The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Good news for those who have a car that needs some repair work carried out on it and you have it done by a non-franchised (not a main dealer) garage. If the work isn’t carried out satisfactorily the normal course of action is to have a row with the garage and threaten legal action if he refuses to refund your money.

In future motorists will be protected from disputes with independent garages over unsatisfactory work as a result of a new £1,000 industry guarantee introduced by The Independent Garage Association (IGA). They pledge to cover bills of up to £1,000 from non-franchised garages who have signed up to their Trust My Garage scheme.

The scheme is due to come into force later in 2016 if work is found to be sub-standard and the garage refuses to pay back the money. As part of the terms of membership of any trade association the association has to provide an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) service, which IGA do, using the National Conciliation Service.

If the ADR finds in favour of the motorist the garage is obliged to pay whatever is awarded. However, if they still don’t pay, the IGA will pay up to a maximum of £1,000 per claim. There are currently around 2,700 member garages and growing according to IGA. You can find your nearest IGA garage by visiting www.trustmygarage.co.uk By Graham Hill

One of my customers, Zamir Hussain, has rather bizarrely found himself in court following an accident that wasn’t his fault. He was provided with a like for like replacement car (not cheap considering he has a Range Rover) but after the other driver’s insurance company disagreed with the amount claimed for the hire car he now has to go to court.

He could end up having to pay all or part of the bill which is several thousands of pounds and serves as a stark warning to anyone involved in an accident. The situation requires a little unravelling so please bear with me. You’ve had an accident that wasn’t your fault and your car is booked in for repair. There is no dispute that the other party is at fault.

You now have one of two choices, you can claim through your insurance company which means that you lose your no claims discount or you can make the claim yourself against the other party. However, and this is the first point to note, you must advise your insurance company that you have been involved in an accident. Failure to do so could cause your insurer to refuse to insure you in future. You should send a letter to your insurance company making it perfectly clear that you are not making a claim, simply advising them.

So you have advised your insurance company and you are now faced with another choice. The bodyshop repairing your car may offer you a courtesy car. This is exactly what it is, a courtesy provided by the repairer, which tends to be a small engine’d modest car to keep you mobile. On the other hand your insurer may suggest that you take a like for like car and recommend a credit hire company who will provide you with a car, either the same as the one you drive or a similar grade. By taking this route you don’t lose your no-claims bonus but the car rental is in your name.

The agreement between you and the credit hire company includes payment terms. They will seek to recover the cost from the other party’s insurance company but, and this is a big but, if the other insurance company refuses to accept liability for the accident or for any other reason refuses to pay, you are liable as the agreement is in your name.  Whilst you may feel you have a right to expect a like for like replacement there is an overriding obligation on you to mitigate the costs to the other party (and his insurer) in the event of an accident.

For example if you have an accident that wasn’t your fault and you feel your car is driveable, then instead of having the car checked by an engineer you continue to drive it, you could cause additional damage. If subsequently it is found that you have caused irreparable damage to the engine the other person’s insurance company would most certainly challenge a claim for a replacement engine – and probably win.

It seems that some insurance companies are challenging hire costs, not because they are too high for the car but that a direct replacement shouldn’t have been provided in the first place using the mitigation of cost argument for the challenge. They will also challenge a rental charge for a replacement car if you keep the hire car after your car has been repaired. You may stand a better chance of your claim succeeding if you lease your car. You should point out that you are still paying for the lease of your car whilst it is being repaired so you should be entitled to claim for a like for like replacement.

Some Credit Hire companies also provide a total risk agreement whereby, unless you have deliberately tried to defraud them, they will cover the cost in the event that they end up in court and lose the case. You need to check beforehand. It now starts to get a little messy. If you end up in court you may be asked if a courtesy car was offered and why you didn’t accept it. The advice is that you should tell the credit hire company if you are offered a courtesy car (you may be asked in court why it was essential to have a like for like car as opposed to a small courtesy car).

If you are not able to use the hire car during the period that your car is being repaired, for example if you are on holiday or you are unable to drive through injury or illness then the claim for that period could be thrown out. Here is another strange twist. Credit hire is known to be the most expensive way to finance a rental car. If you walked into a daily rental company and rented the same car it could cost up to £200 less per day but to do this you would be expected to pay in advance for the rental.

