The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

In last night’s edition of Rip-Off Britain, we followed a police team as they stopped cars without insurance. A number recognition camera mounted in the back of a police van identified vehicles without insurance and when found would alert a policeman down the road who would pull over the driver.

Without insurance, drivers were issued a ticket with a fixed penalty along with 6 points on their licence. Then to add to the pain the car was immediately uplifted and taken to the police compound resulting in additional charges.

I had no sympathy for those with no insurance but they found drivers who had purchased insurance online only to find that even though they could show that they had a certificate and proof of payment out of their bank account they had their cars impounded and ended up in court. One driver who had been scammed received a fine and points on his licence for not having a licence even though he was paying monthly, hade a certificate and policy, both of which looked fine but were fakes.

The police warned about the scams. In it’s most simple form the scammers advertised on Social Media offering insurance at 75% off (that would never happen) and only a mobile phone number as a contact point. You would receive a policy and certificate – all fake. The scammer will normally want the whole premium upfront although the man in the programme was paying £120 monthly.

The next scam was an actual broker providing a genuine policy and certificate but with all your details changed. It would show a different address, age, no claims bonus etc. When all added up it would cause the rate to drop substantially with the scammer pocketing the difference in premium. The scammer will normally expect all the premium upfront.

The last scam would result in you receiving your policy and certificate from a broker but the broker then cancels the policy without the knowledge of the driver and receives the refund of the insurance premium. Again the broker will ask for the whole of the premium upfront.

If you want to check to see if your car is insured click on the link and enter your registration number: https://ownvehicle.askmid.com/#  By Graham Hill

Having been in this industry for over 35 years I’ve managed to get a reputation for being hugely critical of leasing companies. I fight with them regularly in an effort to get customers treated fairly, you only have to google Graham Hill PCP and see how outspoken I am about the way that PCP agreements are sold. But today I heard from one of my customers with proof that not all leasing companies are simply heartless businesses.

I had a call from one of my long-serving customers a few weeks ago explaining that his wife was terminally ill. Very sad news indeed and quite sudden. We got onto the practical subject of his wife’s car that was leased through me and what would happen? The agreement was with VW Finance and was just over halfway through.

The legal position was quite simple, if you early terminate a car you must pay an early settlement fee which is usually about 50% of outstanding rentals. In this case it was £4,300. Whilst expectations were not high it was decided to contact the funder to see if they would take a sympathetic view.

After asking for some proof of his wife’s condition the leasing company contacted my client and said that given the very sad circumstances they were prepared to waive the termination cost in total and when the car was collected the collection agent, with no knowledge of my client’s condition, kept the refurbishment charge to an absolute minimum.

Whilst the circumstances were incredibly sad the actions of the leasing company, VW Finance, proved that they aren’t just money-grabbing businesses but a business with a heart. Well done VW Finance, you are my leasing company of the year. Commiserations and best wishes to my clients, both the husband and his wife, our prayers are with you. By Graham Hill

Every year for the last 20 years Auto Express carry out tests on various car care products and award the best with their Product Award. They take account of price, ease of use, performance etc. I thought it would be handy to list their top award winners so far this year. For more details, you can search for Auto Express Best Products. In the meantime here are the best products:

Car Washes: Halfords Car Wash & Wax, cost £2 for 1 litre. Whilst this was the cheapest tested it wasn’t this that caused it to win. You use a little more than other brands but it is much cheaper.

Clay Bars: Bilt-Hamber Auto Clay Regular, cost £9.95 for 200g Clay bars cut through contaminants that bond to the painted surface of a car. This was one of the best priced and the best performer.

Polishes: Angelwax Perfect Polish, cost £9.95 for 500ml. This one saw off some of the more popular brands such as Simoniz, Autoglym an Autobrite. There was little to choose between Autobrite and Angelwax so in the end it was down to price with Angelwax edging it.

Waterless Cleaners: Meguiar’s Waterless Wash And Wax Anywhere, cost £16 for 768ml. Strangely liked for its smell as well as its performance simply spray, wipe then buff and admire the shine. The shine was also the longest lasting.

