The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

OK, I have this great new way of charging you for the electricity that you use. In future, you will be assessed by the amount of hot water you use per annum. The more hot water you use the more you will pay for your electricity. As a result, the Government will expect you to use less water and less electricity to heat the water. Makes sense?

Probably a bit of a silly example but the point is that linking the two items doesn’t seem like an obvious way for you to pay for your electricity. You pay for electricity as you use it – seems like a bloody obvious thing to do! So what’s this got to do with cars?

Well, a lot of what we spend on roads and the roads infrastructure is collected in various taxes. First Registration, Road Fund Licence and Fuel Excise Duties being the three main ones that come to mind (congestion charging, scaled parking charges are others). So how do we work out the charge? We charge based on CO2 emissions! No allowance for other emissions just CO2.

It just doesn’t make sense and even with the CO2 emissions, it’s simply assessed on how much comes out of the exhaust pipe over a kilometre. I might be travelling just 5,000 miles a year in a relatively high CO2 emitting vehicle but still pay more in RFL than someone travelling 40,000 miles a year in a car with CO2 emissions that are slightly lower. Again – makes no sense! What does make sense is charging per mile for the use of our roads – a bit like using electricity!

And that is what will have to be considered if we move over to either very low emission hybrids or zero-emission electric cars. To leave things as they are will mean drivers will pay nothing towards the upkeep of our roads infrastructure. So the first out of the blocks is the Republic of Ireland, working on a scheme whereby drivers pay to use roads by the mile in order to fill what could potentially be a fairly large black hole in the finances.

Our government is keeping an eye on what the Irish are proposing, to see if theirs is a model we should copy.  Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, announced earlier this year that whilst he acknowledged that many people felt that pay per mile was the way forward he had no immediate plans to change from the current method of funding our roads.

Unfortunately rather short sighted! Having said that I’m not sure how we would go about collecting the data and making the charges on motorists. By Graham Hill

Whilst the Government appears to be concentrating on the big issues such as free trade, immigration, security etc. work is still being done on the detail. Auto Express has been asking experts about some of the areas that are worrying Brits travelling abroad.

The first area of concern is driving licences. Will we need a special licence to enable Brits to drive in the EU? Some leaked EU presentation slides suggested that UK licences would no longer be recognised across the EU Bloc. Lawyer, Laura Newton who specialises in motoring and transport, for Rothera Sharp said that this is unlikely.

She believes that the UK driving licence will continue to be acceptable across the EU without additional paperwork required. As she pointed out the UK driving licence is already acceptable outside the EU in Commonwealth countries such as Australia as well as China and the USA where you can use your UK licence for 6 months before it has to be re-issued.

With that system working perfectly well Laura believes that there is no reason why the scheme could not continue post-Brexit. Expecting every driver to apply for an International Driving Licence to permit drivers to drive in each EU country would simply not be desirable or make sense. Added to this is the fact that we will be embedding EU law into UK laws post-Brexit, as they are at the moment, even from a legal viewpoint there is no reason to introduce additional controls.

Even if the UK wants to change or introduce new laws it is estimated that it will take 10-15 years with any changes most likely to be technology related – say automated or driverless cars rather than changes to existing motoring laws. So it’s unlikely that there will be too many arguments against allowing us to use our GB licences in Europe.

The next issue was car safety, would being outside the EU have an effect on safety standards applied to new cars? Well according to the secretary general of the Global New Car Assesment Programme (Global NCAP), David Ward, it will render the UK a ‘Second-hand Dealer’ in car safety. I’m not sure what he meant by that but he went on to say that Brexit meant withdrawing from a complex eco-system of vehicle regulation’, with the UK’s influence in vehicle safety diminishing. Not sure about that either but it looks pretty bad!

On the other hand Matthew Avery who is director of research at Thatcham Research assured us by saying that Brexit won’t reduce vehicle safety because the UK is a signatory to the UN type approval agreement which is the main process governing vehicle safety. He explained to Auto Express, ‘It has almost identical test procedures to those in the EC.’ ‘So even when we leave, our vehicles will still be aligned to the rest of Europe.’

In purely practical terms it wouldn’t make sense to have our own set of safety standards with so many of our cars being sold in Europe and vice-versa. Future EC directives, such as the proposed mandatory fitment of new tech such as autonomous emergency braking are likely to be adopted by the UK anyway. It wouldn’t make sense to have different designs for different countries. Thatcham, at the forefront of safety in the UK, will continue to be a member of the voluntary programme, Euro NCAP whilst possibly setting the bar higher putting pressure on manufacturers to achieve a new UK five star rating.

