The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

From areas such as charging to driver behaviour to tax considerations, the transition to electric vehicles (EVs) is having widespread implications on how fleets are managed.

These changes also include tyre policies.

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) tend to be heavier than their internal combustion engine (ICE)  counterparts and the instant torque their motors deliver also places extra strain on the tyres.

In addition, a low rolling resistance is key to maximising a vehicle’s range.

These demands have led tyre manufacturers to develop BEV-specific tyres which, as well as meeting these requirements, also aim to reduce noise to capitalise on the refinement EVs offer.

These tyres tend to be fitted as standard by car and van makers, but they mean that fleet decision-makers operating BEVs need to ensure their tyre management policies take these considerations into account.

“Tyres are an extremely sophisticated piece of technology which we all too commonly take for  granted,” says Stuart Jackson, chair of tyre safety charity TyreSafe.

“However, drivers of BEVs must be aware of how different they could be to those on other cars, and, when it’s time to replace the original tyres, owners need to ensure they are buying the right specification.”

Kwik Fit recommends fleets adopt a like-for-like replacement policy wherever possible, due to BEV tyre development still being in its relative infancy.

“There may be constraints on homologated tyre availability in the short term as tyre manufacturers scale to meet the demand,” says Dan Joyce, fleet director at Kwik Fit.

“As the EV car parc grows, we will see tyre manufacturers increase their development of nonoriginal equipment (OE) alternatives to homologated options and as more data becomes available, we will work with our fleet customers to include these within their policies wherever suitable.”

While there are now new factors to consider when considering a tyre management policy, the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) warns fleet decision-makers not to overlook the basics.

“The fundamentals of good practice remain the same as for any other approach to tyre management,”says Lorna McAtear, AFP board member and fleet manager at National Grid. “This means safety is the guiding principle and the written policy should be based around factors such as minimum tread depths and regular visual checks.”

Here, we look at four key questions facing fleet operators when it comes to BEV tyre policies.

What are the differences between BEV and ICE tyres?

There are some key technological differences between BEV-specific and non-BEV-specific tyres.

“Ultimately, reduced weight, minimal rolling resistance, low noise emissions and an aerodynamic sidewall are the key components of a good, well-developed EV tyre,” says Martin Towers, sales director at Micheldever Fleet Solutions.

The lighter weight can increase efficiency and a premium is placed on noise reduction due to the refinement levels offered by BEVs, while tyre manufacturers are also focusing on getting the balance right between grip and rolling resistance.

“We’ve developed a number of technologies affecting the tyre which can extend an EV’s driving range,” says Jaap van Wessum, sales general manager consumer UK & Ireland at Goodyear.

“This includes the material properties of the tread compound, which have been tuned for ultra-low rolling resistance to extend the vehicle range while coping with high levels of torque.

“The sidewall has also been designed to reduce aerodynamic drag and the profile yields less rotating mass, which, in turn, reduces the energy consumption.”

How does BEV tyre wear compare with that of ICE vehicles?

One of the benefits of running BEVs compared with diesel or petrol is their reduced service and maintenance costs due to their much lower number of moving parts, but some claim that tyre wear will be greater.

This is supported by analysis from Kwik Fit, which has found average front tyre wear across all fleet segments in 2020 was 4% greater for BEVs than ICE vehicles.

This was based on the number of miles driven by vehicles when their tyre tread depth had reached 2mm.

At this point, an ICE vehicle had travelled an average 24,644 miles, PHEVs 24,196 miles and BEVs 23,766 miles.

“It’s important to note that the sample size for this data varies significantly between powertrain types, so this is really only a high-levelexample of tread wear, but we are seeing the tyres on EVs requiring a slightly earlier change,” says Kwik Fit’s Joyce.

Van Wessum adds: “Due to the heavier battery, tyres on EVs tend to wear down considerably faster than those on vehicles powered by ICE.”

What are the effects of fitting non-BEV-specific tyres to a BEV?

Safety charity Tyresafe warns BEV owners that fitting a non-BEV-specific tyre could result in loss of range, increased noise, accelerated wear and the risk of failing while being driven, which could result in a serious incident.

Micheldever’s Towers adds: “Firstly, (non-BEV-specific tyres) will certainly reduce the range the vehicle will be able to travel between charges and this will be true whether you are fitting single, axle pair or full set replacements.

“Secondly, and this is particularly an issue with single replacement due to damage, replacing a BEV-specific tyre with a standard product will cause handling issues.

“This is mainly due to the weight of the tyres, but can also be as a result of the difference in grip, as EV tyres will have far better rolling resistance characteristics than standard ones.”

Towers adds there may also be a greater requirement within the EV market to ensure the tread depth on tyres on the same axle does not have too big a differential, as this could also cause handling issues.

“From a regulation and legality perspective, what’s important is to fit tyres that are the correct size, load index and speed index applications,” he adds. “Something EV drivers should pay particular attention to, however, is the importance of routine tyre inspections.”

Brian Porteous, technical manager at Michelin, wants to see more data from “everyday journeys” before he forms a definitive opinion on the impact of fitting non-BEV-specific tyres to BEVs.

“Some BEVs have larger diameter tyres to help reduce rolling resistance, with fewer revolutions and less flexing leading theoretically to reduced tyre wear,” he says.