Waxes and Sealants: Bilt-Hamber Double Speed-Wax, £14.95 for 250ml. Apparently, you can pay up to £50 for a carnauba paste(which is what this is) so great value for money. 24 were tested over 9 weeks with this one coming out on top.

Wheel Cleaners: Bilt-Hamber Auto-Wheel, cost £12.99 for 1litre. In this case the smell was horrendous – eggy in nature. However, the cost and the efficiency of the product made it to the top of the list of 19 tested.

Wheel Wax & Sealants: Wonder Wheels Wheel Sealant, cost £6.50 for 300ml. Best performance and best price this product takes time because you need to properly clean the alloys before applying and it takes time for the product to cure – but well worth the wait apparently.

Tyre Shine: CarPlan TyreSlik, £4.10 for 500ml. This is uniquely the only product tested by Auto Express that has remained in the number 1 position since testing began 20 years ago. Well done!

Upholstery Cleaner: Simoniz Upholstery & Carpet Cleaner, cost £3.18 for 500ml. This was one of the only foam cleaners with a brush fitted to the can. Most others were trigger applicators but none performed as well as this cleaner and low cost.

Screenwashes: Prestone Extreme Performance Screen Wash, cost £3.50 for 2litres. This wash, ready made up was great value for money, cleaned the screen well and won in both categories, winter and summer with the summer version cheaper than the competition.

Headlamp Bulbs: Philips Racing Vision, cost £25.99 for a pair. By far the best bulbs out of 20 tested, brightest and topped all but one of the various tests.

Sat Navs: Tom Tom Go, cost One Year’s Subscription £14.99. In this category they tested both sat-nav units and mobile phone apps with this app being the winner. They’ve stuffed many of the features of their top navs into the app.

Dash Cams: Nextbase 612 GW, cost £249.99. The cam has a radius of 150 degrees and records in 4K Ultra HD. The camera picked up pedestrians in the dark and could read number plates from afar. A polarised filter sits on top of the lens making the colours sharper. Given the quality it offers very good value for money.

Tyres: Continental Premium Contact 6, cost £93.20. Wet or dry this car came out on top, sharing the top spot with Michelin in the dry but by far the best in the wet with no other car coming close. All round a very good tyre.

Winter Tyres: Continental Winter Contact TS860, cost £117.22. Not the best in the snow but in the wet that dominates British winters it was streets above the competition. Changing tyres between summer and winter is still not popular but for those that need to change tyres they refer to this tyre as a Truly Remarkable Tyre.

All Season Tyres: Continental All Season Contact, cost £120.64. Out of all the tyres tested this tyre came either first or second in every test making it by far the best all season tyre even after Continental had said that you either changed tyres between summer and winter or put up with a compromise. This is their first attempt at an all season tyre.

Many thanks to Auto Express – By Graham Hill

It’s obscene the way that some law firms advise dealers on what to do to deprive consumers of their legal rights. If you are a regular reader of my news items you will have read how dealers are advised to repair faulty cars during the rejection period of 14 days ‘under warranty’.

This is because if you reserve your right to reject the car but allow the dealer to fix the problem he only has one chance to fix it. But if he repairs the car ‘under warranty’ that does not count as his one chance so in law if the car hasn’t been fixed he can have another attempt.

So what are they now saying to dealers to deprive customers of their rights? Again it is to do with faulty cars just after ‘purchase’. I say purchase but what I mean is financed on a PCP or Hire Purchase agreement. They are telling dealers to forcefully explain that if there is a problem with the car it is their responsibility and to bring it back for them to sort out.

The reason for saying this is that if you have a rejectionable complaint you should take it up with the finance company and not the dealer as it is the finance company that owns the car and is responsible for the quality of ‘the goods’. But if you complain to the finance company according to the lawyers they are more likely to roll over and agree to a rejection or a repair than the dealer would.

If a consumer doesn’t get satisfaction from the finance company they can refer the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) which will determine the case not on the law but whatever he deems to be ‘reasonable’.

