The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

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

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 thought that there was ever healthy competition amongst car manufacturers to the benefit of consumers – think again. They work much more closely than you think – often to the detriment of consumers.

In one case six truck manufacturers were found to have colluded in order to coordinate the pricing and release of new technologies needed to meet stricter emissions standards and when the new tech. should be released. The collusion lasted from 1997 – 2011 and ended up with total fines of £3.4 billion being issued against all of the participating manufacturers by European Commission.

The Competition Commissioners carried out a raid on the 6 companies which included Daimler, Daf, Iveco, Volvo and Renault. Scania decided not to settle with the Commission and were fined a year later for being a member of the Cartel. MAN was also part of the Cartel but as they had cooperated and provided evidence against the others they were immune from any fines.

A report in Fleet News revealed that following the investigation into the truck firms, the Commission, working on some inside information, decided to look further afield and found that German manufacturers, i.e. Daimler (Mercedes), BMW and VW Group had colluded to control the rollout of new technology for cleaner cars. Last month it was widely reported that the European Commission was carrying out an investigation into the allegations.

The antitrust investigators have already uncovered proof that the ‘Circle Of 5’ had held meetings to control the introduction of emission-reducing technology. The circle of 5 included Daimler (Mercedes), BMW, VW, Audi and Porsche. VW and Daimler have assisted the investigations and by being whistleblowers have avoided any fines. That certainly doesn’t seem right!

In October offices of several German car makers were raided and papers and other evidence removed. The German press suggested that there was evidence showing that the car makers had colluded to restrict the size of AdBlue tanks in order to reduce cost and space but potentially cause drivers problems.

Original AdBlue tanks were 35 litres that could clean emissions for up to 18,500 miles. In the end, after getting their heads together they ended up fitting tanks with just 8-litre capacity. The commission is currently investigating claims that the companies concerned colluded to limit the development and roll out of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Systems to reduce harmful Nitrogen Dioxide emissions from passenger cars with diesel engines.

They will also be investigating claims that the German 5 did the same with ‘Otto’ particulate filters (OPT’s) which reduce harmful particulate emissions from passenger cars with petrol engines. The Commission has stated that it aims to establish whether the conduct of Daimler, BMW and VW have violated anti-trust rules that ‘prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices, including agreements to limit or control technical development’.

Having said that the Commission said ‘At this stage, the Commission has no indication that the parties coordinated with each other in relation to the use of illegal defeat devices to cheat regulatory testing’. According to the report, the 5 were discussing many things at the meetings including the speed that convertible roofs should open and close, common quality requirements for car parts – I interpret that as deciding how long cars should last.

They also discussed common testing procedures, car safety developments and even the speed that cruise control will work. All very worrying. In closing, the Commission indicated that manufacturers could possibly put up a defence as the rules allow for cooperation between manufacturers in the name of safety and improved productivity. It begs the question as to what will happen after Brexit with no common oversight by the Commission when it comes to cars being sold in the UK? By Graham Hill

Those who take out a PCP or PCH that end up giving their car back at the end of the lease know how annoying it is to have to pay for repairs to their alloy wheels. A few years ago the average cost was about £30 – £50 to have one alloy repaired. But since the introduction of Diamond Cut Alloys that cost has increased to about £95 – £110 per wheel so I thought it would be useful to mention a new Alloy Wheel Protector.

Diamondbrite has brought out a new alloy wheel protector. The cost is £199 per set and has to be fitted to the wheels by a qualified fitter. The protector sticks to the edge of the wheel rim to form a toughened polymer barrier between the alloy and the kerb.

It can be fitted to used and new wheels and can be removed if need be. They can be left on the wheel when changing tyres or they can be removed. They can be created to blend in with the wheel shade or you can make a statement with a range of different colours.

The Diamondbrite protector works particularly well on Diamond Cut Alloys. So having the protectors fitted when new can save a great deal of money at the end of your lease. It also keeps the wheels looking good all the time you have the car. The protectors come with a 12-month warranty, cost £199 including fitting. There are fitters all over the country, contact Diamondbrite to find out more and your nearest fitter. www.jewelultra.com. By Graham Hill

The Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that an amazing 1 in 4 drivers who died on our roads in 2017 wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Official figures revealed that 1,793 people were killed on UK roads last year. Of those, 27% were not wearing a seatbelt, up from 20% the previous year.

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is currently £100 which rises to £500 if the case goes to court. Clearly, this isn’t enough of a deterrent. As much as we hated Jimmy Saville his clunk click campaigns worked but what on earth causes drivers not to belt up when they get into a car? It just doesn’t make sense. We need some new campaigns to make drivers aware of the dangers that still exist.

On to cars:

Cars are exposed to dangers as a result of ineffective speed bumps. A survey carried out by Confused.com revealed that over a fifth of drivers had experienced car damage as a result of speed bumps with repairs costing an average of £141. Whilst not classed as a road defect local authorities have paid out over £35,000 over the last two years in compensation.

Confused.com surveyed 2,000 motorists of whom 22% reported damage caused by driving over a speed bump of which there are 29,000 in the UK. Tyre damage was the most common – in 48% of the cases followed by 33% reporting suspension damage. 41% felt that speed bumps caused too much damage whilst a quarter said that they did nothing to reduce speed – probably the drivers who sustained damage to their cars – idiots!

Advice from Confused.com’s motoring editor, Amanda Stretton was to check the height of the speed hump if they sustained damage whilst driving at a reasonable speed to see if you qualify for compensation. Might have been handy to explain what that height should be! By Graham Hill

A company has been set up to deal with end of lease or rental charges when consumers or businesses receive excessive charges for damage repairs, excess mileage and late or missing service history. They will fight your case on a now win, no fee basis and so far they have had a success in 66% of the claims they have handled.

On average they have recovered £355 per claim for their clients which represents about a 54% saving on their original bill. The company takes a 30% cut of the money refunded or saved. Whilst I feel that these guys could help out most of what they suggest will be covered in my PCP report as end of lease charges are the same whether you take the car on a PCP or on a PCH.

The biggest issue for most is hiring a car abroad. You return to find that your credit card has been used to pay for some repairs to the hire car that you weren’t even aware of with no proof that damage had been caused. In those cases an outside agency could be really useful.

In the meantime download my 200 page guide by visiting www.grahamhilltraining.com  By Graham Hill

New rules came into force in May with the most controversial being the visual test applied to diesel cars. I mentioned in earlier posts that the examiner now has to look at the tailpipe of any diesel to see if there is smoke, of any colour, emitting from the exhaust. If there is it’s an immediate fail.

The other visual check is for any tampering of the particulate filter. Any signs of tampering is also an immediate fail. Following the new tests the Prestige Motor Warehouse carried out a survey amongst 50 MOT stations across the UK and found that in the first 3 months following the rule changes the number of cars failing their MOT testa has increased by 24%.

With other rules either tightened or introduced there was also a 12% increase in petrol engine failures. Other new checks included under-inflated tyres, contaminated brake fluid, and fluid leaks, these being responsible for several of the failures. There is certainly no reason to fail on tyre pressure, a quick visit to a garage before going for the test should sort that out. By Graham Hill