So as the accident wasn’t your fault why would you take this route, surely it must be down to the other party’s insurance company to pay the rental costs direct? Wrong. If it can be shown in court that that you had the resources to pay for the replacement car at the lower rate the court could find in favour of the insurance company for the difference. And it gets worse, supposing the car was a write off. How long would you be entitled to a Credit Hire car for? Most would assume from the time you had the accident to the time you receive the payout.

Some might argue, but not be successfully, that you need the hire car to drive around to inspect potential replacement cars. However, again, rather bizarrely, if it can be shown that you could have afforded to pay for a replacement you may not be entitled to claim for more than say a ‘reasonable’ 2 weeks. The expression used by the courts is ‘impecunious’ when you don’t have the funds to pay for a replacement in the case of a write off or pay for cheaper daily rental if your car is being repaired. So beware if you have a few quid in the bank.

Finally, there is the ‘upsell’. Only ever consider an upsell if the Credit Hire company doesn’t have a direct replacement and won’t charge a higher rate for the better car. Let’s say your car is a 3 Series BMW but because the Credit Hire company has no 3 Series available they suggest they provide a 5 Series. Check that they will still charge the 3 Series rate and don’t fall for the supplier saying that you don’t have to worry if the rate is higher as the other party’s insurance company will be paying.

They probably won’t. In summary only take a Credit Hire car if you are absolutely confident that it won’t result in you paying all or part of the bill. For your information you can check Nationwide Credit Hire Rates by clicking here. Incidentally to put this into perspective Zamir’s Credit Hire charge was over £6,000!!! By Graham Hill

A few years back a very good friend of mine asked me to help him with his night club which was still making money but over a period of 2 years had dropped away in popularity and income had suffered as a result. So with my vast knowledge of night clubs and my business expertise I started to investigate the reasons why it was less popular.

A few years previous they consistently had queues of over 100 people outside, waiting to get into the club, but at the time of my investigation it was rare to see a queue at all. We addressed many of the problems, changed the DJ, improved the sound system, re-organised the bar and increased the staff and other things that started to get the club buzzing again but one thing caused a serious fallout between us. Air conditioning.

He, like many bar and club owners, felt that if you kept the customers hot they would drink more and increase bar takings so he preferred to retain the ceiling fans planted around the place. How wrong can you be? The club was open till 2.30am but by 11.30pm punters started to leave and when asked why they were leaving they said it was simply too hot and uncomfortable.

Sadly, about 2 years later, the place closed. Brought about, in my opinion, by the fact that he refused to install air conditioning because of his assumption that when people get hot in a club they drink more. So what has this ramble got to do with cars? Well it’s to do with wheels. Let me explain. We now have a huge raft of options available on new cars, all aimed at making more money out of the customer.

One of the options frequently taken up by customers is wheels. Different styles and sizes can be added at an additional cost but very few clients actually see the chosen wheels on the car before it is delivered or drive it with the bigger wheels fitted. What may have looked pleasing to the eye online may make your new 4WD look like it is perched on stilts in real life.

And as many have found in the past, having larger chunkier wheels fitted to your new car may look tough but they can often make the ride much more uncomfortable, make handling harder and affect adversely the CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. So whilst the assumptions are generally the opposite, better road holding, more comfortable ride etc. you will not know unless you can test drive the car fitted with the upgraded wheels.

And make sure you see the wheels actually fitted on the car in real life, they may look great on line but in the cold light of day they could also look terrible. Just because you are paying more doesn’t mean the car will look or drive better and as with the air conditioning, base your decision on fact, not perception. By Graham Hill

Years ago Ford had a reputation for announcing new models long before they were in a position to launch. As a result pressure was on them to get the car into the marketplace whilst interest was at its highest. Subsequently, anyone who bought the brand new model with lots of new features became Ford’s own testers.

My ex wife became one of them when they brought out a brand new shape Fiesta. It looked great and the Ghia had loads of brand new features. Unfortunately the car spent more time in the local dealers during its first 6 months than in the hands of my ex.