Finance companies don’t like dealing with the FOS as it costs them money so better to accept the rejection then go for the dealer who is then over a barrel as most dealers wouldn’t have the resources to fight the legal team of a lender.

The agreements between the dealers and the finance providers are generally heavily stacked against the dealer so the lenders are less likely to fight the consumer if they know they can pursue the dealer for the costs.

So the point I’m making is if you have a complaint about a car that you bought on a PCP or HP agreement take it up with the finance provider NOT the dealer, you ar more likely to get a result. By Graham Hill

A must read report whether you are an employer or you drive your own car on company business, even if it is only to drop off the post at a local post box or post office!

According to this report in Fleet News one in six at-work drivers says they have been involved in an accident when taking a call from a colleague, new research suggests.

The study, commissioned by Driving for Better Business (DfBB), also revealed a worrying lack of checks for employees driving their own car for work, the so-called grey fleet.

It showed that half of business leaders polled (49%) expect their employees to answer their phone at any time, including while driving for work.

Almost half of employees (45%) said they experience stress when they receive a call from their boss while driving for work. One in six employees who drive for work (17%) said they have been involved in an incident when driving for work due to a phone call from a colleague.

Despite it being illegal, one in 20 executive directors and one in eight employees thought the hard shoulder was a safe place to take a phone call.

Meanwhile, six in 10 (61%) employees admitted they do not always, or only sometimes, find a safe place to make or receive a work call when driving for work with just over one in eight (13%) thinking it safe to take a phone call while parked on the hard shoulder of a motorway.

The findings also showed that despite three quarters (75%) of executive directors claiming to ensure employees are aware of their legal obligations in relation to driving for work, nearly half (45%) of employees surveyed who drive their personal car for work said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

It found that managers were not performing checks on grey fleet drivers and 60% of respondents said they were unsure if any or how many employees use their own car to drive for work purposes.

Furthermore, nearly a half of employees who use their personal car for work purposes (45%) said they have not been given a copy of their employer’s driving for work policy.

The survey reveals that 90% of drivers used their personal cars for work journeys, 75% doing so at least once a week, yet a third of these drivers (33%) were not insured to do so – saying they do not have cover for business use on their vehicle insurance. Only a third (34%) said their employer had checked their driving licence.

The survey also found a poor approach to vehicle checks and maintenance by employees. Nearly three quarters of employees who drive for work (74%) said when they check their tyres they simply take a quick glance to see that tyres look ‘OK’.

Simon Turner, campaign manager for Driving for Better Business said: “The report shows a disparity between what employers and employees are saying when driving for work.”

He says senior managers are failing to communicate and implement a robust driving for work policy to keep those who drive for work safe, particularly for the grey fleet.

“Leaders are failing to carry out basic due diligence checks such as ensuring that all employees have a driving licence or vehicle insurance,” he said.

“At the same time, the study highlights employees are putting themselves at risk while driving for work, not checking that vehicles are roadworthy and exhibit reckless behaviours when using their mobile phone.”

He continued: “Leaders must implement a driving for work policy that enforces legal and ethical obligations on all employees that drive on work-related journeys.

“Regular checks need to be put in place to ensure that employees have read and understood the guidelines laid out in the driving for work policy. In doing so, the associated risk to road users and pedestrians is reduced.”

Driving for Better Business promotes a free seven-step programme of action to reduce occupational road risk. Organisations that introduce the DfBB programme have experienced significant operational, financial and employee benefits.

Turner concluded: “A good practice driving for work policy ensures that at a minimum, organisations are compliant with all relevant legislation and guidelines.

Once implemented, these policies complement more general employee safety and wellness programmes as well as introduce efficiencies that reduce costs associated with employees that drive for work purposes.”

DfBB surveyed 1,006 employees and 255 executive directors from the UK. The survey was conducted by Censuswide. By Graham Hill with thanks to Fleet News.

