The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

I reported last week that three constabularies, Thames Valley, Hampshire and West Midlands were instructing officers to randomly stop drivers and carry out a number plate reading test whereby the driver is expected to read a number plate 20 metres away.

If the driver is unable to read the number plate he or she will automatically have their licence revoked and stopped from continuing their journey. Whilst road safety group BRAKE supported the police in this initiative, questions have been asked as to whether this is fair to police as well as drivers.

Is it right to give police the same powers as judge and jury by giving them the responsibility of taking away a driver’s licence on the spot? There is also the question as to who they should test. Whilst Brake believes that it’s a great way to make roads safer, because of the randomness of the tests it is unlikely to make roads much safer.

It would be better for all drivers to have an eye test every 5 years till they get to say 40 when it should be mandatory to have an eye test annually. The police are struggling to catch crooks and remove dangerous joy riders without licences and insurance from our roads so to load them with even more responsibility by forcing them to randomly stop drivers to carry out a sight test, when it could be handled differently, is just plain daft.

Of course, I don’t agree that anyone who has illegal eyesight to be allowed to drive on our roads but unlike a drunk driver who knows he is doing something illegal we could treat them with a little more sensitivity and make sure that they either correct the situation or let their doctor or optician explain why they can no longer drive.

Annual eye tests – that’s what we need! By Graham Hill

I have just been looking at artists’ impressions of electric cars of the future. They look amazing, like mini caravans with plenty of room to relax have a chat, have a drink, watch TV and even stretch out and have a snooze. It all looks fantastic, a great way to travel but read other reports and they say we will never get to a situation where a car will completely drive itself.

According to safety reports, you won’t be able to go out, have a skinful, fall into your electric car, announce to Siri that you want to go home and let the car take over whilst you throw up into a bag for life. In fact, you will still have to be in a driver’s seat and still capable of taking over the controls in the event of an emergency or the systems failing. So which is right? What are we to believe?

The same applies to Diesel vs Petrol. There is constant confusion over the emissions. Old diesels are, without doubt, not good for the environment. The high levels of NOx are not good for people’s health and particulates (soot) are bad for health and bad for buildings causing deterioration. Compare that with the damage to the ozone layer caused by high CO2 emissions from petrol cars – the next environmental panic.

So should we drive diesel cars or petrol cars if we can’t afford the premium prices or lease rates of hybrids or electrics? Latest test results show that there are virtually no particulate emissions from the latest diesel engines and whilst NOx from diesels is still slightly higher than petrol, CO2 emissions are still higher from petrol compared to diesel so in truth there is little to choose between the two.

That is until the newly developed Bosch system gets added to diesel cars. The estimate is that NOX emissions from diesel cars will drop to about 10% of the new levels that will come into force in 2020. In the meantime what should drivers do? We need less confusion and a consistent message. By Graham Hill

If you read the reports in the press it’s easy to believe that we currently only do business with Europe and once we extract ourselves from the EU we will suddenly be free to trade with the rest of the world. This is a nonsense, we’ve been buying cars from and selling cars to the US for as long as I can remember.

Currently, we buy cars from the US and we pay customs duty for the privilege. This isn’t something that has been organised through the EU, we simply trade with the US. We are invoiced for cars, we pay 10% duty, add that to the cost of the car, add on shipping costs and add VAT to the lot (no duty payable on the shipping costs). And that’s what happens at the moment. So nothing will change after Brexit.

In the short term there is little advantage, however, in the long term we will be free to negotiate a free trade agreement with the US and save 10% on imports whilst US businesses will be able to import UK built cars for 10% less. However, that could take a long time as all imports and exports would need to be reviewed with less chance under the latest Trump protectionist policy.

Outside the EU we will lose the negotiated free trade agreements that already exist such as South Korea. We import a lot of Kias and Hyundais to the benefit of UK drivers but until we can re-negotiate a deal, just for the UK, we will end up paying 10% more in duty. On the other hand the EU exports goods to South Korea and other countries with whom they have free trade agreements. However, the free trade agreement only works if over 55% of the items exported are made (or have added value) in the EU.