As was pointed out we don’t have to be a member of the EC to be a member of Euro NCAP. So Brexit will have no effect. Although, not being a member state when safety is being discussed by the remaining members, means that we will no longer carry the same weight as we did as a leading safety member of the EU influencing decisions.

What will happen to car insurance? As it currently stands all UK motorists have basic insurance cover while driving through EC member countries. The question is will Brits have to pay for extra cover if they drive around various EU countries post Brexit? Initially, it was felt by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), that motorists would need to revert to the old ‘Green Card’ system, whereby they had to apply for and pay for a special cover note before travelling to the continent. However, Ben Howarth, ABI’s senior policy advisor, motor and liability, said the paperwork would not be necessary.

The Government has made it clear that it wants to keep us within the Motor Insurance ‘Free Circulation Zone’. He explained that this would mean that drivers and hauliers should not have to pay for Green Card documentation from insurers when they travel in EU member states after Brexit. Apparently, this is a significant development, and once the Commission has agreed it, which is expected, it means that drivers, haulage operators and insurers will not face the considerable administrative disruption associated with the issuing of Green cards and also avoid border checks.

The ABI advises that drivers check their policies post Brexit as they may not carry the same level of cover that they are forced to carry whilst part of the EU. What is it they say? The devil is in the detail – and so it is with Brexit! By Graham Hill

I was reading a report prepared by road safety charity Brake, about the mental health of company car drivers the other day. The report was rather worrying because it was calling for companies to up their game in this area and identify earlier mental health problems that could affect their drivers.

However, as I read the report I started to think that this situation affects all drivers not just company car drivers so whilst companies could have checks in place, what checks are there when it comes to non-company car or business drivers? The report points out that whilst a happy driver with a positive attitude is not necessarily a safer driver, nor does it mean that a driver with mental issues will not make a perfectly good driver but psychologists have shown that poor attitude and a negative state of mind can adversely affect driver safety.

There is also little information regarding the state of a driver’s mind following an accident. So when an accident occurred as a result of a car going out of control the blame is often put down to tiredness or distraction rather than a sudden attack of depression. This can take the driver into a very dark place leading to suicidal thoughts. And this is worrying.

Companies have and will encourage employees to talk about mental issues which still carries a stigma. Brake wants companies to take this further and in the same way that businesses ensure that their vehicles are properly maintained and roadworthy similar checks on their drivers should also be put in place with drivers’ mental health assessed.

In a response reported in Business Car, Alison Moriarty, road risk and compliance manager for Skanska agreed with the views expressed by Brake but added potentially risky conditions for drivers which included depression, that could make them unconcerned for their own and others’ safety, and anxiety, which could cause sufferers to experience periods of unintended helplessness close to a state of paralysis – potentially dangerous when drivers may need to take split-second decisions to avoid a crash.

A string of recommendations was made to make it easier for employees to discuss mental problems and the importance for businesses to understand and react to the issues when identified. All good news which will hopefully make driving safer but the same checks and balances should also be applied to non-business drivers. Whilst it is believed that business drivers spend more time alone with little interaction with others with whom they can discuss their feelings the same must apply to those who don’t drive as part of their job.

I find it all very worrying. Maybe crashes need more investigation into the mental health of those involved and in-car telematics could be used to check for erratic behaviour. More certainly needs to be done in this area until all cars become driverless. By Graham Hill

As you know, if you read my newsletters, you will know that phase 1 of the exercise has been underway for nearly 12 months. Worldwide harmonised Light vehicles Test Procedures (WLTP) were introduced last September. After the 1^st September this year the same Euro 6 rules will apply to all vehicles but only vehicles that have been tested under the new WLTP rules and meet the Euro6 requirements can be sold.

This means that some cars that have only been tested under the old NEDC test procedures can no longer be registered. This meant that we expected a massive surge in the pre-registration and sale of the old model tested cars – it hasn’t happened. The manufacturers and dealers have been canny enough to make sure they weren’t carrying lots of old tested cars and vans meaning that they haven’t been applying massive bonuses as some expected them to do – me included!