In a report in Auto Express, Chris Grayling calls for motorway fuel retailers to share live price data via apps and sat-navs

Motorway fuel retailers should share live pricing information to prevent drivers being taken advantage of, the transport secretary has said.

Chris Grayling has contacted a number of motorway service station operators, asking them to list how much they are charging for petrol and diesel at their motorway forecourts at any one time on smartphone apps and sat-navs.

If motorists were able to access this data in advance, rather than having to pull off the motorway and drive to the forecourt, they would be able to better plan motorway journeys and work out where to get the cheapest fuel. In addition, the Department for Transport has suggested that the data could be used by autonomous vehicles in future.

Petrol and diesel prices at motorway service stations can be around 15p per litre more expensive than at other retailers.

Grayling said that, if motorway fuel retailers decline to make their live pricing data openly available in the way he has suggested, he will launch an “urgent review” into how motorists can refuel affordably.

“Fuel prices are highest on motorways, taking advantage of drivers who have less choice when it comes to shopping around,” said Grayling. “Accessing this data on a smartphone or sat-nav means motorists can plan ahead and refuel safely at the best possible price.”

RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams commented: “While we welcome the idea of motorway fuel retailers sharing their pricing data in terms of better transparency, the reality is any app will only tell drivers what they already know – that motorway fuel prices are unbelievably expensive.”

Williams added that RAC research has shown 44 per cent of drivers “would never buy fuel on the motorway”, advising motorists to try and find forecourts that charge at or below the average price of fuel. By Graham Hill

Many moons ago my dad bought a brand new Cortina and one of the options at the time was electric front windows. I asked if he was going to have the option as it looked pretty cool and his answer was – why? What problem did electric windows address? And besides which it was something else to go wrong.

Hand-cranked windows rarely went wrong and if they did a sharp bang on the inside of the door seemed to sort it out. So when you read daily of car crime increasing because of crooks being able to break into keyless car technology and nick cars and contents on an industrial scale I find myself asking the question – why? Why does the technology even exist?

What problem does keyless entry solve? I understand remote controls, one of the best things ever invented for TV’s and cars. With respect to cars, you no longer have to fumble in the dark to find a hole in which to stuff your key or breath on the door lock to defrost it enough to insert the key and gain entry on a frosty morning.

No more fumbling in the rain and with some diesels, remotely unlocking the car from a distance actually activates the pre-heaters which should be activated before starting the engine. So why this obsession with keyless entry? What is the problem it is solving over and above a remote key.

A remote key is capable of transmitting around a trillion variants of its generated code that allows the car to be locked/unlocked/boot opened etc. The only time the code can be accessed is when you push the button to transmit which is then changed the next time you lock or unlock the car making it incredibly difficult to break into the car.

On the other hand, a keyless device is transmitting constantly making it easy for crooks to harvest the code and unlock then start the car using a handheld computer device to gain entry. The fact is that it isn’t like my iPhone with either fingerprint or facial recognition you need to carry something so why not a remote key?

Personally, I don’t think my life will be in any way enhanced by having keyless entry so with a higher risk of theft and no doubt higher insurance premiums give me a remote control. My Audi is even more dopey. I have a remote control to open and lock the car and boot but when I’m in the car I have to press a button to start it with the remote control taking up space in one of my cup holders. Crazy!

In order to overcome the security issues faced by those with keyless entry I’ve scanned the solutions introduced by manufacturers and found that most either overcome the problem by using a Faraday bag that encases the signal or the remote can either be deactivated (a bit like pressing a button on a remote control) or it will deactivate itself if there is no movement. My solution is much easier, revert back to remote controls!

If you are concerned about keyless entry with your car some manufacturers have allowed for the keyless entry to be disenabled either yourself or by a main-dealer. Call their customer services or call into a dealer to find out. By Graham Hill

As if things weren’t bad enough for those looking to change their cars this year or to take out a contract hire agreement for the first time, we are now hit with the news that used car values have taken a dive.

