The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Poor car seats are causing more than a third of UK drivers to take one day off work a year for back pain, costing more than £8.8 billion annually in lost productivity.

The findings, from exclusive research by Volvo Car UK, show that 12% of respondents have taken up to two days off work for back pain from poor quality car seats, while 13% have had to ask up to four days of sick leave from their employer.

Meanwhile, one in 20 (5%) have had to have a full working week off, while another 5% have asked for seven or more days of rest.

If this was reflected across the whole driving population, Volvo suggests that back pain resulting from poor car seats is costing the UK economy £8.8 billion in lost productivity.

The pain from poor car seats is bad enough for nearly a third of drivers to see a doctor or physiotherapist, costing the NHS £191.94 million in GP appointments and hospital visits, it says.

The findings were revealed during Backcare Awareness Week.

Kristian Elvefors, Volvo Car UK’s managing director, said: “Back pain from poor quality car seats is a bigger problem than many think.

“Not only is it costing the UK economy billions in lost productivity as employees take sick leave, but poor quality car seats are also placing an unnecessary burden on the NHS, costing hospitals and GP surgeries hundreds of millions a year.

“Volvo is committed to ensuring that all of its customers, regardless of shape or size, find the seats in their car incredibly comfortable and pain-free.”

Men are more likely to find the seats in their car uncomfortable, with 15% of male drivers saying their car seats often cause them back pain when driving for work purposes.

Half the men surveyed admitted to taking at least one day off work for back pain from driving, while only 25% of women had to call their employer for sick leave.

Men were also more likely to see a doctor for back pain, with 40% doing so, while just one-in-five women found the seats in their car so bad they had to go to a GP or physiotherapist.

However, the research found men drive on average more than women, with men covering on average 60 miles a day, while women drive just 30.

Volvo was one of the first car makers to incorporate spinal research into its seat design, starting with the Volvo Amazon in 1965.

Today, Volvo has a three-tier approach to seat comfort, focusing on Initial Comfort, Cruising Comfort and Dynamic Comfort – to ensure drivers and passengers remain relaxed and fully supported throughout their journey, regardless of the length or type of road.

Tommy Apell, senior attribute leader for seat comfort at Volvo Cars, said: “At Volvo, we specifically opt to use softer foam compounds for our seats to ensure the fit is comfortable across all body shapes and sizes.

“We also specially tune our seat springs for improved comfort, with the ergonomics team working alongside designers to ensure things like seat stitching don’t create pressure points for drivers and passengers.

“Our lengthy development and testing programme means new seats take up to five years to move from concept to finished product.”

According to Volvo Car UK, seat comfort is a key priority for 63% of UK drivers, with nearly one-in-five going as far as swapping a previous car for a model with better seats.

More than one-in-10 drivers also admitted they had passengers refuse to get in their car because their seats were so uncomfortable.

When asked which areas they would like to see improved, the majority of drivers wanted more lumbar (lower back) support, while a third wanted more adjustability to suit their frames. By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

GEM Motoring Assist has suggested the current eyesight tests for drivers are ‘long out of date’, with the road safety organisation calling for tests every 10 years.

Neil Worth, GEM’s road safety officer, has said the Government should update laws to ensure a detailed eye examination is part of drivers’ photocard licence renewal process, which takes place every 10 years.

Worth said more than 3,000 fatal and serious injury collisions occur each year because of poor vision.

He added: “We believe it is entirely practical and sensible to require a test of visual acuity and field of view every 10 years, something that would fit in with licence renewal.

“Tests of this kind would not only make our roads safer, saving lives, disability and many millions of pounds through the reduction in the number of crashes, but they would also play a vital role valuable tool in the early diagnosis of many other costly medical conditions, irrespective of driving.”

GEM has worked with Felicity Gill, a community optometrist, who explained that she sees patients daily who are concerned about their own driving, as well astheir friends and family members’ driving experiences.

The most common ageing change in the eye is cataract (clouding of the lens inside the eye), with conditions such as diabetes/diabetic eye disease, glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration also causing concern.

