The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

In this next story, Mel Buchan bought a Mini ‘off page’ from an Arnold Clark garage in Inverness. He saw the brand new car advertised on their website, with all its equipment listed, paid a deposit and waited for the car to be built and delivered.

Mel works offshore so couldn’t be at home to sign for the car but was sent photos. Upon inspection, he noticed that the car didn’t have the multifunction steering wheel, as advertised. He complained and was told that the advert was wrong but if he wanted the upgraded steering wheel he would have to pay £425 for it.

By now my blood was boiling and not because I was standing by a radiator. But it gets worse. He actually agreed to pay the extra £425 for the steering wheel – because he wanted it! It was only after this that he realised that the car was advertised as having parking sensors and floor mats. Again these items were missing despite them being clearly shown in the advert.

The only option given by the dealer was to re-order the car with the ‘bits’ on and pay thousands of pounds more! This is when he contacted my dear friends at Auto Express. Following contact between Auto Express and Arnold Clark the extras were fitted – all free of charge, with an apology for the incorrect advert due to ‘human error’. Does no-one read the Consumer Rights Act?

It covers inaccurate advertising and the big no no – supplying goods – ‘NOT AS DESCRIBED’. Whilst Arnold Clark appear to pat themselves on the back for being so nice to the customer someone needs to slap them with a bill for the inconvenience caused to Mr Buchan for inaccurately advertising the car and then giving him the runaround. If there was ever a more straightforward case of providing goods – not as described – I haven’t seen it!

I always support the guys at Auto Express because they constantly fight battles on behalf of consumers but unfortunately they don’t quite get to the right result in the right way, they probably need me on their panel of experts to help them in these sorts of cases. By Graham Hill

Over the years I’ve received the odd complaint about parking on a pavement and receiving a fine as a result, even though it was done so as to avoid blocking the road and only for a few minutes. Even more annoying when there are no other parking restrictions such as single or double yellow lines etc.

The fact is that the law goes back to The Highways Act of 1835 before cars were seen on our streets and as the law currently stands it still specifically refers to the parking of stagecoaches and wagons on pavements. The law is actually quite straightforward when it comes to London, referred to in the Highway Code under section 244 where it categorically states that you MUST NOT park on the pavement anywhere in London so expect a ticket if you are caught by an eagle-eyed warden (or whatever they are called these days) or by a CCTV camera.

The problems for drivers start outside of London where the Highway Code is less clear. Rule 244 says that outside of London you ‘should not’ park on the pavement which leaves the local authority the ability to set its own rules and decide whether to fine or not to fine.

This doesn’t mean that the local council can avoid parking restriction signs. Quite the contrary, they have to be very clear because the law isn’t! It would seem that most local authorities take a fairly relaxed view as long as your parking doesn’t obstruct the infirmed, the blind, the wheelchair user and anyone else who legitimately views the pavement as being there for footfall only.

Some tougher local authorities have not only put up warning signs, stopping cars from parking on pavements, they have also extended into cycle lanes so parking in a cycle lane could also generate a fine. You are able to drive across a pavement in order to access a property and to park where the road signs say you can but in all other circumstances, you could be facing a fine if caught parking on the pavement – as always you’ve been warned! By Graham Hill

According to the findings of the BBC, who surveyed 245 local authorities, yes you should. Because 4 in 10 parking and bus lane fines have been overturned by local authorities during the 5 years 2012 – 2017, During this period 4.3 million appeals were lodged with 1.8 million being successful.

Basingstoke and Dean council in Hampshire overturned the highest proportion of tickets at 90% of the 12,804 appeals lodged. In addition, a quarter of all parking and bus lane fines were eventually canceled. Couldn’t be arsed I guess!

Their excuse was aging equipment meant that often the machines were faulty causing problems with the issuing of tickets. New ticket machines installed in 2017 have apparently reduced the number of successful appeals. Aberdeen council overturned 70% of tickets on appeal, they said that if they had a first time offender it could often cost more to collect the fine than simply overturn it.

That’s what I like to hear, if you appeal a ticket, you are unlikely to pay it if they don’t overturn it so they may as well overturn it and save the bother of chasing the fine. The BBC found that 84 authorities overturned over 50% of all tickets issued on appeal.

When asked by Auto Express an RAC spokesman took a slightly different approach than me, suggesting that with so many appeals succeeding should the tickets have been issued in the first place so should the local authorities review their ticketing procedures? I tend to agree!  By Graham Hill

Roelant De Waard, Ford Vice President of Europe, announced at the Geneva Motor Show that Ford is to continue its diesel push. Something that must have surprised a few. In the UK Ford’s combined car and commercial vehicle sales in February made it the lead manufacturer with its highest vehicle sales for the month of February since 2004.

Roelant explained, ‘We wouldn’t find it the right decision to move away from diesel because it’s best for CO2, we’ve got NOx under control, it’s better economy wise, it has cheaper operating costs and it’s therefore, by far the most efficient choice. We’re basically putting it back on the map and allowing it to be the powertrain of choice for us.’