Brexit has had an adverse effect on most industries but especially on the car industry. For over 30 years we have benefitted from ‘dumping’, not my favourite expression but used to explain the way European manufacturers use the buoyant UK market to keep their production lines moving or to dispose of excess stock. Got a problem – bung a few more cars in the direction of the UK!

But times are changing. Many manufacturers don’t see the same future in the UK so are heavily investing in Europe, educating them into the methods of acquiring cars more cheaply rather than heavily discounting cars destined for the UK. The net result is higher cost of cars with fewer available forcing up prices even further. Poor exchange rates have affected costs also which in turn has pushed up rates.

The saviours over the last 2 years has been a very buoyant used car market which has had the effect of reducing rentals as lenders factor in strong resale values at the end of each lease. But for the last two months we have seen close to a collapse of used car prices giving the leasing companies the jitters.

2016 was a mega year for new car leases with the most popular lease period being 3 years so we knew that supply would increase this year but with demand dropping it has made matters worse. Whilst things may be wildly different in 3 years, as current cars end their lease period, this drop in used car prices, largely unexpected, has put the leasing companies on the backfoot.

Industry experts have suggested the old argument that this is a re-alignment of used car prices and that used cars had been overpriced for a while but will that wash and remove the panic to re-align lease rates time will tell but for the moment I wouldn’t expect lease rates to do anything other than increase. See a bargain – nab it before it goes. By Graham Hill

So what’s he up to this time I hear you ask? Well Mr Angry of West Sussex here is getting really annoyed that we don’t hear anything concrete from this Government regarding diesel cars vs petrol cars vs hybrids vs electric cars.

He’s called for a national scrappage scheme which I don’t disagree with. The real culprits are the very old cars and vans that can be seen spewing out thick smoke and soot which is clearly not good for the atmosphere and the health of our nation.

Having said that MOT testers now have to carry out a visual check on the exhaust of all vehicles and if they are spewing out smoke they fail – simple as. Back to Mr Khan, he’s calling for a national scrappage scheme, not to put people into newer petrol cars that would be a step in the right direction (not exactly as I’ll explain) but into pure electric vehicles.

Well, first of all, you don’t have to be a financial whizz kid to realise that people that are driving old diesel cars about are either eccentric multi-millionaires that are tight with their money but can appreciate a good deal when they see it or is it because they are financially stretched and can’t afford a newer car otherwise they would be driving one?

So expecting these people to swap their old diesel for either a hugely expensive new electric car or a used electric with a range of 3 miles, on a good day, is pure idiocy! And if we could incentivise the diesel drivers to move across to electric cars what about the infrastructure. I live in a rural Sussex town but with the remnants of an old marriage taking up space in my garage that couldn’t accommodate my car anyway (even if it was empty) and with no power to the garage – charging in my garage would not be an option.

Parking in the road is manic and with lamp posts located on the inside of the pavements, we couldn’t even mount chargers on the lamp posts. The idea that we can convert everyone into EV drivers is a pipedream and not possible until battery technology catches up. A lightweight battery pack that could be easily removed from the car and charged indoors then reconnected into the car when needed could be a solution – but we aint there yet!

In the meantime, the answer would be to get new car buyers, with the ability to charge electric vehicles, to buy EV’s or plug in hybrids, the more sold would bring down the cost of used cars and make them more affordable.

But as the Government has removed the subsidy on hybrids and reduced the subsidy on EV’s it’s hardly a move in the right direction. And even companies, keen to get their company car drivers into EV’s with zero emissions face the challenge from employees that BIK tax this year, even on cars with zero emissions, face a BIK bill of 16% of the car’s overpriced list price.

I should also mention that if you read my 3 part report into the findings by the Germans who carried out a large survey into latest generation diesel cars only to find that emissions of NOx, CO2 and particulates were less than petrol when tested on the road in real world conditions so if anything we should be moving back to diesel as an interim measure.

Sorry Mr Khan, consider the above then I would get back to the drawing board if I were you!  By Graham Hill

Fleet News reported on the following that I found interesting so I thought I would pass on, especially as I was nearly blinded last night when driving to Tesco in the rain last night. It’s incredible to think that headlamp regulations haven’t been changed since the 1960’s. Think we need an update!

