for the Chancellor to act accordingly in his upcoming Budget this autumn.

Jack Cousens, head of roads policy for the AA, said: “Drivers without a driveway looking to switch to an EV will be happy to see off-peak kerbside charging now cheaper than the Energy Price Guarantee.

“This means they will feel some of the benefit EV owners with dedicated off-street parking have.

“While the vast majority of EV charging is carried out at home, for those travelling further afield the rise in prices for faster charging has damped the good news.

“We hope this is a minor blip as electricity prices are predicted to fall later this year. Savvy EV drivers heading on a summer road trip should plan their charging stops at cheaper locations or time their journey so they can take advantage of off-peak rates.

“This only highlights why reducing VAT on public charging from 20% to 5% is so crucial in helping more people switch to electric cars. The Chancellor can deliver some positive and popular news at the Budget and we urge him to do so.” 

Graham Hill Comments: What a load of tripe and a waste of time. Spend time campaigning for better roads, safer batteries, less distracting in-car technology rather than waste it campaigning for a reduction of VAT charged on public chargers. I don’t know a single person who is waiting for the drop in VAT before getting herself an electric car. And what about company car drivers (the main users of public chargers) who claim back all the VAT as input tax? Clearly the difference between input and output tax helps the treasury to replace some of the duty and VAT lost as a result of petrol and diesel drivers transitioning.

This VAT argument is ridiculous! Of course it’s unfair and maybe further down the line we can address this unfairness but not now. 

AA EV Recharge Report, May 2023. Flat rates:

Charge Type	Speed	May Ave (p/kWh)	Apr Ave (p/kWh)	Difference (p/kWh)	Cost to charge to 80%	Pence per mile (p/mile)
Domestic	Up to 7kW	34	34	0	£13.60	7.64
Slow	Up to 7kW	44	40	4	£17.60	9.89
Fast	8-22kW	55	54	1	£22.00	12.36
Rapid	23-100kW	66	67	-1	£26.40	14.83
Ultra-rapid	101kW and above	70	70	0	£28.00	15.73
PETROL		143.35ppl	146.52ppl	-3.17ppl	£45.87	13.69

AA EV Recharge Report, May 2023. Peak and off-peak rates:

Charge Type	Speed	May Ave (p/kWh)	Apr Ave (p/kWh)	Difference (p/kWh)	Cost to charge to 80%	Pence per mile (p/mile)
Slow Off-Peak	Up to 7kW	33	37	-4	£13.20	7.42
Slow Peak	Up to 7kW	53	72	-19	£21.20	11.91
Fast Off-Peak	8-22kW	88	57	31	£35.20	19.78
Fast Peak	8-22kW	98	75	23	£39.20	22.02
Rapid Off-Peak	23-100kW	88	57	31	£35.20	19.78
Rapid Peak	23-100kW	98	75	23	£39.20	22.02
Ultra-rapid Off-Peak	101kW and above	61	51	10	£24.40	13.71
Ultra-rapid Peak	101kW and above	72	64	8	£28.80	16.18
Petrol		143.35ppl	146.52ppl	-3.17ppl	£45.87

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Drivers with eye conditions are being warned about imminent policy changes which could result in a £1,000 fine and three points on their licence.

The DVLA has confirmed it is set to update its guidance for drivers with eye conditions in the coming weeks.

This comes after the Association of Optometrists (AOP) raised concerns over the published list of notifiable health conditions in October last year.

The AOP highlighted the current DVLA guidance was not specific enough and suggested every driver in the UK who receives an eye test will need to be advised to tell the DVLA, rather than it just affecting those with eye conditions which could impact their driving.

If it is determined bad vision is a factor of a driving accident, the driver will be fined £1,000 and have three points on their licence if they had not notified the DVLA of their condition prior to the accident.

Failure to notify about vision loss or issues could even result in a driving ban in more serious cases.

This is why it is important for the guidance to be clear and specific to those with medical conditions on whether they need to update the DVLA of their condition.

Insurers Quotezone have identified other conditions that could prevent motorists from legally taking to the road or invalidate their insurance – leaving them unprotected in the case of an accident.

Greg Wilson, founder of Quotezone.co.uk, said: “It is important for all drivers to be aware of the medical conditions DVLA needs to be aware of.

“Many of the conditions named by the DVLA won’t actually affect your ability to drive, but they do need to be kept up to date with any changes.

“Taking all precautions to be safe on the road is extremely important and drivers must play their part to ensure their well being and the wellbeing of other road users is protected to the best of their knowledge.”

The DVLA has an extensive list of over 110 conditions that can affect driving, so some motorists may be unaware of all of these conditions or the extent to which they can affect driving ability.

Wilson said some lesser known conditions can carry an increased risk and therefore insurance premiums can be higher – or more seriously, some ailments can even result in the driver’s licence being revoked.

He said: “If drivers have been diagnosed with any of these conditions they need to inform both the DVLA and their insurance provider, since having inaccurate details on the insurance policy can void the insurance and leave drivers unprotected.”