With drivers staying on the road to their 80s, GEM believes that regular eyesights should be mandatory.

Worth concluded: “There are many benefits for a driver to staying mobile as long as possible. However, safety must remain the number one priority for everyone.

“We also cannot ignore the greater volume of traffic and the general increase in distractions, both inside and outside the vehicle, which further point to the clear need for more regular and detailed eyesight testing.”  By Graham Hill & Fleet News

Company fleet managers have been praised for educating drivers around the use of AdBlue, but the AA says education of all drivers must continue.

The latest data from the AA shows that there were 5% fewer call-outs related to the diesel exhaust fluid in the first half of 2019, compared with the same period the previous year.

The news follows a peak last year, in which the organisation reported seeing 23,000 AdBlue-related breakdowns in the 12-months to June 2018.

While diesel sales are down almost 20% year-to-date 2019, the fuel-type still makes up more than a quarter of new car sales.

In addition, the roll-out of Euro6 emissions regulations and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology means that AdBlue usage is on the increase.

However, AA technicians told Fleet News that fewer drivers are making the mistake of running out of the fluid while call-outs related to system faults are also on the decline.

Stuart Thomas, director of fleet and SME at the AA, said: “Last year a lack of driver education was leading to significant AdBlue breakdowns, but we are pleased to see that knowledge levels seem to be on the increase.

“Fleet managers are obviously doing a good job updating drivers on what they need to do. And, if you’ve run out once, you are unlikely to make the same mistake again.”

Despite the positive trend, the AA’s Business Services team is keen to emphasise that educating drivers is far from over.

Most drivers will need to top up their AdBlue at least once between services, so it is important to keep an eye on dashboard warnings, particularly for high mileage fleet drivers or those who are jumping in and out of different cars in the company pool, it said.

Thomas continued: “We’ve all done it, jumped into an unfamiliar car and decided to take a chance on leaving the warning lights for the next poor person to get behind the wheel.

“However, when AdBlue runs out, the engine’s power and performance will be severely limited, and you won’t be able to restart the engine when you stop.

“The good news is that the warnings will come up with plenty of time to get your car topped up. The onus is on drivers to keep their fleet managers informed if they don’t get it sorted themselves.”

AA technicians are also warning fleets not to get caught out when the weather turns colder this autumn and winter.

Thomas said: “Changes in the driving conditions, whether that is heavy payloads or extreme weather, can significantly impact how quickly you get through your tank of AdBlue.

“The size of the tank also makes a massive difference. While you might top up anywhere between every 3,000 and 12,000 miles in the spring and summer, this could drop dramatically in the cold weather.”  By Graham Hill – Thanks To Fleet News.

On the 15^th October the FCA published its report into the way that PCP has been sold by dealers and brokers. Unfortunately, it focused on the way that they uplift interest charges to pay themselves commissions instead of the more important areas of blatant mis-selling.

Here is what I said about the report.

I was disappointed to read the update from the FCA and see that they have made such a major issue over the commission paid for organising finance rather than the plethora of other areas that could result in mis-selling and consumers losing out.

We must first stop treating PCP and Personal Contract Hire as finance agreements. Even HMRC has partially recognised this by introducing two ways of recording PCP agreements. If the agreement is set up with a final payment that is below anticipated value of the car, leaving equity in the car for the customer, it is treated as a finance agreement.

If there is no equity planned the agreement is regarded as a ‘Service Agreement’ and attracts VAT on the monthly payments (as well as VAT adjustments on the purchase of the car and the sale of the used car).

Once it has been agreed that the products are not simple finance agreements we need new laws to cover them as current laws are totally inadequate.

Given the nature of PCP’s you cannot simply extract one part of the equation and target that one item as a way of penalising the providers, i.e. car dealers and independent brokers. The actions proposed will not benefit consumers as dealers will simply move the lost income out of the commissions paid on finance to decreased discounts or reduced manufacturer subsidies.