Now bear with me because it gets a little confusing. The easy bit concerns the brand new model cars, let’s call them 2019 model cars. They have been re-designed to receive the approval so the CO2 and mpg figures are now more accurate and as a company car driver you will pay benefit in kind tax per the latest CO2 readings.

If you are driving a pre WLTP car they will still be tested and the new CO2 figures declared which, in most cases, are higher than the old NEDC figures. So to avoid sudden increases in BIK tax the revenue came up with a formula to apply to the new figures that will take the readings back to roughly where the old NEDC figures stood, known as the NEDC correlated figures. This will last till 2020.

The complication gets worse when the Real Driving Emissions test (RDE) is introduced from 1^st September. This involves equipment attached to new cars to measure emissions and mpg in real world driving conditions as opposed to the WLTP tests which are carried out in laboratory conditions. At the moment the Government has neglected to explain how the RDE tests fit in with the WLTP tests when it comes to all areas of vehicle-related taxation between now and 2020. In fact they haven’t released details relating to taxation post 2020 so anyone looking to take out a lease for a business car could be in for a shock when they receive their tax bill. It’s a disgrace! By Graham Hill

They are coming! In a survey carried out by the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), they found that 40% of small and medium-sized companies were unaware that CAZ’s would be introduced into UK towns and cities as early as next year. I would hazard a guess that even fewer consumers would be aware of the changes.

The survey also found that 38% were unaware that CAZ’s would involve charges for all but the most modern and least polluting diesel cars. The BVRLA advise that the charges in some cities could be as high as an eye-watering £100 per day for an HGV and £12.50 per day for other vehicles such as taxis and vans.

In addition, some local authorities have announced plans to charge drivers of more polluting diesel cars a CAZ-entry fee. Leeds, Derby, Nottingham, Southampton and Birmingham have been told to introduce CAZ’s by 2020 whilst a further 23 local authorities have been earmarked for CAZ implementation and a further 33 are considering what approach to take as part of their air quality strategy.

If you live or drive into London you could be in for a shock! From April 2019 they will be introducing a 24/7 Ultra-Low Emission Zone which is then set to extend to an area 18 times larger than its initial size by 25^th October 2021. No that isn’t a typo, it is 18 times the size!!

I agree with Gerry Keaney, CEO of the BVRLA who said to Business Car, ‘Unless more is done to publicise the impact of these various CAZ’s and mitigate their impact, hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country will be hit with a regional road transport tax that will bring additional cost and confusion at a time when firms are already dealing with Brexit-related economic uncertainty.’

I also agree with the BVRLA who have called for policy-makers to introduce a range of measures to help fleets to transition to cleaner vehicles. This should include restricting the use of CAZ’s to essential areas keeping them as small as necessary.

With the widespread introduction of CAZ’s, there needs to be an element of standardization introduced. This should include such things as signage, communications, exemptions and application. It seems wrong that you should be able to travel into one town centre in your car without a fee whilst being charged in another.

One suggestion is to award mobility credits to drivers of older diesel cars that will allow them to travel at reduced rates on public transport, car hire and car share if they agree to scrap their old polluting cars. Personally, I can’t see that happening, especially if the drivers live in the country with poor transport access.

If someone had said to you just 5 years ago that technology will have progressed to the point where you could get out of your car, in front of your garage or beside a parking space, press a park button and the car would park itself – you’d have thought they’d overdosed on something dodgy!

Apparently, the technology has been about for years but the law has prevented car manufacturers from fitting it to new cars because in order to drive or park a car you must be behind the wheel. Some manufacturers have an app that you can use on your mobile device to park the car so even though you could still be sitting in the car it’s still illegal to use a mobile device whilst in control of a vehicle.

After representations from motor manufacturers, insurers and haulage companies the Government held a consultation on changes to the Highway Code and relevant regulations earlier this year. As a result, changes have been introduced that allow drivers to use a remote control parking device if they are within 6 meters of their vehicle.

Whilst still not 100% clear it would seem that you could use the remote parking on your mobile device if sitting in the car because you have passed control of the car over to the car itself. This will be great for larger cars, having to negotiate tight parking spaces as well as parking your car in a garage that isn’t wide enough to park the car and open the driver’s door.