But as we are leaving the EU if our component manufacturers and service providers such as designers contribute towards the overall cost of the products being exported on Free Trade Agreements they will no longer be part of the EU content and could give rise to either UK manufacturers moving to Europe or the EU exporters sourcing components and services from inside the EU. It really is more complex than was originally thought. By Graham Hill

If you think it’s OK but you haven’t had your eyes tested for a few years – if ever, you should think about it seriously or risk losing your licence – instantly! Three constabularies are stopping motorists and asking them to read a number plate 20 metres away. If they can’t they are being prevented from driving by having their licence revoked on the spot.

The initiative is being run in Hampshire, West Midlands and Thames Valley. The results will be analysed and decisions made as to whether to roll out across England and Wales. Safety organisation Brake and Vision Express are calling for a vision test when car licences are renewed every 10 years. Joshua Harris, Campaign Director for Brake said, ‘It is frankly madness that there is no mandatory requirement on drivers to have an eye test throughout the course of their driving life.

Only by introducing rigorous and professional eye tests can we fully tackle the problem of unsafe drivers on our roads’. Research by the Association of Optometrists, published in November last year, found that 35 per cent of optometrists had seen patients in the previous month who were driving, despite having been told their vision was below the legal standard. Based on this figure, it is estimated that around one million people could be driving illegally.

There is a lot of evidence to show that accidents including fatalities could be avoided if there was a statutory requirement on all motorists to have an eye test. Campaigners have also called for a so-called Poppy’s Law, making it a legal requirement for medical professionals to report patients who are unfit to drive.

This followed the death of three-year-old Poppy-Arabella Clarke, who was killed in 2016 by a 73-year-old motorist who had ignored warnings from his opticians not to drive and was not wearing his glasses at the time. A disgrace and unnecessary tragedy. By Graham Hill

For those concerned about the environment, the new Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedures (WLTP) were considered to be well overdue when you consider how easy it was to fiddle the emissions test under the old regime known as NEDC. It wasn’t just VW fitting equipment that could be switched over during the emissions tests to give a false reading.

Others fitted undersized wheels and stuck tape around doors, bonnets and boots in order to avoid any drag. So now we have the cars being properly tested we see emissions levels increasing. The cars are the same but the emissions levels have increased due to more accurate testing. Which is fine unless you happen to be a company car driver.

As an interim measure and so as not to sting company car drivers for driving the same car the revenue has applied a conversion equation to bring the CO2 emissions back to where they were under the old tests. However, the CO2 levels are still around 10% higher than previous thereby increasing the BIK tax on cars that drivers may have been driving for the past 2 years and the new cars are generally 20% higher so replacing a like for like car could increase your benefit in kind tax substantially.

Whilst the fleet industry has called on the Government to amend the BIK tax tables so as not to penalise drivers of company cars, as usual, they’ve done naff all. This has led to a move towards car allowances allowing drivers to select their own car, firstly to save the BIK tax but also allow them to potentially drive better cars. As I’ve reported before let’s say that a company negotiates preferential terms with a dealer to take 200 Ford Mondeos a year.

As a result, they receive 25%  discount on all cars that is fed into their contract hire rate. Normally the best a consumer would receive is a discount of 15% built into the contract hire rate but if a new model is coming out the dealer and the manufacturer may allow a discount and bonus of 35% to be built into the contract hire rates.

This means that a consumer could achieve a lower rate than some of the biggest fleets in the country. Or maybe a Vauxhall Insignia or Mazda 6 works out cheaper because for the same reasons the rates are incredibly low. So for employees, the time may have come when they hand back their company cars and take a car allowance then talk to me to get them into a low rate car. By Graham Hill

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to appear on ITV’s Tonight programme that went out last Thursday (6^th September). However, with just half an hour available and the main theme of the programme the decision that drivers face as to whether to choose a petrol, diesel, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric car next they dropped what was to be a section on finance.

All had their merits, petrol – short around the town trips, diesel for high mileage drivers, hybrids in town but with no ability to plug the car in at home or at work, plug in’s if you have access to electricity and electric for those on low mileage in a city subject to congestion charges with easy access to chargers.