Their new Edge SUV is planned to have an 8-speed auto later this year and with an already fuel efficient engine, it is planned to have an even more environmentally friendly engine as it’s planned to be Euro 6.2 compliant. From an NOx point of view, it will be comparable with a petrol engine but with lower CO2 emissions.

With the further planned downsizing of diesel engines from 2.0l to 1.5l the fuel efficiency will continue to improve. So will this change of heart by the UK’s leading car manufacturer bring diesel back into focus? Personally, I think it will and certainly may convince the Government that we need clearer direction rather than the petrol, diesel flip flopping!

Seems like I’m having a week of moaning and talking about the environment – it wasn’t planned like that. By Graham Hill

The Chancellor announced last November that grants would be extended till 2020 but they are still to clarify the rules. For the moment the Government has confirmed that the current grants will last till at least the end of April whilst they continue their review.

Whilst the Chancellor confirmed that a scheme would last till 2020 they only confirmed that the current rates would last till the end of March. I hope that for the sake of the industry the DfT doesn’t simply extend the current rules a month at a time, especially where orders are placed on cars that won’t be delivered till after the end of April.

The best information we have at the moment is that the Department for Transport will advise any changes in due course. However, this hasn’t encouraged manufacturers to come up with some cheap rates for this month although we have just had a reduction on the all-electric Nissan Leaf.

The current structure, that many think will continue, is as follows: Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 70 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £4,500. Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 10 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500.

Finally, cars with CO2 emissions of between 50g/km and 75g/km that can travel a minimum of 20 miles emission free – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500. The latter two categories exclude cars costing over £60,000.

I somehow feel that if we are to encourage investment by manufacturers in low and zero-emission cars we need a more serious approach by the Government. We are badly lagging behind Europe when it comes to fast charge points and if they end up lowering the grants we will be back to fighting over the emission differences between petrol and diesel. By Graham Hill

You may have read the sad story last weekend about the accident that took place in Arizona when a lady was killed by an autonomous Uber car. traveling at 40 miles per hour when it hit her whilst crossing the road with her bike. The car, an XC90, modified for driverless travel and operated by Uber, had a backup driver behind the wheel.

There were no passengers in the car and investigations are underway but the accident has certainly caused US States, the Government and operators to re-think the potential dangers. Arizona chose to impose very few regulations on autonomous cars in order to attract operators away from neighbouring California which attracted a lot of operators and developers but imposed tough regulations.

As a result, it now looks like the US Government will step in and create countrywide regulations that will overrule individual states. It has also caused many operators in both the States and around the rest of the world to review their safety systems and ask whether the drop in regulations in Arizona and other states has caused development in some developers to drop safety down the list of priorities.

The real worry for many is that there was a driver at the controls of the car that had the accident, acting as backup, and still an accident happened. Was the driver locked out of the controls at the time of the accident? The eyes of the world are now on the findings of the investigation. Much depends on what is uncovered as to how soon we will get to see autonomous vehicles on the road.

And if I may make a final point, I don’t see the benefit of a driverless car if it still needs a driver – just putting it out there. By Graham Hill

Over the past 3 years car thefts are up by 30%. In the past the cars were stolen by joyriders or in the case of prestige cars, stolen to order, stuffed into a container and on its way to India or South Africa within 24 hours of being stolen.

But these days there is a higher likelihood that cars will be stolen to sell on to unsuspecting buyers after changing its identity. As 50% of stolen cars are never recovered and with only a small proportion being shipped abroad you have to be on your guard if you are buying a car privately.

If you buy from a dealer and the car was found to be stolen you will still lose the car but you have much greater legal protection. But if you buy the car privately and the car is discovered to be stolen you could lose the car and the money you paid for it.

But even worse you could be arrested for handling stolen goods. To add to the pain it’s highly unlikely that your insurer will pay out if you make a claim. Andy Barrs, head of Police Liason at TRACKER, has some suggestions as to how you can protect yourself.

When inspecting the car check to see if new registration plates have been fitted and if they have ask why? Thieves may be trying to disguise its identity. Make sure that both sets of keys are present and working as this could also indicate that the car is stolen.

Check the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) for visible signs of alteration. Also, go to the GOV.UK ‘check you’re not buying a stolen vehicle’ website for valuable advice. An HPI check records mileage so if a car has been cloned you may see a discrepancy in mileage records. Take care there’s a thief about as they say! By Graham Hill

One of my biggest gripes in life is the misinformation that is readily available on the Internet with the owners of the websites, on which the information appears, taking no responsibility whatsoever. Top of the list is Google along with other search engines who rank search results by their economic contribution to their coffers rather than accuracy or even the chronological sequence of posting.

People are relying on the accuracy of the results to make decisions and could end up heavily out of pocket because the advice is either inaccurate or out of date.Other sites such as themoneysavingexpert.com allow anyone to comment on their blog, something that has filled their blog with data and links, enabling its owner, Martin Lewis, to  sell the company for £87 million but taking no responsibility for the accuracy of the information imparted, often by people with as much legal knowledge as my sister’s Old English sheepdog, called Izzie by the way and as daft as a doughnut!

