The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

This crime is on the increase as joyriders and thieves get smart and stick on cloned number plates to avoid detection. With more number plate recognition cameras aimed at drivers the crooks were getting caught far too quickly for their liking so they have reverted to making up number plates that they’ve seen on cars in adverts or on the road and sticking them over the original plates.

 

But what if your number is cloned and you receive a speeding ticket, parking ticket or other penalty? According to a firm of solicitors far too many people ignore the tickets on the basis that they are charged for parking in a car park in an area miles away that they’ve never visited or caught speeding at a time when they were tucked up in bed. But you mustn’t ignore the ticket.

 

As one lawyer points out: Cloned vehicles can cause havoc, especially when drivers  fail to respond to the notices, sometimes in the belief that if it is not their car, no ruling can be made against them. However, once the process is up and running, drivers need to make sure they respond to any notice and quickly.

 

In the case of cloned vehicles, you will need a police reference number and photographs of your vehicle to evidence that the vehicle carrying your plates is not the real vehicle.

 

Even if you respond quickly, chances are that the authority will reject your case which means you will need to go to appeal. Miss the deadlines and you are very likely to lose any chance to appeal and you will find yourself with fines, charges and penalties plus costs to pay and this can ultimately end in a bailiff visit with even more costs to pay.

 

In short, these cases are a pain and it can be difficult to get the fine discharged on first attempt but if you stick to the deadlines, you will get a chance of an appeal and it is at this appeal stage, that these cases are usually won. So if you receive a parking or icket that you know doesn’t apply to to, don’t just ignore them, act immediately and inform the police that you suspect that your number has been cloned. By Graham Hill

For years I’ve been complaining about the weaknesses of recalls when cars have safety recalls that put drivers’ lives at risk. There are still hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road that haven’t had safety recall repairs carried out. So I find it ridiculous that the Government is introducing legislation for environmental reasons.

 

The Government is seeking new powers in the Environment Bill to compel vehicle manufacturers to recall vehicles when they do not meet the relevant environmental standards.

 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) introduced the Bill to Parliament on January 30th.

 

It will create new powers to stop the export of plastic waste to developing countries and will enshrine environmental principles in law, while introducing measures to improve air and water quality, and restore habitats so plants and wildlife can thrive.

 

The new vehicle recall powers are included in an effort to help improve air quality in urban areas.

 

Environment secretary Theresa Villiers said: “We have set out our pitch to be a world leader on the environment as we leave the EU and the Environment Bill is a crucial part of achieving this aim.

 

“It sets a gold standard for improving air quality, protecting nature, increasing recycling and cutting down on plastic waste.”

 

As well as the measures outlined, the legislation will also create legally-binding environmental improvement targets.

 

A new independent Office for Environmental Protection will be established to scrutinise environmental policy and law, investigate complaints and take enforcement action against public authorities, if necessary, to uphold environmental standards.

 

The office’s powers will cover all climate change legislation and hold the government to account on its commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

 

The Environment Bill was introduced into parliament in October 2019 and has been re-introduced to parliament following the general election. I agree that this is important but not as important as safety recalls that could kill drivers, passengers and other road users. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

UK drivers are risking their licences by breaking the speed limit when overtaking, shocking government figures have shown.

 

According to official stats, in 2017 almost 8,000 vehicles were involved in collisions when overtaking – and over half (55%) of these were cars.

 

Safety chiefs are now urging motorists to watch their speed when overtaking to avoid putting themselves and other road users at risk – and avoid getting hit with heavy fines or even losing their licence.

 

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) is keen to set aside myths that speeding is acceptable when overtaking another vehicle.

 

“The common-sense message is do not overtake unless you are sure you can complete the manoeuvre safely and without causing risk or inconvenience to another road user,” warns an RoSPA spokesman.

 

“Although you should complete an overtaking manoeuvre quickly, never exceed the speed limit for the road.”

 

As rule 125 of the Highway Code states, the speed limit is the absolute maximum you should drive on any particular road. This does not exclude overtaking.

 

Exceeding the speed limit for any reason is dangerous as well as illegal and could see you hit with penalty points, a hefty fine, or even being banned from the roads entirely.

 

While overtaking is, of course, legal, there are strict rules about how and when it is safe to overtake – the most fundamental being that you should only overtake ‘when it is safe and legal to do so’.

 

If you’re caught speeding while overtaking, you could collect a fine up to £2,500 and six points on your licence, depending on your speed and the road you’re caught on.

 

Should you get 12 penalty points or more in any three-year period, you’ll have your licence revoked. By Graham Hill thanks to the RAC

Drivers should book an eyesight test in 2020, says GEM Motoring Assist.

 

This, according to the road safety organisation, would help in reducing collisions and injuries on the UK’s roads.

 

GEM road safety officer Neil Worth, said: “What better time than the year 2020 to get your vision checked properly and ensure the risks you face as a driver or rider are as low as possible?

 

“You should only drive when you’re sure you can see properly.

 

“After all, poor eyesight is linked to more than 3,000 fatal and serious injury collisions every year.

 

“We continue to be concerned that there are too many people driving whose eyesight has deteriorated to a dangerous level.

 

“This puts their own safety at risk, as well as the safety of others sharing the same road space.”

 

The eyesight test was introduced to the driving test in 1937 and has only been changed in minor ways over the years to reflect changing number plate sizes.