But as newer cars rolled off the production line all of the faults were fixed and eventually my ex ended up with a car without rattles, windows that worked, no oil leaks and a rear window that didn’t drip water onto her shopping every time she operated the rear wash/wipe. Whilst it was irritating there were no health and safety or security issues just minor irritation that got sorted. Scoot forward a few years and you find Apple uses the same principle whenever they have a new iPhone to launch.

Remember the bendy big phone and the phone with the aerial built around the phone that lost the signal if you held it? So it should come as no surprise that when the recent head of steam started to build up around the desirability to have ‘Connected Cars’ that stuff would be released before being fully considered and fully tested. What us cost accountants would refer to as the ‘what if’ considerations. Many manufacturers have rushed to release apps that can be downloaded onto your phone that will remotely connect to your car.

The app will remotely monitor and control the car, locate it and even lock and unlock it. Yes I did just say that. The trouble is that not enough ‘what if’s’ were considered before the products launched leaving the new owner and the car vulnerable when sold. Fleet operator Ogilvie found that they still had access via their apps to a Tesla, BMW i3 and a Nissan Leaf after the cars had been sold although they pointed out that the Nissan could not be stopped or started via the app.

As more manufacturers join Jaguar Land Rover with their inControl, Tesla with MyTesla, Volvo OnCall, Vauxhall’s OnStar and Nissan Connect less attention could be given to security if it meant that the technology could be launched in no time flat. Some manufactures say they will delete the old account once the car is sold and one amazingly said that if they are called by the customer or fleet manager they can disable the App. Really? That sounds pretty secure – not! Tesla said that it is up to the old owner or new owner (or thief) to advise the change of ownership.

To prove the point Fleet News reported one ex Tesla owner able to access his MyTesla account a year after the car was sold. It is only now that leasing companies are discussing the end of lease procedures and a resolution that would see the disabling of apps. As part of the handover process. But what about private owners? Who will instruct those with Connected cars how to protect their privacy and new owners make sure that the previous owner no longer has access to their car. What a mess! By Graham Hill

Now here’s a funny story that I came across in Business Car. Apparently Essex police are urging drivers not to stop if they are requested to do so by ‘anything other than a marked police car’ following two van thefts earlier this month. In both cases a van was pulled over by disguised police men in an unmarked silver Mondeo equipped with blue flashing lights.

They requested a VW Transporter and Mercedes Sprinter to pull over on the M11 and the M25. The two men in the Mondeo wore fake uniforms with one of them reported to be also carrying a gun. In each case the drivers of the vans were left at the side of the road unharmed.

According to Essex police they have instructed officers to avoid stopping motorists whilst in an unmarked car except in an emergency. DCI Stuart Smith from the Kent & Essex Serious Crime Directorate said, ‘Anyone who is signalled to stop by an officer in an unmarked car should not stop but phone 999 immediately to verify whether the vehicle and its occupants are genuine’.

Can you imagine explaining this to a genuine police officer at the side of the M25 when they finally pull you over for speeding then add into the charges ‘using a mobile phone whilst driving’? All a bit worrying! By Graham Hill

How safe are our roads? This general question often refers to the general condition of our roads, how well they are maintained in bad weather, the safety of our cars and how well the cars are maintained. But what about the health of our drivers? Could drivers’ health affect the safety of our roads?

It would seem that whilst most drivers take things like drink driving very seriously and wouldn’t dream of driving a car without wearing a seatbelt it seems that they are nowhere near as vigilant when it comes to their health. Watching TV with a little bit of a squint is maybe a bit of an inconvenience and not focusing too well when reading the paper may be a little uncomfortable but what about driving?

As responsibility falls upon drivers to self regulate their eyesight how many actually meet the minimum standards? Many drivers are shocked when they finally feel the need to have an eye test and find that they badly need to wear glasses. If you drive with faulty eyesight you can be prosecuted but it’s a bit late if you are dead or badly injured in hospital or you have hit a cyclist or pedestrian that you didn’t see.

With an estimated 4 million drivers considered to have deficient eyesight, i.e. more than 10% of all drivers, how dangerous are our roads? We can add other conditions to poor eyesight, many of which are not considered as dangerous. This time of year there are those with hay fever who take anti histamines that, whilst a legal drug, can impair the driver’s ability to control a car.