The problem of glare – caused a headlight’s beam having a dazzling effect for oncoming traffic – is getting worse, research from the RAC suggests.

Nine in 10 drivers said ‘some’ or ‘most’ car headlights are too bright and 54% of these said they are dazzled more regularly now than a year ago.

When asked how they are affected by glare, six in 10 of those affected said they regularly get dazzled by oncoming headlights even though they are dipped, with a similar proportion (60%) being unable to tell if headlights are either dipped or on full beam.

Almost half (45%) also complained that they get dazzled by headlights in their rear-view mirror, while 70% believe some lights are so bright they represent an accident risk.

In fact, official Government data shows there are around 300 collisions every year where dazzling headlights are a factor.

Drivers were less clear on the likely causes of glare, however. Half (51%) blamed vehicles that sit higher on the road, such as increasingly popular sports utility vehicles (SUVs), for dazzling them although 41% said the problem was not caused by any particular type of vehicle.

Similarly, when it comes to lighting technologies, 55% believe ‘bluer’ xenon or the most modern LED headlights are to blame, but a similar number (51%) are not sure or cannot tell the difference between the types of lights.

The research also found that in some cases drivers themselves might be inadvertently causing glare – either by not adjusting their lights correctly, or by having badly-aligned lights. Almost half (47%) of drivers either never adjust their car headlights up or down when carrying different loads, or don’t do it regularly enough – something that is important in avoiding causing other people to suffer from glare as the aim of the headlight beam is affected by the load in the vehicle.

A quarter of drivers (26%) meanwhile have suspected problems with a misaligned headlight, with 9% of this group either trying to sort the problem out themselves or ignoring it altogether – all of these scenarios are likely to lead to a dazzling effect that could cause other road users discomfort.

RAC spokesperson Rod Dennis said: “The dazzling effect of another driver’s headlights isn’t just uncomfortable – in some cases it can be nothing short of dangerous, making us lose sight of the road for a short time. So it’s concerning to see that a greater proportion of drivers have reported problems with glare this year than last year.

“Among some drivers there is a perception that newer headlights cause more glare. But while a sizeable proportion claim it is the xenon headlights more often found in higher-end vehicles that are primarily to blame, a greater proportion either don’t know the difference between lights or aren’t sure.

“In reality, the issue of glare is a complex one and it’s not as straightforward as saying one type of lightbulb causes more of a dazzling effect than another – there are a range of reasons why a driver might be dazzled, from a slight misalignment of a headlight, the difference in ride height of different vehicles and even individual people’s vision. That explains why not every car headlight appears to be dazzling, with eight-in-10 drivers saying only some cause glare.”

Headlamp aim forms part of a vehicle’s MOT, and the requirements on garages to conduct this part of the test thoroughly were strengthened in 2016.

However, figures obtained by the RAC from the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) show that of the 26.5m MOT tests completed in 2018 for Class 4 vehicles (which includes cars) over three years of age, 6% still failed as result of problems with headlamp aim, the equivalent of nearly 1.6m vehicles.

In 2016, the agency also stated that “headlamp aim consistently tops the MOT compliance survey as one of the most likely items to be assessed incorrectly by testers”.

Dennis said: “All headlights have to meet specific international standards, which motorists might be surprised to discover haven’t been updated since the 1960s and so do not take specific account of newer technologies like xenon and LED. And an overwhelmingly proportion of drivers – 84% – now want the UK Government to act to ensure the regulations are updated to remove the possibility of glare being a result of modern technology.”

I find I get dazzled regularly – what can I do?

• Talk to your optician. If you wear glasses, a coating can be added that can go some way towards making it easier to see when you are faced with car headlights. A quarter (25%) of respondents to the RAC survey wear such glasses.

• Adjust your rear-view mirror more often. Unless your car has a self-dimming rear-view mirror, you can reduce glare from vehicles behind you by doing this – more than half (56%) of drivers who responded to the survey say they do this.

By Graham Hill