“However, the torque in BEVs is typically higher than for ICE vehicles and they tend to spend more time in urban environments, both of which increase wear.

“For now, it looks like tyre wear rates will likely continue to be dictated by driving style, road conditions and the type of journey, just as they have always been.”

British Gas fits all its vans with non-BEVspecific Michelin CrossClimate tyres for the all-year round grip they offer and has found they last more than twice as long on BEVs than on diesels.

“Lots of people say you use loads of tyres on BEVs because they’re much heavier, but we’re not. It has gone the other way around,” says Steve Winter, British Gas head of fleet.

“We’re seeing far less tyre wear to the extent that we had Michelin check our tyres because we wanted to be absolutely certain that we were right.

“We reckon our tyres go on now for the best part of 40,000 miles, when previously we’d been seeing them lasting 15,000 miles on a diesel van.”

Winter thinks part of this may be because the company is switching from Volkswagen Caddy diesel vans to larger Vauxhall e-Vivaro BEV models – so, instead of using car tyres, their new vehicles use van tyres, which are bigger and have stiffer sidewalls.

“I think the pure electric drivetrains are also a bit more gentle on tyres, because of the way they take up drive, the way it steers and manoeuvres,” he adds.

“I also think our engineers drive their BEVs more carefully because they want to maximise their range so they can get home at night.”

What about special tyres for plug-in hybrid vehicles?

Unlike for BEVs, tyre manufacturers do not make PHEV-specific products, although they may be fitted with tyres with a higher load rating compared with ICE vehicles to reflect their greater weight.

However, Towers believes fleets certainly need to be “more aware” of the tyres that they are fitting to their PHEVs.

“I believe that they need to have a more product-led approach,” he says.

“This means choosing what is right for the vehicle rather than the generic fleet ‘one sizes fits all’ approach we are currently seeing for ICE vehicles.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A new code of practice for the private parking sector has been launched following years of campaigning for a fairer system for drivers.

The RAC, which supports the move, says that the new Private Parking Code of Practice outlines minimum standards expected by private parking operators and should root out the more dubious practices that have been prevalent by some operators in the sector.

Furthermore, a new national appeals system will be introduced to make it simpler for drivers to fight charges they believe are unfair.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “The RAC has campaigned for years to end the sharp practices in the private parking sector, so we welcome the new national code that will usher in higher standards.

“Alongside this, drivers can expect a lower cap on penalty charge notices, an independent appeals system and an end to rip-off debt collection fees.”

The range of measures announced aim to reduce the maximum parking charge notice to £50 in most cases outside of London, with a 50% discount for early payment. The upper £100 limit for more serious breaches will be kept.

There will be a ban on parking debt collectors from charging additional fees when parking charge notices are not paid and a compulsory 10-minute grace period before firms can issue a late fine along with a compulsory five-minute cooling-off period in which a motorist can consider the terms and conditions, and change their mind about parking.

The code of practice also says that operators must improve standards on signage, conditions of parking and make it clearer on how to appeal a charge.

In addition, it will crackdown on parking firms using aggressive or pseudo-legal language to intimidate motorists into paying fines.

Lyes says that it will and create a much more level playing field, reducing “hassle and stress” while at the same time forcing rogue operators to clean up their acts.

He continued: “Since clamping was banned on private land, there has been a shift to ticketing instead, with the number of parking charge notices being issued rising year-on-year at alarming levels.

“While some of these are justified, others are not and sadly in many cases drivers simply pay up in fear of the consequences, particularly given that follow-up letters can use threatening and intimidating language.”

RAC research found that nearly three-quarters (73%) of drivers wanted the sector to be brought under some form of regulation.

Lyes said: “This package of measures is not about stopping parking operators doing their jobs, it’s about creating a system that is fair and transparent for all.”

The RAC called on the Government and MPs to act after being contacted by drivers who felt the actions of private parking companies were entirely unreasonable.

For instance, the RAC heard of how parking charge notices were issued for, at best, very minor breaches of car park terms and conditions, and, at worst, for reasons that were simply inexplicable.

This ranged from minor keying errors at payment machines to people receiving a charge for overstaying by seconds.

In addition to this, some operators were incentivising third parties by offering them financial incentives for issuing parking charge notices.

In 2017, Sir Greg Knight MP introduced the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, which received Royal Assent in 2019 with cross-party backing and Government support. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

UK used car transactions grew by 11.5% in 2021, with 7,530,956 units changing hands, according to according new figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

It means that 777,997 more cars changed hands than in 2020, a year which was even more badly affected by lockdowns and unsettled consumer and business confidence, says the automotive trade body.

Despite this growth, the 2021 performance was still 5.5% below the pre-pandemic five-year average.

SMMT’s chief executive, Mike Hawes, said: “It’s good to see the used car market return to growth, even if activity is still below where we were pre-pandemic.

“With the global shortage of semiconductors set to ease later this year, releasing the squeeze on new car supply, we expect more of the latest, cleanest and zero emission models to become available for second owners.

“The demand for personal mobility has undoubtedly increased during the pandemic, so it’s vital we have healthy new car sales to drive fleet renewal and the used car market if we are to improve air quality and address climate change.”