However, they sent a couple on a trip from their home in the north to a party in the south of England in an electric car. A trip that would normally take 4 hours but actually ended up taking over 6 hours, making them 2 hours late. The reason, finding somewhere to charge up the battery en-route. They found at service areas chargers that were broken as well as chargers that couldn’t fast charge. It seemed like a nightmare and got the couple very irritated and worried that they could end up stranded.

One gentleman with a plug-in hybrid found that he needed to charge his car for 6.5 hours at home using the domestic power supply in order to be able to cover something like 25 miles on just the electric motor, think he should change to Duracell Ultra batteries! The programme also questioned the environmental differences claiming, as many others have, that the manufacture of electric vehicles and their batteries come at an increased environmental cost and they still affect the environment as there are particulate emissions from tyres and brakes.

So whilst not all great news electric is the direction of travel and since BP bought out Chargemaster EV charging network we will see many more fast charge points with the next generation able to ‘fill up’ a car in just 5 minutes. Added to which there are already cars that can be used as electricity storage devices. Left plugged into the house electrics any stored electricity could be used when the cost of energy is high then charge the car overnight when energy is low.

Lots happening but I’m yet to be convinced. And the idea of charge points in lamp posts – as was shown on the programme is likely to end up with drivers in A&E as they come to blows as to who was at the lamp post first and whose needs are greater. By Graham Hill

So you’ve been to a party, club or just down the pub and had a skinful. You responsibly get a lift or a cab home. You even have a Halfords special breath tester and test your breath. Great, you’re well under the legal limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (England and Wales) so you jump into your car and off you go. But are you safe?

Scientists from the University of Bath say no. They conducted a meta-analysis (no I don’t know either) of 11 existing hangover studies, determining that ‘Sustained attention and driving abilities were impaired during hangover’. These are people under the alcohol blood limit but still in recovery.

One study showed reaction times to be 20% slower in hungover subjects, while another revealed ‘the ability to control a vehicle, as measured by deviation from a set course was impaired’ following a night of ‘heavy drinking’. Lead author Dr Sally Adams told Auto Express, who reported the findings, hangovers affect two key elements for driving, the first is our ability to concentrate on our activity for sustained periods of time and the second, psychomotor skills(our brain’s ability to control physical activities).

She went on to explain. ‘Your body works hard to metabolise alcohol and produces acetaldehyde as it does so’. And with current research indicating acetaldehyde ‘mimics the neurological effects of alcohol’ she suggested that ‘It may be time we consider if you have to drive the next day, perhaps a heavy night of drinking the night before isn’t a good idea’.

Whilst Government is considering lowering the limit to 50mg per 100ml in line with Scotland and many other European countries this won’t stop the ‘hungover effect’ If you were bladdered the night before. The NHS advises that the body takes 3 hours to break down the alcohol in a 250ml glass of wine and 2 hours to process a pint of normal-strength beer.

Adams finished off by saying that it may be possible in the future to have detectors that will detect if you are suffering from the ‘hungover effect’ and could lead to prosecutions and may be used in evidence in serious or fatal road accidents. You’ve been warned! By Graham Hill

When I first started to write my report on Personal Contract Purchase I did it as an aid for viewers of the Rip Off Britain programme that featured me as their expert dealing with cases involving members of the public who had been treated poorly by either dealerships or finance providers.

It was to be two pages of bullet points at most. 10 months of investigation and re-writing later and we now have a 200-page report stored under the heading of Rip Off Britain Crib Notes – it’s more like War and Peace. But the one main message that comes through is the lack of clarity, probably because of a lack of education on the part of those selling the product as well as those taking out PCP contracts.

The second seems to be the need to be dishonest. If you download the report by visiting www.grahamhilltraining.com you’ll see what I mean. You’ll also have one over on the dealers as you will probably end up knowing more than them. I don’t know what it is, whether it is considered to be good marketing or simply meant to confuse customers in order to make the sale.