This is now law and some manufacturers already have these devices available such as Mercedes, Peugeot and Jaguar. Many have applauded the new technology believing that it opens up more parking spaces that may appear too tight but with the aids fitted could shoe-horn your car into the space available. Personally, I feel people should learn to park and as my dad used to say – ‘just something else that can go wrong’. By Graham Hill

Mercedes announced earlier this year that their Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) E and C Class cars would be diesel-electric as opposed to the majority of PHEV’s which are petrol-electric. As most people know, diesel cars already emit less CO2 than their petrol equivalents so by adding the diesel engine to a 90KW electric motor the CO2 emissions reduce even further.

So whilst some manufacturers reacted far too quickly (in my opinion) to the adverse reporting on diesel engine emissions by removing diesels from all future development some are embracing the combined benefits of diesel-electric compared to petrol-electric. But as with normal diesels the picture is far from clear. No thanks to the Government.

For example, Peugeot had a diesel-electric plugin but due to poor sales announced in 2016 that it would be dropping it. In 2012 Volvo had a diesel-electric plug-in but dropped it in favour of petrol-electric followed by recent announcements to go all-electric next year (2019) with every car they sell having an electric motor.

Audi and Landrover favour a diesel-electric in the larger 4WD models although the new Land Rover models will be produced with petrol-electric combinations. Then there is Kia who announced earlier this year that they would be jumping on the diesel-electric boat with the launch of a Sportage and Ceed with diesel-electric power in 2018.

Confused? Yeah – me too! By Graham Hill

New insurer ‘By Miles’ is set to shake up the car insurance industry. The first pay-per-mile insurance policy is believed to save motorists hundreds of pounds each year. Drivers pay a flat rate annual fee to cover the car against damage and theft when the car is parked. Thereafter the driver is charged per mile whenever he uses his car.

The policy is aimed at those travelling less than 7,000 miles per annum which is around 50% of all UK drivers. The distances are recorded by a telematics device that the owners plug into their cars On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) port. Each journey can be tracked and recorded on a dedicated smartphone app then the driver billed monthly based on the distance travelled.

Motorists taking out a policy will be charged a minimum of £150 per annum and 3.0 pence per mile although the per mile charges stop after 150 miles in a single day or 10,000 miles per annum. James Blackham, co-founder of By Miles said car finance has ‘barely changed in 30 years. Every extra mile you drive adds to the risk of having an accident. We think it’s high time that is reflected in the price infrequent drivers pay’.

Matt Cullen of  The Association of British Insurers approved of the new way to insure cars. Motoring habits are changing as are consumer needs so it makes sense to adapt things like insurance policies. The AA also admitted that it was investigating real-time insurance cover. I think that it’s a great idea and should take off. By Graham Hill

According to the RAC, the UK’s pothole problem is getting worse, not better as it should be by now. The number of cars damaged by pothole strikes is at a 3 year high.

Data released by the RAC shows that 4,091 motorists reported breaking down between April & June 2018, the highest 2^nd quarter in 3 years – as a result of snapped springs, damaged shock absorbers and distorted wheels along with other pothole caused damage.

RAC Chief Engineer said councils were ‘not winning’ the battle against potholes. ‘Despite further emergency funding from central government, their budgets are even more stretched than in previous years. The overall quality of our roads should be getting better, not worse,’ he added.

I fear that it will take a major accident caused by a driver losing control of his car having hit a pothole before the Authorities finally take the situation seriously. By Graham Hill

How many times have you driven along a massive stretch of roadworks with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour only to get to the end without so much as a sniff of a worker? Annoying isn’t it? Well, following complaints Highways England is now looking at the situation with a view to possibly increase the speed limit from 50mph to 60mph when it isn’t putting workers at risk.

The counter argument has been put forward in the past that when long-term motorway roadworks are being carried out the lanes are reduced, a good reason why the limit should be brought down as it reduces the danger to drivers also. But without workers in danger, it is felt that the limit could still be increased to 60mph to improve traffic flow.

As an example, they mention weekends when the limit could be increased to 60mph on Sundays then reduced back to 50mph ready for Monday. They are also looking at the possibility of retaining the 50mph limit when commuting to work but return home with a limit of 60mph and in places where the workers are some way away from the traffic lanes. Jim O’Sullivan, Highways England Chief Executive, said that whilst motorists appreciate the need for road works they also find them frustrating.

They have already carried out pilots with permanent limits of 55mph and 60mph but this is the first time they have considered switching limits – no doubt using latest technology. If they introduce this new scheme it should improve traffic flow. The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned. By Graham Hill