Quarter four rounded off a volatile year for the market, with transactions falling by 3.1% to just over 1.6 million, as semiconductor shortages impacting new car sales in the second half of the year squeezed supply of stock into the used market.

The second quarter was, in fact, the best Q2 on record and, with 2.1 million transactions, the busiest period of the year as the UK emerged from renewed lockdowns.

May was the highpoint with 769,782 cars finding new keepers in the month, while December performance fell by -10.2% as Omicron cases rose and restrictions increased.

Used electric vehicles

Annual demand for battery electric (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric (PHEVs) vehicles hit record levels, growing by 119.2% and 75.6% to 40,228 and 56,861 transactions respectively.

Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) transactions also rose by 50.3% to 137,639, a new high. Growth was driven by an increasing number of ultra-low and zero-emission models filtering through to second owners and, combined, these vehicles represented 3.1% of the market.

Used petrol and diesel powertrain transactions, meanwhile, increased by 10.7% and 9.8% respectively, with a combined 7,277,291 units changing hands.

It meant that even with record demand for alternatively fuelled vehicles, 96.6% of all used car sales were still either petrol or diesel models, evidence of how far the market must go to meet zero emission ambitions.

In terms of segment performance, superminis remained the most popular body type during 2021, taking a third of the market (32.7%), followed by lower medium (26.4%) and dual purpose (13.2%), with all segments seeing transactions increase.

Demand for dual purpose cars rose most significantly, up 18.3% with almost a million changing hands.

Richard Peberdy, UK head of automotive at KPMG, said: “As new car production slowed, used car demand rose, as did prices.

“That’s of course good news for those sellers that can find a replacement newer car to buy but presents an additional cost challenge for some consumers whose budgets are being squeezed on a number of fronts.

“As supply chain problems eventually ease, more new cars will be produced, more used cars will enter the market and their prices will begin to level off.”

Breaking the trend of the new car market, where grey reigns as the best-selling colour, black was most popular among used buyers in 2021 with more than 1.6 million black cars finding new owners.

Silver and blue rounded off the top three with 1.28 million and 1.25 million transactions respectively.

At the other end of spectrum, nearly 40,000 yellow used cars changed hands, 20,230 people chose a bronze car and pink trailed in last place, representing nearly 5,000 transactions.

James Fairclough, CEO of AA Cars, said: “Used car sales may have slowed during the final months of 2021, but that can’t take the shine off what was a strong, if volatile, year for the second-hand market.

“Overall second-hand sales in 2021 were up 11.5% compared to 2020, well ahead of the 1% year-on-year increase recorded in new car sales.

“Nevertheless, the lagged impact of the semiconductor shortage which held back the production of new cars for much of 2021 is now starting to be felt in the second-hand market too.

“Fewer nearly-new models are coming onto the used market, and finite supply pegged back used car sales figures in the final months of 2021 – albeit to a lesser extent than the decline seen in new car sales.

“Despite these supply issues, demand remains strong, with thousands of drivers choosing to buy second-hand rather than wait for a new car.”

Chris Evans, head of sales at Heycar, says that used cars prices remain at a record high, with little indication of this changing in the short to medium term.

“We’ve seen the average part exchange value shoot up by 55% in the past twelve months, while the value of leads we send to our dealer network is now 17% higher,” he added.

“As the final coronavirus restrictions are rolled back, it’s likely there will be greater footfall on forecourts. And it might give more buyers the confidence to finally make a purchase they may have put off as a result of the pandemic.

“Yet lack of stock does remain a challenge for both dealers and consumers.”

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Wilmott Dixon has successfully argued that car allowance payments made to its employees were ‘relevant motoring expenditure’ and therefore should qualify for relief from Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs).

HMRC had refused to refund Willmott Dixon for NICs paid from 2004/05 to May 2014 relating to car allowance payments made by the firm.

It argued that the car allowances were earnings and not relevant motoring expenditure, but in what was a landmark ruling for fleets, a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) ruled in favour of Willmott Dixon.

Car allowances at the construction and property firm, which was represented by Innovation Professional Services, were paid to employees based on a grade which was allocated to that employee.

The more senior an employee, the higher the grade. The amount paid did not depend on the number of business miles driven by an employee.

Separate business mileage payments were intended to reimburse an employee for the fuel costs of actual business miles driven.

An employee who was entitled to a car allowance at a certain grade could choose to select a car from a lower grade choice list and be reimbursed the difference in the car allowance for those grades.

Meanwhile, some individuals who drove no business miles were awarded a grade and allowances were paid even when an employee was ill (including long-term sick) or their business miles reduced because, for example, of the pandemic.

The purpose of the car allowance was to ensure that an employee had a properly insured, maintained and reliable motor vehicle available which that employee could use for performing his or her duties as an employee, in other words for business use.

Furthermore, an employee who received the car allowance was obliged to have a fit and proper vehicle for business use. There was no obligation or direction however, on an employee as to how they should spend the car allowance.

While Willmott Dixon anticipated that an employee who had no satisfactory vehicle would spend the allowance, in part, on acquiring one, there was no contractual obligation to do so.

Similarly, once an employee was in possession of a satisfactory vehicle, then Willmott Dixon anticipated that the allowance would be paid on the financing, maintenance and costs of insurance, in other words the ongoing costs of owning a vehicle. But again, there was no contractual or other obligation to do so.