With dealer groups reporting poor performance and issuing profit warnings they have to get their income from somewhere. APR is simply part of the marketing equation. When a dealer advertises 0% APR or low rate (subsidised) APR it doesn’t mean that he receives nothing in commissions.

The manufacturer will simply pay the dealer out of the discounts or subsidies that the customer no longer receives due to his attraction to either low rate or zero rate APR.

The APR could also reflect the amount of time that the dealer spends explaining and putting the finance in place. This is certainly the case with independent finance brokers. They earn their commission out of the interest charged thereby spreading the cost for the customer rather than charge a fee.

The broker needs to know how and where to place the business using a panel of funders. As we know the higher the risk the higher the interest charged and often increasing the time the broker spends on the case which has to be paid for.

Let’s face it customers are really only interested in what they have to pay upfront and what they pay monthly. The slicing of the cake is of little interest. The downside is that if dealers and brokers lose the ability to set rates and commissions to suit the circumstances we will see wholesale shut downs of dealers and brokers – is that really good for competition?

It will also mean that dealers and in particular brokers will concentrate on the easy cases leaving those with tarnished credit unable to get to work or take their kids to school because they can’t get finance for a car.

Finally, I would say that we need new laws to cover PCP and PCH agreements. APR and monthly payments are both negotiable and walkaways. Tell a dealer or broker that you won’t pay the APR on the quotation it’s up to him if he wants to see you walk out of the door or negotiate a better deal.

It is possible that the dealer is using his finance commission to increase the part exchange allowance. It is a complicated calculation. What we need are laws that cover the selling of ‘add-ons’, excess mileage charges, end of contract condition when the car is handed back, what happens to your agreement if you die or are unable to drive, etc. etc.

We also need clarity over the anti-competition activities of dealers such as Pendragon Group and other dealers when they refuse to invoice finance companies selected by consumers to provide their finance as they are not their own finance providers or on their panel of providers. Some will invoice a 3rd party funder but charge the customer between £250 and £500 for the privilege. Now that needs attention!  By Graham Hill

European Union called on to “ramp up” hydrogen stations in the face of “severely lacking” infrastructure.

Car makers have urged the European Union to “ramp up” investment in hydrogen filling stations, as the current infrastructure is “severely lacking.”

The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) says “a strategic plan for the pan-European deployment of infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles needs to be put in place”, with the organisation also calling for consideration to be given to the requirements of hydrogen lorries.

The majority of the focus on provision for alternatively fuelled vehicles has been around electric cars and their charging points, with hydrogen vehicles left behind.

Some 17 new hydrogen stations were opened in Germany last year, bringing the total number in the country to 60; that compares to roughly 25,000 EV chargers. In the UK, there are around 15,000 EV chargers, against just 17 hydrogen stations.

Critics of hydrogen cars point to their expense (the Hyundai Nexo and Toyota Mirai both cost upwards of £60,000) as well as their rarity and complexity. Generating hydrogen fuel, meanwhile, is also problematic, with the majority of the element captured using fossil fuels.

But hydrogen advocates cite the fuel’s advantages, namely that cars running on hydrogen can be refulled as quickly as models with petrol and diesel engines and offer similar range. The cars themselves produce no tailpipe emissions other than water.

Hydrogen generation methods, meanwhile, could in theory move away from fossil fuels in future years, just as electricty generation has, to some extent. Research by Auto Express, meanwhile, found that some organisations were covering higher mileage in hydrogen cars compared to EVs.

The ACEA’s director general, Eric-Mark Huitema, said: “Along with other alternatively-powered vehicles, fuel cell vehicles hold a strong potential to help make the transition to zero-emission mobility.

“But their ability to reach this potential depends on a network of hydrogen refuelling stations being built up right across Europe. Today, there are just 125 hydrogen stations in the EU, so there is much work to be done in the coming years.”

Hydrogen cars will overtake electric cars, expert claims.

Electric power for cars “has its limits” and cars will be hydrogen-powered from 2030, an automotive-industry expert has said.