Drivers can report their eye condition online to the DVLA here.

Here are some important health conditions drivers must make the DVLA aware of:

1. Syncope

Syncope is a condition that causes a temporary loss of consciousness. Fainting conditions including syncope, which causes blackouts, must be reported to the DVLA.

2. Certain operations

Operations on certain body parts, including your legs, can exempt you from driving, yet this can be up to the discretion of the doctor, who should inform you on driving procedures after leaving the hospital.

3. Heart conditions

Any heart conditions must be reported to the DVLA. For example, arrythmia must be reported as it can affect the ability to safely stop a car, and can be distracting.

4. Stroke

After having a stroke it is possible that you may be able to drive again in the future, but initially you must stop driving for one month after having a stroke. If you have returned back to normal health after a month, you can start driving again, however the DVLA needs to be informed if health problems still persist for longer than a month after the stroke.

5. Vertigo

Recurrent or sudden dizziness must be reported to the DVLA as it may effect your ability to remain safe on the roads. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Car buyers have been warned that any step-change in EV battery technology could create future shocks for residual values, according to FleetCheck.

Toyota has recently said it is working on new solid state battery technology that could deliver over 900 miles of range.

The average battery range for new electric vehicles is already almost 300 miles, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

Peter Golding, managing director at the fleet software specialist FleetCheck, said the major advances in technology could present predictable effects.

Golding said Toyota’s solid state designs, CATL talking about doubling energy density and Mullen Automotive’s improved battery management to name a few, is welcome, but also creates problems.

He said: “A manufacturer who has access to better batteries is going to want to make them available as soon as possible in order to gain a competitive market advantage but this is going to affect EVs already in use.

“It won’t render them obsolete but it could make them much less attractive, especially if the new tech is not just more effective but cheaper, which is conceivable.”

Golding said that while values on current EVs are unlikely to collapse completely, there could be major reductions.

He added: “This would have a substantial impact on leasing companies too, of course, who are already being very conservative in their EV future forecasts thanks to the quite dramatic drop in values seen over the last year.

“Buying EVs and bearing the RV risk remains a risky business.

“It seems to us that there is no way around this situation.

“EVs are still a relatively new technology in a mass market sense and step changes in technology are very much a possibility but any advances will probably be a double edged sword and fleets need to factor that into their decision making.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A potentially massive data leak is being looked into by the authorities after it was alleged Tesla failed to adequately protect data from customers, employees and business partners.

The data protection watchdog for the Netherlands said on Friday (May 26) it was aware of possible Tesla data protection breaches, but it was too early for further comment.

Germany newspaper Handelsblatt reported on Thursday (May 25) that Tesla had allegedly failed to protect data, citing 100 gigabytes of confidential data leaked by a whistleblower.

“We are aware of the Handelsblatt story and we are looking into it,” a spokesperson for the AP data watchdog in the Netherlands, where Tesla’s European headquarters is located, told Reuters.

They declined all comment on whether the agency might launch or have launched an investigation, citing policy. The Dutch agency was informed by its counterpart in the German state of Brandenberg.

Handelsblatt said Tesla notified the Dutch authorities about the breach, but the AP spokesperson said they were not aware if the company had made any representations to the agency.

Tesla was not immediately available for comment on Friday on the Handelsblatt report, which said customer data could be found “in abundance” in a data set labelled “Tesla Files”.

The data protection office in Brandenburg, which is home to Tesla’s European gigafactory, described the data leak as “massive”.

“I can’t remember such a scale,” Brandenburg data protection officer Dagmar Hartge said, adding that the case had been handed to the Dutch authorities who would be responsible if the allegations led to an enforcement action.

The Dutch authorities has several weeks to decide whether to deal with the case as part of a European procedure, she added.

The files include tables containing more than 100,000 names of former and current employees, including the social security number of Tesla CEO Musk, along with private email addresses, phone numbers, salaries of employees, bank details of customers and secret details from production, Handelsblatt reported.

Adrianus Warmenhoven, a cybersecurity expert at NordVPN, said: “Autonomous intelligence technology is the most advanced type of AI, as it removes the need for human intervention.

“While we may still be a long way off a driver being able to take their eyes off the road, we are still putting faith in something which we don’t yet fully understand.

“This new technology is being designed with the driver in mind, but it is crucial that cybersecurity is not forgotten, as there may be dangers hiding beyond the control panel.

“It would take hackers a lot of work to bypass the built-in security features of these cars, but they could still find a way.

“Ransomware, wireless carjacking, key fob cloning and cyber-attacks on connected devices in the hardware and software of the car are all potential security concerns that could arise.

“This is an exciting time for car makers and the potential positives of self-driving cars outweigh the negatives. However, without a strong cybersecurity focus to future-proof these desirable vehicles, there is a risk criminals could already be preparing to manipulate this technology — so they can make a quick getaway without a hand on the steering wheel. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News