The employee was free to decide on what they spent the car allowance, and it could be spent on something wholly unrelated to the vehicle or its use for business travel.

The court heard that Willmott Dixon undertook a “rigorous analysis” of the underlying data and set the level of the allowances on the basis that an employee who did 10,000 business miles per year would be in the same financial position whether they opted for the car allowance or chose a company car.

An employee receiving a company car could choose whether to continue to take the company car or to switch into the car allowance scheme.

Car allowance payments ‘were earnings’

The FTT had to first decide whether the car allowance payments were earnings for NICs purposes or reimbursements of business expenses.

Given the amount of car allowance paid did not depend on the number of business miles driven by that particular employee, the FTT decided that the car allowance payments were earnings.

However, it decided that the car allowance payments were ‘relevant motoring expenditure’ citing the Court of Appeal decision in favour of Total People (now Cheshire Employment and Skills) almost 10 years ago on a similar matter, while also contradicting a more recent decision involving Laing O’Rourke (LOR).

Laing O’Rourke lost a £2.2 million claim for relief on grey fleet business mileage payments paid to employees at its firm. It had been seen as the first test case following the Total People ruling.

Total People’s long-running legal battle related to an NI refund claim based on the difference between the HMRC 40p per mile (ppm) approved mileage allowance payment (AMAP) rate (now 45p) and the 12ppm paid by the employer plus an additional lump sum paid to the employees for using their private cars on business.

The value of the amount claimed was approximately £146,000 or around £1,000 per employee, which was subsequently paid by HMRC.

Laing O’Rourke argued that its car allowance scheme should also qualify for relief from NICs on payments made to employees.

HMRC said relief did not apply, because the payments could not be defined as relevant motoring expenditure. Judge Tracey Bowler reached a decision last July, ruling in favour of HMRC.

In reaching a decision in the Willmott Dixon case, Judge Nigel Popplewell said: “I totally appreciate that the way in which these payments were made and the amounts of the payments were based not on actual business use but on grades, and those grades, in turn, did not reflect actual business use but seniority.

“A similar arrangement was in place in LOR and this was another reason why Judge Bowler thought that similar payments in that case to the car allowances in this, were not made in respect of use. I respectfully disagree.”

He added: “The evidence shows that in order to receive the allowances an employee was obliged to have a private vehicle available for business use.”

Laing O’Rourke has appealed its FTT decision. HMRC has not said whether it will appeal the court’s decision in the Willmott Dixon case.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

VNC Automotive has questioned the automotive industry’s rush to replace conventional controls with touchscreens.

7

The software company says that manufacturers are at risk of alienating customers, compromising safety, and drawing the ire of regulatory bodies.

“Car manufacturers are locked in a race,” says Tom Blackie, CEO of VNC Automotive. “Not the kind that demands ever-increasing power outputs or shrinking zero-to-sixty times, however. Instead, the results of this contest are measured in inches.”

With each new model launch, vehicle manufacturers push the boundaries a little further, it says, with a race to expand the digital real estate, and make it more prominent.

Tablet-sized screens perched on the dashboard originally became popular and were soon joined by digital instrument clusters before infotainment systems were defined by the emergence of Tesla, with almost everything controlled by a giant screen in the middle of the dashboard.

It meant that even the most basic interaction, from changing the radio station to turning on the headlights, required the driver to delve into a menu.

However, with its technology installed in more than 35 million vehicles worldwide, VNC Automotive questions whether today’s touch-based interfaces are really the best solution.

“Having a giant touchscreen interface is really about saving hardware costs by implementing everything in software,” says Blackie.

“Recently, though, there’s been growing disquiet as years of ergonomic study and usability experience are abandoned in the rush to cram everything onto a single screen.”

A recent study by the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory and road safety charity IAM Roadsmart found that drivers took their eyes off the road for as long as 20 seconds when asked to play a track from Spotify using a touchscreen interface, long enough to travel a distance of 630 metres at 70mph – more than a third of a mile.

During that time, many drivers struggled to maintain their lane position, while some failed to respond to a simulated emergency event.

Overall, reaction times increased by up to 57% when interacting with these devices; driving while over the alcohol limit by comparison only increases reaction times by 12%.

In light of this research, Fleet News reported how recent changes to law around the use of mobile phones while driving were a “missed opportunity”, according to road safety experts.

Dissatisfaction with the proliferation of these interfaces isalso  growing among drivers, suggests VNC Automotive, and with the European Commission estimating that driver distraction is a factor in up to 30% of all accidents in Europe, it seems likely legislators will soon feel compelled to step in.

“The sluggishness that plagued early systems has now largely been addressed, but the lack of physical feedback on activating a touchpoint still demands that drivers glance at the screen for visual confirmation,” explained Blackie.

“With many cars lacking a convenient surface to brace against, the task of aiming at a small control with an extended arm in a car that’s bouncing around can quickly become a repetitive one, prolonging the time spent diverting focus from the road.”

Haptic feedback systems have improved from early electromagnetic actuators mounted behind a sprung display to clever electrostatic technologies that can even replicate different textures.

However, there remains the challenge of muscle-memory: in the past, drivers could feel their way to their favourite radio station, says VNC Automotive. Now, the function of a touchpoint varies depending on context.