A question raised by a firm of lawyers who advise dealers on their legal rights, when in a dispute against a customer, caused me to raise the issue again because a member of their client base asked what would happen if the dealer bought a car having checked that the car wasn’t on finance on HPI. He sold the car and checked HPI again, each time the report showed that it was clear of credit.

3 months later the dealer received a demand from the solicitors of a finance company that claim to have outstanding finance on the car to the tune of £20,000. Having checked HPI, which showed that the car was clear of finance, the dealer claims that title has passed and certainly, as an ‘innocent buyer’ title has passed to the buyer of the car from the dealer. But thanks to a ruling by the House of Lords in 1975 (Moorgate Mercantile Company Limited vs Twitchings) as there is no legal obligation on the part of the finance company to record finance details on HPI, the fact that the finance company forgot to record the car on HPI is irrelevant.

But here’s the twist. Whilst the finance company can apply to the dealer to get his money back, what if they are unaware of the dealer’s involvement? Some will buy to order so let’s say you are looking for a Ford Focus in a particular colour etc. and your local dealer says he’ll look out for a car for you. He finds one privately for sale, buys it, has a service on it, valets it then has a new MOT on it then sells it to you for a nice little profit, he may well not let the DVLA know that he had ownership of the car.

Or supposing the dealership went bust in the meantime, either way the solicitor is directed to you and you receive a demand for the outstanding finance or hand the car back. That is in fact illegal as long as you were told by the seller that the car was free of finance you are now the legal owner. However, I have seen numerous posts on various blogs blaming the innocent buyer and suggesting that he should hand the car over and pursue the person he bought the car from.

This is wrong and I recall reading about an Audi A4 owner who handed his car over to the finance company, having followed the advice on one of the blogs by a complete donkey, or it could have been Izzie. Trouble is if you voluntarily hand over the keys you are highly unlikely to get the car back. Never ever hand over the keys to your car to anyone calling at your door, tell them to put their demands in writing.

In the case illustrated above I have total sympathy with the dealer, what’s he supposed to do, contact every lender in the land and ask if they have finance on the car? And if you are an innocent buyer you shouldn’t be misled by posts on blogs accusing you of being an idiot if you bought a car that was still on finance.

It’s about time that the Government stepped in and forced every lender to record their financial interest in a car via the DVLA – it wouldn’t be rocket science. By Graham Hill

The level of inappropriate sexual behaviour seems to be reaching epidemic levels. We, as parents, trust our kids to football coaches and clergymen whilst women jump into the backs of black cabs without a second thought for safety, all of us believing that everyone is in a safe environment. But recent major stories have revealed the opposite.

I have now read that inappropriate relationships along with inappropriate sexual behaviour is rife amongst driving instructors and their vulnerable teenage students. To the point where the rules have had to be changed with driving instructors facing removal from the instructor register by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).

The DVSA have reported that there were 109 investigations into instructors’ misconduct between April 2016 and March 2017. The organisation’s approved driving instructor registrar, Jacqui Turland, has said that she will treat any instructor having sexual relationships with 16 and 17 year old students, consensual or not, as exploitative.

The new rules could see many instructors being banned from giving lessons by being removed from the Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) register. In addition, the DVSA will investigate any claims made by students with regard to ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’ carried out by instructors. This to include the use of sexualised language, making inappropriate or unnecessary physical contact and sending indecent messages or images by phone, email or other means.

In my opinion, simply removing the person from the register isn’t going anywhere near far enough. They have abused a position of trust and should be registered as a sexual offender, if found guilty, then have their private parts removed from their body – yes I have a daughter and granddaughter but that has nothing to do with my views on this matter!

What is wrong with these people? By Graham Hill

Did you know that the police can issue a ‘marker’ on the cars registered to drivers who have previously been disqualified for drink driving? No, I didn’t either but they can and in some counties they do. But it depends upon the force.

The idea is to flag up drivers wh have offended once and keep an eye on them. Research has shown that 12% of those banned for drink driving re-offend, rising to 30% of high-risk offenders caught at more than twice the legal limit. I would caveat that by saying that those % figures apply to those who are caught, with so few traffic cops on the road now I would suggest that the figure is probably higher.

This process doesn’t just apply to drink driving, it can apply to any offender suspected of possible re-offending. The police attache a ‘digital marker’ to the offender’s vehicles. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) cameras can then alert police to the driver’s status to help them better target known offenders.

However, Auto Express found out that only a handful of police forces take advantage of this facility and digitally mark vehicles. Cheshire police have 1,041 active markers which create an intelligence slide for every disqualified motorist containing personal details and any vehicle registered to them at the time of disqualification.

In Cheshire, between 2010 and 2016 57% of all banned drivers lost their licence as a result of drink driving. Merseyside police has a policy that markers will be attached once a driver is convicted and/or disqualified from driving. At the other extreme, the Met and City of London Police are two of the forces that admit to not using intelligence markers.

The Met subsequently clarified, when asked, that they would do so if there was ‘credible evidence’ that someone was driving while disqualified. West Yorkshire, in the meantime, said that they felt the attachment of intelligent markers to all drink drivers was neither ‘justified or proportionate.’ Although they admitted to having 80 live Markers.

Well, you learn something every day! Hope I provided that something for you today. By Graham Hill