Those with a bad back pain can be distracted because of the discomfort or could take strong painkillers that could impair their driving and slow down reaction times. Conditions such as sleep apnoea are not fully understood by those suffering who may believe they simply feel tired occasionally but if you have the condition it is even more important that you stop driving more quickly than those simply feeling a little groggy.

The fact is that our roads are made more dangerous by those who drive on them with a range of medical issues from poor eyesight to a dodgy knee. Is it about time that we all took greater responsibility and stopped putting ours and other’s lives at risk. Always read the labels of any medicines you are taking, even when they are bought over the counter, and follow the warnings. By Graham Hill

In the current Health and Safety obsession by the EU and lawmakers in all civilised countries I find this next piece very hard to believe can still happen, especially in the UK. If you are a recent reader of my musings you may not have read the piece I put out regarding the sort of health and safety attitude that existed in the US in the 1970’s.

Briefly, Ford had a car called the Pinto which happened to be the biggest selling ‘sub compact’ car in the US at the time. Unfortunately the design of the car was unsafe, they had placed the fuel tank in such a position that if the car was hit from behind the tank exploded.

More than 500 people died as a result of the Pinto bursting into flames when they were either driving or were a passenger in the car. Many more received severe burn injuries. When a burn victim sued Ford for the faulty design it was uncovered that Ford engineers had known about the problem for many years. But Ford management had carried out a cost – benefit analysis and concluded that it wasn’t worth the $11 per car to fix the problem by recalling all of the cars compared to the cost of recompense payable to the victims.

They believed that if the problem remained unfixed they would face claims from 180 burn victims and the families of 180 victims killed. They placed a monetary value of $67,000 on a burn victim and $200,000 on a death. They added to these costs the cost of replacing the cars. They concluded that if they fixed the problem it would save them $49.5 million in compensation and car replacement costs but the cost of repairing the 12.5 million cars affected would set them back $137.5 million.

So they concluded that the cost of paying out for losses and injuries was a better option than paying out for the cars to be repaired. This of course raised a number of issues that the US Government jumped on and Ford ended up with huge costs and penalties to pay. One would assume that this couldn’t possibly happen again in this day and age with a higher moral obligation placed on companies along with massive legal consequences.

But then I read about the recent problems experienced by Vauxhall Zafira owners. I had seen several YouTube videos of Zafiras catching light and cars being pretty much instantly destroyed. For ages Vauxhall denied the existence of a problem but after 300 Zafiras caught fire they were forced to take a more responsible approach. The problem was found to be in the car’s heating and ventilation system which led to a recall of all Zafiras, known as ‘B’ models on sale between 2005 and 2014.

They originally claimed that the problem had only come to light in 2014, following which they instigated a full recall in December 2015. However, when questioned by MP’s a couple of weeks ago, Peter Hope, customer experience director at Vauxhall, admitted that they had known about the problem as long ago as 2009 when the first fire was reported. Their excuse was that when cars are completely destroyed by fire there is very little evidence left to analyse in order to establish the cause of the fire.

The good news is that unlike the Ford Pinto no-one was even injured but that isn’t the point. At what stage does a car manufacturer take responsibility and carry out a very detailed investigation when consistent things go wrong with one of their car models? The estimated cost of repairs is £33.6 million – tough! Only now, in the month of August 2016 is a further 235,000 Zafiras, as agreed with the DVLA, being recalled to have the fault fixed.

Shame on you Vauxhall for putting customers through all this when it could have been avoided. When Vauxhall denied responsibility drivers no doubt made insurance claims for their losses, paying an excess and losing no claims bonus. This simply isn’t good enough and after making the cars safe again they should prepare a plan to pay those affected compensation, something, according to Peter Hope is not at the moment being considered. What a disgrace! By Graham Hill

For the first time in a decade the number of employees paying Benefit In Kind (BIK) tax has increased according to statistics released by HMRC for the years 2014/15. It may only be a 1% increase from 940,000 to 950,000 but it has all of the so called experts weighing in with opinions as to why this has happened.