Not only that, but the design of the interface itself is critical to reducing the demands for a driver’s attention.

Frequently used controls, it explains, should be styled to stand out from their surroundings; icons should be easily discernible; the status of a function should be readily apparent at a glance; colours should be chosen to avoid wash-out in sunlight. These are considerations that should be given precedence over all others.

Some OEMs believe the answer is more screens. The Honda e and Mercedes EQS, for example, both feature a swath of screens across the dashboard, offering a digital landscape almost as wide as the car itself.

This marks a clear departure from the days of infotainment systems optimised for use by the driver alone; now, passengers are afforded equal access.

“Shifting the focus to the passengers in the vehicle allows each occupant to enjoy an individual experience,” continued Blackie.

“Once you make it easier for people to select their own entertainment, it frees the driver-focused interfaces of the burden of being both a control surface and a point of content consumption.

“At that point, we can redesign the UI and UX to regain the ease of usability that’s been lost.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Keyless car theft accounted for 94% of all vehicles recovered by Tracker last year, reaching an all-time high.

Thieves take the vehicles using relay technology to receive the signal from a key inside a house and transfer it to a portable device, allowing them to unlock and drive the car.

Tracker’s data reveals that London is the place where cars were most frequently stolen and recovered. The West Midlands, Manchester, Essex and Kent complete the  top five regions for vehicle theft and recovery. 

Northern territories like South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Lancashire and Merseyside also proved popular regions for criminals wanting to steal cars. However, the home county of Surrey with a close proximity to London, also appears in the top 10.

Four-wheeled drive vehicles were the most popular choice of cars targeted by thieves in the top five regions, apart from Manchester. When analysing Tracker’s data of the top five types of vehicles stolen in each region, criminals in Manchester clearly have a desire for sportier models such as the Audi A4 Sport Cabriolet and Jaguar XF.

Clive Wain, head of police liaison for Tracker, said: “The five regions topping our most stolen and recovered league table are the largest populated counties in the country, which accounts for their high level of theft activity.

In addition, London provides some great corridor routes through Kent and Essex to key shipping ports where criminals load desirable cars into containers to be shipped to Europe, Africa and the Middle East.

“2021 continued to see the fall out of Covid-19 restrictions, with January and February proving quieter months for criminals stealing cars due to the lockdown.  However, as the year went on, we saw a significant rise in cars being stolen. 

This was made worse by the shortage in car spare parts worldwide, as criminals quickly recognised how lucrative it was to steal cars specifically for their parts. As a result, there was an increase in ‘chop shops’ being set up across the UK. These buildings are equipped to strip down stolen vehicles for their expensive parts which are then sold on very lucratively.”

The threat of criminals stealing cars in 2022 is just as prevalent, wans Tracker. It recommends that vehicles are protected using visual deterrents, such as crook locks and wheel clamps, as well as CCTV and immobilisers.

Stolen vehicle tracking technology, meanwhile, helped recover more than £9 million worth of stolen vehicles last year. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Councils and road authorities in England, Scotland and Wales have paid out almost £13 million for vehicle damage caused by potholes between January 2018 and October 2021, new research suggests.

Motorists across England, Scotland and Wales submitted more than 145,000 compensation claims to councils, with 37,366 motorists receiving compensation, on average, of £347 – a success rate of 25%.

The cost of filling a pothole has previously been estimated to cost £47.

National Highways (formerly Highways England), in charge of England’s trunk roads, was the highest paying authority, stumping up just over £865,000 in compensation.

The research, from What Car?, comes after The Asphalt Industry Alliance published its latest ALARM report, with local authorities in England and Wales facing a nine-year backlog of road repairs estimated to cost more than £12 billion.

Five county and city councils were found to have paid more than half a million in compensation between 2018 and October 2021, including Lincolnshire County Council, Surrey County Council, Lancashire County Council, Staffordshire County Council, and Stoke-on-Trent City Council.

Lincolnshire County Council received the highest number of damage claims across the four years, with 8,810 claims, of which 4,313 were successful, costing the local authority more than £760,000 – £177 per claim.

Wiltshire Council was found to have the highest share of compensation claims paid, with 86% of the 1,594 claims paid, totalling £302,000 over the four-year period.

Slough Borough Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Councils were the second and third highest, paying out 65% and 62% of all claims, respectively.

In total, 11 councils across Britain paid more than half of all claims.

Not all local authorities answered the Freedom of Information request; 344 responded while 161 said they were unable to provide figures as road compensation often fell under the remit of county and city councils, rather than borough or district councils.

Meanwhile, a survey of motorists it conducted found almost one in four 24% motorists had damaged their vehicle in the past 18 months from hitting a pothole.

Two-thirds of respondents were aware they could claim for the damage caused from their local roads authority, though only one in 10 had ever done so.