Dr Felix Gress, head of corporate communications and public affairs at automotive technology firm Continental, told an audience in Germany that electric cars represent poor value for money compared to petrol or diesel alternatives.

“For the customers, it will be difficult to accept such a car in the market – you pay a higher price, you get less of a car, so it will be a tough sell.”

And, while EVs may be grabbing the headlines and industry attention, Gress predicted that focus will be reversed within a decade or so. “The fuel cell is not ready to kick in yet,” Gress added. “By 2030, we’ll see that coming, especially in passenger cars that run long distances, or trucks.”

Gress added that manufacturers need to focus on electric cars in order to lower their fleet emissions and meet upcoming regulations in various markets, many of which have plans to limit or ban the sale of new conventionally powered petrol and diesel cars.

While these motivations may be driving the automotive industry, Gress warned drivers may not actually buy electric cars large numbers, partly due to what he perceives as their inherent limitations. “The battery technology, according to our estimations, has its limits,” he admitted, adding that “it doesn’t generate enough range” for some people’s needs.

Circling back around to the topic of hydrogen vehicles, Gress said this was something Continental is considering. “Fuel cell is not out of reach, I would say. The question is when it would kick in. We are working on that area, too.”  By Graham Hill & AutoExpress

Official DVSA statistics show vast number of dangerous vehicles have deemed dangerous since the updated MoT was introduced.

Almost three million vehicles have failed their MoTs as a result of ‘dangerous’ defects, with the updated MoT test revealing the true extent of how badly maintained almost 10 per cent of Britain’s cars are.

The MoT test underwent one of the most significant shake-ups in its 59-year history in May 2018, when new defect categories (Minor, Major and Dangerous) and fresh checks were brought in.

Official data from the 12 months since those changes were introduced has revealed that 2,952,487 of the 31,285,618 vehicles submitted for their MoT failed last year due to defects that were classified as Dangerous. That means 9.4 per cent of vehicles tested had a fault that posed “a direct and immediate risk to road safety” or “a serious impact on the environment.”

The vast majority (29,537,183) of the vehicles tested were cars, with 2,769,081 (9.37 per cent) failing due to a Dangerous defect. Such faults include missing brake pads, twisted steering shafts, and exhausts that are “likely to become detached.”

Precisely a third of all cars submitted for their MoT in the 12 months since the test changed failed due to Major or Dangerous faults, far higher than the 17 per cent of failing motorbikes, and 29.7 per cent of minibuses. Worryingly, though, 40.9 per cent of goods vehicles with a weight of between two and 37 tonnes failed their test, with over 13 per cent doing so because of a Dangerous fault.

And officials from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), which is responsible for administering the MoT, are concerned that the number of vehicles with dangerous faults is likely to be even higher.

Neil Barlow, the DVSA’s head of vehicle engineering explained: “With a quarter of cars turning up late for MOT every year, that means there are lots of potentially dangerous vehicles badly in need of inspection.”

“We urge people to sign up to our free MOT reminder service so they get their MOTs done on time, helping keep Britain’s roads safe.”

The most common cause of an MoT failure in the 12 months from May 2018 were problems with suspension components (these caused 18.3 per cent of failures), followed by issues with lights and electrical equipment (14.9 per cent) and brake problems (8.8 per cent).

By Graham Hill, Thanks To AutoExpress

Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps is apparently set to finally agree to increase the speed limit to 80mph. The issue has caused disagreement from all quarters over the years resulting in the decision being kicked into the long grass. But the entrance of a new argument has caused the issue to be raised again and look like the new limit may finally be adopted.

The new entrant into the equation is the increase in electric cars now using the motorways. One of the main reasons for not adopting the increased speed limit was the amount of extra CO2 spewed out by petrol and diesel cars at higher speeds. But this argument falls away as electric cars increase.

The other major argument is safety. The public and safety groups fear that accidents will increase if the limit is increased. But this ignores the fact that our motorways are the safest roads in the UK whilst being the fastest so the logical conclusion is that speed cannot be the biggest contributing factor to accidents.