Take my latest battle over the extension cost of my Mercedes with MB Finance who rather foolishly have decided to take me on. I won’t go into detail yet, it will get reported in the press when I get a result, but in order to prevent the case going to the Financial Ombudsman Service they offered a sum of money as a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’. Instead of admitting that what they were doing was illegal and simply come to an arrangement they offer a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’.

The fact is that I never ever accept a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’, because I’m either right or wrong. If I’m right – and it is normally over a legal matter – I expect an apology and a full payout. If I’m wrong I will stick my hands up and admit to being wrong and pay any penalty but offering a ‘Gesture Of Good Will’ will only get my back up!

What really got me started on this subject was an announcement in Business Car in which 2^nd biggest Contract Hire company in the UK, LeasePlan, announced that they were to start remarketing used ex-lease cars online under the name of carnext.com. Nothing wrong with that I was a director of Carsite that eventually was re-branded Tesco Cars that did exactly that but 10 years ago.

What annoyed me was that they say in the piece:- that every car comes with a 14-day money back guarantee as though they are offering some special benefit. As the cars are bought online and delivered to you the cars are automatically covered by the Consumer Contracts regulations, formally known as the Distance Selling regulations which means you have a legal right to return any goods you don’t want for any reason within 14 days. Not an exceptional added benefit. Just be honest.

They then go on to say that every car comes with a 1-year warranty. No, they don’t sunshine each car has a 2 year EU Guarantee attached to it. Whilst we are in the EU the 2-year guarantee is still in force which means any trader selling any product, new or used, must come with the EU 2 year guarantee. So not only have they turned a legal obligation into an added benefit but understated it! Grrr – winds me up! By Graham Hill

Speeding: You may or may not be aware of ‘speeding buffer zones’ applied by the police. Essentially if there is a speed limit of say 70mph the police allow a buffer zone of 10% + 2mph making the acceptable speed 79 miles per hour (70 + 7 + 2 = 79). In the case of 30 miles per hour that would be 35mph.

I should add at this stage that this has always been advisory so you shouldn’t assume that the speed limit in a 30mph area is automatically 35mph. It is discretionary so if you were doing 35 miles per hour whilst passing a school with kids everywhere you would probably be fined. However, the ‘buffer’ is currently being reviewed by senior police officers and could well change.

At a recent Police Federation Conference, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, the National Police Chief’s Council’s lead on road policing announced the possible change of attitude. Ashe pointed out, drivers should not be surprised if they are fined for doing 33 miles per hour in a 30mph zone because they are speeding – simple as that.

In answer to the proposal officers warned that this would increase the number of cases they need to deal with and they don’t have the capacity or the capability to deal with the increased workload. Watch this space and don’t assume that the 10% + 2mph rule will always apply. Repairs: Breakdown firm Green Flag has carried out a survey suggesting that motorists are overspending to the tune of £3.4 billion every year on garage repairs.

On average drivers pay £90 per annum more than they should with 4out of 5 men and 90% of women not feeling confident when confronted with the cost of the repairs and knowing if it is correct. In the same report Green Flag revealed that 39% of motorists had no idea what the annual MOT test involves. Not good. By Graham Hill

Latest casualty figures released by the Department for Transport are for 2016. They show a year on year increase of 7% over 2015. The figures include those either injured or killed in incidents involving drivers over the drink-drive alcohol limits.

The figures showed a total of 9,040 deaths or injuries and has led to calls by road safety charity, Brake for the Government to reduce the legal limit from 80mg/100ml of blood to lower than the 50mg/100ml limit imposed on drivers in Scotland since 2014.

The DfT revealed that approximately 230 people died in drink-related incidents compared to 200 in 2015. Surprisingly the DfT described the higher figure as ‘Not statistically significant’. Going on to say that the data ‘continues a period of stability since 2010’.

Joshua Harris, the director of campaigns at Brake hit out by saying, ‘Today’s figures show that drink-driving is an increasing blight on British roads, and yet the Government sits on its hands and refuses to address the issue.’

Something needs to happen, reducing the limit is only a deterrent if we have enough police testing drivers. If drivers think that they can get away with exceeding the drink-drive limit, wherever it’s set they will continue to drink and drive. By Graham Hill