Top 20 councils and road authorities per pothole compensation 

Position	Council or Road Authority	Total Claims	Claims successful	Share of claims paid out	Total Payout (£)
1	Highways England	4,781	2,707	56.62%	865,254.75
2	Lincolnshire County Council	8,810	4,313	48.96%	764,588.00
3	Surrey County Council	6,380	893	14.00%	608,284.00
4	Lancashire County Council	4,016	1,903	47.39%	520,745.26
5	Staffordshire County Council	5,659	1,502	26.54%	517,367.00
6	Stoke-on-Trent City Council	1,430	892	62.38%	507,055.78
7	Oxfordshire County Council	3,578	1,512	41.11%	378,770.00
8	Cambridgeshire County Council	2,666	942	35.33%	354,931.56
9	Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council	804	75	9.33%	350,500.00
10	Dumfries and Galloway Council	1,568	585	37.31%	324,111.39
11	Wiltshire Council	1,594	1,381	86.64%	302,911.10
12	Shropshire Council	2,412	811	33.62%	282,454.13
13	Dudley Metropolitan Borough	463	238	51.40%	262,862.49
14	West Northamptonshire Council*	2,995	770	25.71%	234,961.87
15	Derbyshire County Council	2,099	772	36.78%	222,264.60
16	Hampshire County Council	6,046	732	12.11%	219,284.22
17	Northumberland County Council	1,409	663	47.05%	196,450.00
18	Warwickshire County Council	1.153	515	44.67%	189,853.00
19	Flintshire County Council	600	248	41.33%	177,205.00
20	Devon County Council	2,734	720	26.34%	170,069.00

*As of the April 1, 2021, South Northamptonshire Council, Northamptonshire County Council, Northampton Borough Council and Daventry District Council ceased to exist and formed the new West Northamptonshire Unitary Council. The data provided prior to the April 1, 2021, relates to those claims submitted to Northamptonshire County Council and covers the County as a whole. The data provided since April 1, 2021, relates to the West Northamptonshire area of the County only.

By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

Greater London has been identified as having the largest number of speed cameras in the UK, with almost 1,000 speed traps located across the Capital.

The camera hotspots include spot speed sites, red-light cameras, ‘speed on’ green sites and average speed cameras.

London has 0.6 speed cameras per square Km, the highest proportion of any region. Derbyshire, which has the second highest number of cameras in the UK, has a density of 0.3 cameras per square Km.

The data was obtained by short-term insurance provider Go Shorty, by means of a Freedom of Information Request.

Rank	Area	Cameras currently installed
1	Greater London	995
2	Derbyshire	958
3	West Yorkshire	402
4	Humberside	266
5	Devon and Cornwall	115
6	Essex	100
7	Bedfordshire	97
8	Kent	84
9	South Wales	69
10	Gwent	67

The organisation also gathered data on the highest speeds captured in each region. Nottinghamshire topped the list, with one driver caught travelling at 191mph. The offence was committed on the M1 Southbound, between junctions 26 and 25.

Eight constabularies in the UK reported speeders caught travelling at 150mph or more.

Rank	Constabulary	Speed
1	Nottinghamshire Police	191mph
2	Humberside Police	163mph
3	West Yorkshire Police	159mph
4	Essex Police	158mph
5	Kent Police	157mph
6	Gwent Police	155mph
7	Sussex Police	151mph
8	Lincolnshire Police	151mph
9	Derbyshire Police	148mph
10	Lancashire Police	147mph

Almost half of fixed speed cameras are not working, however, according to a separate study answered by 26 out of 44 police forces.

Of the 1,092 fixed speed cameras, 523 are inactive. Wiltshire Police reported that they have no fixed or mobile cameras but just rely on handheld cameras.

Some areas – like North Yorkshire, Durham, and Northamptonshire – have no fixed speed cameras working at all. Some of the cameras started to be switched off 10 years ago when funding arrangements were changed, and they became too expensive to replace.

The findings, from a BBC Panorama investigation, come as death rates on UK roads have plateaued over the past decade, after previously declining for 30 years. The death rate on the country’s roads increased by 5% in 2020.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has told MPs that Greater Manchester’s clean air zone (CAZ) is “completely unworkable” and will “damage” local businesses.

Johnson was asked by local MP James Grundy to intervene in the scheme at PMQs in Parliament on Wednesday, February 2.  

Grundy said: “The Greater Manchester mayoral clean air zone scheme, effectively a congestion charge affecting all 500 square miles of Greater Manchester, including my constituents in Leigh, is a job-destroying tax on ordinary workers.

“We all want clean air, but the model proposed by Mayor (Andy) Burnham is unworkable and economically devastating with charges of £60 per day, per lorry driver.

“Will the PM intervene to prevent Mayor Burnham from inflicting this disastrous Labour scheme on Greater Manchester?”

In response, Johnson said: “I know from my own experience how vital it is when you’re trying to clean up air in a great city that you do not unjustly penalise business and small business and it’s become clear that the scheme proposed by the Labour mayor in Manchester is completely unworkable, would do more damage to businesses and residents in Manchester.

He added: “The Secretary of State for the Environment will be saying more about this in the coming days.”

The Government has been calling on local authorities to introduce CAZs since the UK’s highest court, the Supreme Court, ordered ministers in 2015 to take immediate action to cut air pollution.

A ‘Category C’ charging clean air zone (CAZ) covering Greater Manchester is due to be launched from May 30, and will operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

Non-compliant coaches and HGVs will be charged £60 to enter the zone, and taxis and private hire vehicles £7.50, with a temporary exemption for Greater Manchester-licensed vehicles until May 31, 2023.

Older vans and minibuses will also get an exemption until the same date but will be charged £10 thereafter.

Charges will be based on vehicles meeting certain emission standards – Euro6/VI or better for diesel engines, and Euro4 or better for petrol.