Motorways are built for high speed, they are generally better maintained, straighter with fewer hills to climb. So an increase of 10mph will make motorways no more dangerous. Accidents on motorways are more often down to weather conditions such as snow, ice, fog, rain and wind rather than driving too fast.

Modern cars have masses of safety equipment fitted, set to increase next year as a result of EU rules making it compulsory for more safety equipment to be fitted as standard next year. The real problem is poor driving competency, driving too close to cars in front, how to handle aquaplaning and which way to steer when the rear tyres lose all grip.

With new smart motorways doing away with hard shoulders and even those with hard shoulders confusing drivers who are unaware of the rules if you break down, safety campaigners should concentrate on education rather than fighting an increase in speed limit. Over to you Mr Shapps – let’s get this done?  By Graham Hill

We tend to hear a lot about the dangers of a no-deal Brexit from the perspective of UK business but how worried are European manufacturers of a no-deal Brexit? Are they as worried as our own manufacturers and what are the dangers being faced by the biggest car manufacturers, the Germans?

According to the Sunday Telegraph the quick answer is that they are petrified, especially the largest manufacturer in the world VW. Their factory in Wolfsburg, Germany employs a massive 50,000 workers. It runs three independent power stations and one corridor alone is over 1 mile long. Workers on the factory floor use bicycles to get about.

So having finally recovered from the Dieselgate scandal the last thing they need are the challenges of the loss of the free trade agreements that would follow a no-deal Brexit. Last month the German car manufacturers joined other European manufacturers who released a joint statement warning that a no-deal Brexit would have ‘seismic’ and ‘devastating’ consequences for the sector.

In another report produced earlier this year it was suggested that as many as 100,000 motor industry jobs would be at risk in the auto sector in Germany and that the European economy would suffer badly but that the UK economy would suffer even more. Concerns over the just-in-time supply chain of parts in both directions are of major concern, disrupting manufacturing both in the UK and in Europe in the event of a no-deal.

Having said this there is a strong belief that the onus is on the UK to come up with some proposals that would prevent Brexit. A view that isn’t shared by Boris and co. There seems a disconnect between the view of European inhabitants who talk highly of Britain and our trading partnership and their EU representatives.

Trades union leaders in Germany are concerned about the future of their members’ jobs. Only a Brexit deal will give them any level of comfort but they still support the EU-27 and support their position stating that they, in Europe, should remain united. By Graham Hill

European think tank claims ‘carmakers’ strategy to promote sales of inefficient, higher-emitting SUVs” is making CO2 targets hard to hit.

The popularity of relatively heavy, unaerodynamic SUVs is to blame for the recent rise in new-car carbon dioxide emissions not, as has often been reported, the falling popularity of diesel cars, according to a European think tank.

Industry figures show the average CO2 emissions of a new car rose by 2.9 per cent in 2018. European new-car CO2 emissions have also increased following years of decline, falling by nearly 22g/km between 2010 and 2016, but subsequently increasing by a provisional 2g/km in 2018.

Carmakers and environmental experts have often cited the falling popularity of diesel cars – which emit less CO2 than their petrol equivalents – as key to this bucked trend. But the European Federation for Transport and Environment think tank, more commonly known as Transport and Environment, says “contrary to carmakers’ claims”, the SUV “sales boom” has increased average CO2 emissions by 2.6g/km since 2013, with falling diesel sales responsible for a mere 0.25g/km rise.

The average emissions of the cars produced by manufacturers must be 95g/km by 2021, with penalties of €95 per g/km, per car, for companies not meeting those targets. Potentially huge fines have seen Fiat Chrysler team up with electric car firm Tesla to ‘share’ CO2 emissions.

Transport and Environment warns that “EU carmakers are only halfway to achieving their 2021 CO2 target…This is explained by carmakers’ strategy to promote sales of inefficient, higher-emitting SUVs”. Transport and Environment also claims carmakers have decided to “delay the investments into clean technologies required to meet the car CO2 law (in force since 2009) until the last moment.”