Whilst Brexit is being flung around by a few they should reflect on the fact that these figures relate to 2014/15 when the referendum was but a glint in PM Cameron’s eye. In amongst the more believable reasons is that for the first time engine development has managed to pretty much keep pace with the increasing demands by the chancellor on BIK tax.

So whilst he has dropped the CO2 threshold year on year engines have become more efficient chucking out fewer CO2’s and therefore neutralising the effect on tax. Another view is that companies that had maybe reverted to car allowances, to allow employees to avoid benefit in car tax, or allowed employees to obtain their own cars, which they would drive for business and charge back company miles on the tax and NI free mileage rate, had moved back to company cars.

The reason for this move away from employee owned cars (known as the Grey Fleet) to company cars is not suggested to be financial but Health & Safety. Companies are responsible for the safety of cars driven by employees on company business, even when the cars are owned by the driver. So if an employee has an accident whilst driving on company business in his own car and the accident can be attributed to the car not being regularly serviced, the company is held responsible for the consequences.

Crazy but true. We are still nowhere near the peak of company owned cars of 1.16 million recorded in 2006/7 but the treasury must be pleased with this turn of events. They collected £1.9 billion from company car tax and NIC in 2014/15 so a nice little earner from them. Last time the number of company cars matched the current figure was 2011/12 when the tax and NI collected amounted to £1.66 billion.

This is as a result of tougher CO2 banding and of course the increase in cost of cars. Personally I continue to see a steady growth in the number of SME’s financing cars personally rather than through their business. Especially since the rates, provided by most leasing companies, are pretty much the same for business and personal applicants. By Graham Hill

Employers have a duty of care to their employees when driving on company business even if they drive their own car and claim a mileage allowance or receive pence per mile expenses. However, that doesn’t extend to the daily commute (unless the driver is on his way to a customer or somewhere business related other than their normal place of work).

However, according to AA DriveTech more employees are killed whilst commuting to and from work than those killed whilst on company business – rather chilling! I should caveat this by saying that the figures include those commuting by car, motorcycle and pedal cycle and whilst I have picked this information up from a report I know that if an employee has an accident whilst driving home after an employer has forced the employee to work unreasonable hours the employer can be held responsible.

But the legalities are not the point of this blog post, it is to make everyone aware of the dangers of driving when commuting. Whilst an employer may not believe he is responsible for an employee’s welfare during their commute the consequences can be equally damaging to the business and the employee. Whether an accident happens whilst on the way to work or out on company business the loss of the employee or the time taken to recover is the same.

So you may like to take note yourself and pass on to colleagues and employees the findings of AA DriveTech who have found that there are three dangerous periods when commuting with most accidents happening at differing places.

Between 4.30-7.00am most accidents happen on bends and rural roads. Between 7.00-9.00am the most dangerous places are T junctions and urban roads and in the evening between 4.00-6.00pm most accidents take place within 30mph zones. So now you know, bear in mind if you commute during these times. By Graham Hill

Is in car technology running ahead of legislation now? The Act of Parliament that controls the way that data is handled is the Data Protection Act 1998 and whilst there have been some periphery changes over the years we still rely upon the Act to ensure that we are all protected from miss-use of our data.

But in the days when this Act found its way onto the statute book things were vastly different. Most cars didn’t even have a hands free telephone system fitted let alone the mass of connectivity now fitted into cars. Arguments are appearing all over the place as to who owns the data and it all gets very confusing to the likes of you and I.

Of course not all information is sensitive and can be used by manufacturers to develop new cars and systems as well as provide accurate data to buyers. We all know how inaccurate fuel miles per gallon figures are but with so much data being recorded a manufacturer could average out fuel consumption across thousands of cars and come up with a far more accurate figure than they do at the moment.

But the question is – how to they arrive at this average? They would need to identify when you are driving around town compared to driving across country or on a motorway to measure Urban and Extra Urban figures. And how can this be done? Using GPS used by your sat. nav., even when you are not using the sat. nav.

Is it right that somewhere in the Big Data database there are recordings of where and when you traveled in your car at any point in time? These are questions that need to be addressed by the Government and a new version of the Data Protection Act worked on before Big Brother takes over our lives. By Graham Hill