Last month, Burnham asked the Government to pause funding to upgrade vans, taxis, coaches and minibuses to cleaner models, with operators unable to access new vehicles and record prices in the used market.

He said that Greater Manchester’s leaders had “repeatedly raised concerns” about the level of funding being offered to help people upgrade vehicles.

He added that he was “not and have never been the instigator nor the final decision maker in this scheme” and the government had “initiated it”.

The region had secured £120 million in Government funding to help fleets upgrade to cleaner, compliant vehicles, with applications for HGVs opening in November, last year.

It had earmarked £87.9m for its Clean Commercial Vehicle Fund to upgrade vans, HGVs, coaches and minibuses, and £21.4m through the Clean Taxi Fund for GM-licensed taxi and private hire vehicle owners, drivers and operators to switch to cleaner vehicles.

Burnham has asked the environment secretary to delay full implementation of the scheme until 2027, which he said would “provide the opportunity to make significant changes… to allow supply chain issues and market conditions to stabilise whilst finding more effective ways to achieve compliance”.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Note: Since picking up this article the scheme has now been put on hold.

Demands on the UK’s electricity network are set to rocket as the country moves closer to the ambition of a net zero economy by 2050.

National Grid estimates overall electricity consumption in that year will be 890tWh, almost three times as high as 2020’s figure of 304tWh.

Much of this will be down to the increased use of electricity in energy-consuming sectors such as industry and heating, but the electrification of the UK’s road transport network will also have a significant impact.

National Grid expects EVs to account for more than 80tWh. “Questions will be raised about how they will be charged as the demand on the electricity supply grows,” it says in its 2021 Future Energy Scenarios report.

“Smart charging, where EV owners release some control on the best time to charge to third parties or automation based on price, will be an effective tool to support the local and national electricity networks.”

The most basic form of smart charging allows the user to manually set the times a vehicle will be charged, allowing them to make savings by taking advantage of the time-of-use tariffs which feature lower electricity prices at times of high supply and low demand, such as at night between 1am and 5am.

Fleets which operate a back-to-base model where vehicles are plugged in at a depot can use this to stagger charging times to help avoid a costly electricity network upgrade that may be needed if all their EVs are charged at the same time.

“In some cases, the cost to electrify the site could be higher than the cost of the vehicles, making the transition commercially unviable,” says Nicole Thompson, director of social innovation and head of co-creation partnerships for Hitachi Vantara.

The next step in smart charging is to use artificial intelligence so the chargers communicate with the electricity network to respond to changes in the level of supply, demand and cost.

For this, the user would specify the level of charge required and the time the vehicle is needed by, and the system would manage the flow of energy to the battery to ensure this happens.

Greater flexibility

“There is much more renewable energy coming on to the grid now and that’s really good news for a whole host of reasons,” says Ben Fletcher, associate director of EV at smart battery hardware and software company Moixa.

“It also means that having the flexibility where you can decide what vehicle is – and isn’t – charging and work with the grid is super important in probably a way that hasn’t been as important before, especially with the size of EV fleet that’s coming.

“That’s where the smartness comes in. There are electricity tariffs which are helping to support like Octopus Agile, which tracks the wholesale price of electricity.

“That’s a ground-breaking tariff and is a fantastic tool that has the ability to change every half-hour, but you have to be on top of it and tracking what’s going on as well as triangulating it back to when you actually need your vehicle to be ready by.

“The smartness will allow customers to make the most of these kinds of tariffs alongside the energy companies and the National Grid in the transition to more and more renewable energy.”

Moixa is a partner in the EV Fleet-centred Local Energy System (EFLES) project, which aims to show how artificial intelligence (AI) can break down the barriers to electrification for fleet operators by maximising the cost and carbon savings from EVs.

Supported by the Government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund for Research and Innovation, other project partners are UK Power Networks, UPS and Cross River Partnership.

It builds on the Smart Electric Urban Logistics (SEUL) trial from 2017 to 2019 which saw Cross River Partnership, UPS and UK Power Networks develop charging technology at UPS’s Camden depot to meet the challenge of charging an EV fleet without a costly upgrade of the local power network.

“We started off with EVs in London back in 2008 and had an expensive power upgrade, which could take us up to 63 EVs,” says Claire Thompson-Sage, sustainable development co-ordinator at UPS.

“We reached that limit in 2017, so we worked with the SEUL project to develop smart grid technology to enable us to have a fully-electrified fleet in London, which we’re aiming towards now.

“The (EFLES) project is built on looking at how we can optimise the power.”

Thompson-Sage says that, as UPS charges its vehicles overnight, it uses very little power during the day and it will use the project to look at how it manages its energy systems, including on-site solar panels and static battery storage.

Capital expenduture savings of 70%

The SEUL project identified capital expenditure savings of around 70% through using a smart charging solution instead of upgrading the local electricity network.

ELFES takes this a step further and the integration of Moixa’s GridShare platform will monitor and analyse a multitude of data sources at the depot including energy prices, power demand and weather forecasts to optimise charging for when energy is cleanest and cheapest, while also using on-site energy storage and solar power generation.

“SEUL was about managing capital costs, but what about operational costs?,” asks Sefinat Otaru, ELFES project manager, Cross River Partnership.