In July last year, the UK Government’s environmental watchdog made similar claims about SUVs, but this latest report puts firm figures on how much of a rise SUVs are reportedly responsible for.

SUVs find favour with buyers for various reasons, including ease of access for those with reduced mobility; convenience for parents who would have to stoop to strap their children into child seats in a conventional car; and the added road presence some motorists feel they have.

Visibility from the high driver’s seat of an SUV can also be improved compared to a conventional hatchback or saloon but, with SUVs making up just 7 per cent of the new-car market in 2009, 36 per cent today, and a predicted 40 per cent by 2021, that height advantage is likely to soon diminish as Europe’s pool of vehicles grows in stature.

Toyota is highlighted by the report as being the company best-placed to meet its CO2 target thanks to the fact that 56 per cent of its European sales are petrol-electric hybrids. The Renault Nissan Alliance is also in a strong position, mainly, according to the report “due to an early focus on sales of EVs such as the Nissan Leaf and the Renault Zoe.” Volkswagen, it is said, “could comply through a variety of tools such as improvements to combustion engines (new petrol engine and mild hybridisation of the new Golf) and a big ramp up of EVs through its all-electric ID.3.”

Firms most at risk of struggling with the 95g/km target include Honda and Ford, with Hyundai-Kia also highlighted as a possible concern. Transport and Environment says, however, that Hyundai and Kia have “recently begun a significant ramp-up of its EV and hybrid portfolio and sales.” The authors also consider that “Fiat-Chrysler would likely not be able to meet its target but will now comply thanks to its pooling arrangement with Tesla.”

Julia Poliscanova, Transport and Environment’s director of clean vehicles, criticised car makers for not doing enough to reduce emissions, but predicted: “We are going to see good quality, affordable EVs in the next year or two, not ten, and that’s excellent news for consumers who’ll be saving lots of money at the pump.”  By Graham Hill with the help of Auto Express

The Transport Select Committee calls for ‘nationwide ban’ on pavement parking to prevent pedestrians from being put in danger.

Drivers should be banned from parking on pavements so that pedestrians are not put in danger and vulnerable people, such as the elderly and the disabled, don’t feel trapped in their homes, MPs have said.

A Transport Select Committee report has concluded that the Government should implement a ‘nationwide ban’ on pavement parking across England, with room in the legislation for the Secretary of State for Transport to allow local authorities to make exemptions in their respective areas.

The report argues that pavement parking places pedestrians in danger from moving traffic or trip hazards, such as a kerb, by forcing them to step into the road to get around stationary vehicles. People with mobility issues or visual impairment and their carers are “disproportionately affected” by this.

In addition, the Committee says pavement parking exacerbates or can be a cause of social isolation and loneliness, as it makes vulnerable people feel unable to safely leave their homes or physically prevents them from doing so altogether in some cases.

The report took aim at the Government, with the Committee finding it “profoundly regrettable” that no “concrete actions” have yet been taken to tackle the issue of pavement parking.

At present, pavement parking is banned in London and Scotland is considering following suit. In 2015, the Government said it would look at the issue in England, but the resulting consultations and reviews did nothing to improve the situation.

Lillian Greenwood MP, chair of the Transport Select Committee, commented: “We are deeply concerned about the Government’s failure to act on this issue, despite long-standing promises to do so.

“We appreciate that this is a thorny problem that may be difficult to resolve to the satisfaction of all, but the Government’s inaction has left communities blighted by unsightly and obstructive pavement parking and individuals afraid or unable to leave their homes or safely navigate the streets.

“Scotland is currently legislating for a national ban, while London took action to tackle this issue 45 years ago. The Government must act to improve the situation in the rest of England and it must do so quickly.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Transport said: “We are committed to ensuring that our roads work for everyone, but are aware that pavement parking can cause real problems for a variety of road users. This is why the Department recently concluded a review to better understand the case for changing the law, and will be announcing our next steps over the coming months.” By Graham Hill with thanks to AutoExpress