“This was how this project came about and, once it wraps up next year, it’s going to be very much about sharing the results and just helping other organisations that are interested make connections with the right people so that, hopefully, they will pick up the ball and keep it rolling.”

Smart charging for fleets is also the subject of a number of other trials, such as the Fleet Connected Smart Charging (FCSM) project.

This is led by data science company Miralis Data, energy management company Envisij and EV charging firm Mina.

It aims to produce a smart charging solution to optimise the electricity capacity of a site to enable fleets to transition to EVs quicker and more efficiently.

During the project, which has secured funding from the Office for Zero Emission Vehicles, Envisij will report real-time and projected site power capacity and site demand, while Miralis will devise a smart charging solution to optimise the remaining capacity, charging vehicles within cost and capacity parameters. The solution is expected in 2022.

The Government has also identified smart charging as having a key role to play and the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 gives it the powers through secondary legislation to mandate that all charge points sold or installed in the UK have smart functionality.

In 2019, it introduced the requirement that all Government-funded home EV charge points must use smart technology and it is now proposing that home and workplace chargers installed from May must be pre-programmed to switch off during peak hours (8-11am and 4-10pm) to ease pressure on the National Grid.

Owners and fleets will be able to override the pre-set times to take account of night workers and people who have different schedules.

Smart charging not for all

While the number of smart chargers – both at homes and at businesses – are rapidly increasing, smart charging may not suit all drivers, says Fletcher, adding: “There will be some people who will take their vehicle home and they might be on 24-hour call, so they need to charge the vehicle as quickly as possible.

“For them, it’s go home and put the vehicle on charge immediately because that person needs the confidence that if they are called out in the middle of the night, they’ll be able to respond.

“Other drivers will have a much more predictable duty cycle. They may get home at 6pm and leave at 7am the next day, giving a window of opportunity where the charging can be optimised against the relevant tariff to make sure that both work in terms of money and CO2.

“That would benefit the fleet manager in terms of the costs that are being put in, but it’s also benefiting the user because they’re not thinking about any charging schedules.”

National Grid’s Future Energy Scenario also highlights the role vehicle-to-grid (V2G) – which enables battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to provide energy storage services to the electricity network – can play.

This allows users to plug their BEV in to charge and, potentially, sell any surplus electricity back to the local and national networks at peak times.

The Project Sciurus trial found the simulated annual revenue for a driver using V2G was £340 compared with using an unmanaged charger. In contrast, smart charging could capture £120 from tariff optimisation.

The initiative, which project partner Cenex says is the world’s largest V2G trial, began in 2018 and has more than 320 V2G units installed in UK homes.

Participants are able to set their preferences for charging parameters and remain in control of when their vehicles are ready to use. They get paid a fixed rate for every kWh exported to the grid.

Participants are able to set their preferences for charging parameters and remain in control of when their vehicles are ready to use. They get paid a fixed rate for every kWh exported to the grid.

In its Project Sciurus White Paper, Cenex analysed the plug-in behaviour of users over a 12-month period, looking at different user-types, and found that, although domestic V2G propositions are suitable for a range of drivers, ‘utility style fleet vans’ are among the prime candidates for the technology.

The low-carbon consultancy describes this category as small vans used to carry small volumes of tools and equipment between domestic appointments.

They are owned by a company, but kept by the driver and charged at home or on public networks.

However, Cenex points out the home the vehicle would be connected to would not be the property of the company and, therefore, is unlikely to support V2G activities with the vehicle at the premises unless there are financial or other benefits for the organisation.

V2G drawbacks

While there are other benefits to a fleet opting to install V2G technology, for example the potential to preserve the health of a battery, there are also drawbacks.

Currently the cost of a V2G charging unit is around £4,000 to £6,000, which is significantly more than a smart charger.

Other trials are also taking place in the UK, such as Western Power Distribution’s Electric Nation initiative, which features 100 Nissan EV owners in the Midlands, south-west England and South Wales.

Some industry figures are less convinced about the role V2G will play in the future of the wider charging ecosystem.

“The way I explain it to people is that smart charging gives you 90% of the benefits of V2G for 10% of the complexity,” says Erik Fairbarn, founder and chief executive of Pod Point.

“For that reason, I don’t think it’s a very significant part of charging in most cases, but if you’re talking about depots of buses or fleets of vehicles in a particular location, there are use cases there which I think it could make sense in.

“But if we’re talking broadly across the charging ecosystem, it’s probably one to keep an eye on but I wouldn’t expect much to happen there in the short-term.”

Fletcher adds: “The answer to the question ‘will V2G work for me?’ is ‘it depends’. It depends on the type of fleet and the way the vehicles are used.

“There will be points when the grid is under immense stress but to have the benefit of feeding power back to the grid at those times, the vehicles actually need to be plugged in and available.

“That will absolutely fit in with how the duty cycle of some fleets work, but for other fleets it might be more difficult.

“When you’re talking about BEVs and V2G it’s easy to fall into the trap of talking about them as batteries with wheels, but the key point to remember here is that people actually buy vehicles to get from point A to point B.

“That has to be at the heart of running a BEV. The smartness and V2G needs to be there to enable the vehicles to move things or people from A to B as easily and efficiently as possible, not to have supporting the grid as its main function.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News