 

It is the only eyesight test drivers are required to take until they reach the age of 70.

 

Opticians should examine a driver’s field of view, as is done in America, to check whether motorists can see and react to what’s happening around them, according to GEM.

 

Worth added: “So this year we are encouraging drivers to ensure their eyesight goes beyond 20/20.

 

“After all, 20/20 is only an expression of normal visual acuity, but the requirements for safe driving go beyond clarity of central vision.

 

“A detailed professional eye examination will mean any problems can be identified and – in the vast majority of cases – corrected, meaning the risks are reduced considerably.

 

“So many people are staying behind the wheel into their eighties and beyond.

 

“This, coupled with the greater volume of traffic and an increase in distractions, both inside and outside the vehicle, points to the clear need for more regular and detailed eyesight testing.”

 

“Asking someone to read a number plate at 20.5 metres (67 feet) cannot on its own be a measure of their fitness to continue driving.

 

“A proper eye test will also measure peripheral awareness, eye coordination, depth perception, ability to focus and colour vision.”

 

GEM has called for drivers to have an eye test every two years, ensuring there are no safety concerns about their vision and to deal with any issues at an early stage.

 

The organisation is also calling for every new driver to produce evidence of a recent eye test when first applying for a licence, and to obtain a mandatory vision test every 10 years in line with licence renewal. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

More than half of all drivers have either hit or had a near miss with an animal on UK roads, new research from GoCompare Car Insurance suggests.

 

Two-thirds (68%) of respondents, meanwhile, said they would not know what to do if they hit a larger animal, such as a deer or a badger while driving.

 

The animals most likely to be involved in an incident with a car are:

 

• Bird e.g. pigeon (27%)
• Cat (23%)
• Large game bird e.g. pheasant (20%)
• Deer (18%)
• Dog (17%)
• Rabbit (17%)

 

 

When asked what kind of road the accident happened on, two-thirds (68%) of drivers said they had been on a country road, followed by one in four (24%) on a town or city road.

 

While the animal running out into the road was the biggest reason for the incident (66%), driving at night was blamed by 22% of drivers. Driving too fast or being distracted contributed to 8% of the incidents.

 

The research also showed that animal-related accidents can happen at any time of day with broad daylight (32%) being the most common of the driving conditions, followed by evening/dusk (29%).

 

When asked what action they took, 39% of drivers admitted to driving on after hitting an animal, with those living in Scotland (47%) being the least likely to stop.

 

What is clear from the research, however, is the impact that hitting an animal or having a near-miss can have on the driver and the car.

 

When asked how they felt after hitting or nearly hitting an animal, only 16% of the drivers involved said they weren’t affected by the incident at all.

 

Men were nearly three times more likely to feel unaffected (21%) than women (8%). More than half (55%) admitted they were shaken by the incident, while 28% said they have slowed their driving down as a result. Fewer than one in ten (8%) said the incident had affected their confidence when driving.

 

In terms of vehicle damage, 18% of drivers who hit an animal sustained damage to their vehicle, with 10% resulting in an insurance claim.

 

Comparing genders, men were twice as likely to badly damage their car after hitting an animal compared to women.

 

Animal involved with car incident	Percentage of drivers reporting
Bird	27.5%
Cat	22.7%
Gamebird	20.0%
Deer	17.8%
Rabbit	17.1%
Dog	16.9%
Squirrel	16.0%
Fox	15.7%
Hedgehog	11.9%
Sheep	10.3%
Badger	8.9%
Cattle	6.6%
Horse	6.6%
Other or unidentified	5.8%

 

 

Lee Griffin, founder and CEO of GoCompare said: “Sadly, as our research shows, accidents and near misses with animals on our roads are something most drivers have experienced.

 

“While some encounters may not be dangerous, a close call with an animal on the road can happen anywhere and at any time. They can leave drivers badly shaken or worse, lead to accidents and expensive repair bills.

 

“Animals are unpredictable and as a result, these incidents are unexpected but are increasingly common, as we all spend more time in our cars.

 

“Often the type of animal isn’t the issue. The action taken by a driver to avoid a bird can be just as dangerous as hitting a large mammal.

 

“Drivers on country roads need to take particular care, especially when driving at dusk or in the dark at this time of year when daylight time is shorter.

 

“But the reality is that we all need to be more aware of the likelihood of meeting an animal of some kind on the road.

 

“Being mindful of our speed and the distractions around us will help reduce the risk of a serious accident if the worst does happen.”

 

What is clear is that many drivers wouldn’t know what to do in the event of an accident involving an animal, but GoCompare has spoken to Adam Grogan, head of wildlife at the RSPCA.

 

He said: “Each year the RSPCA receives and attends several thousand calls regarding road traffic accidents involving deer. As a result of this, we always urge people to be cautious when driving in an area with known wildlife nearby and pay heed to warning signs indicating that wild animals may be around.

 

“If you do hit an animal while driving, we would advise people to stop and check (if it’s safe to do so), as the animal may be more seriously injured than they appear.

 

“If you find an injured wild animal, contact the RSPCA’s 24-hour emergency line on 0300 1234 999 for further advice on what to do.

 

“Always report any deer-vehicle collisions to the police and try to remember to record any deer-vehicle incidents at Deer Aware.

 

“Animals can scratch and bite when frightened, particularly if they are injured, so be cautious and apply common sense.

 

“Please do not try to handle or transport any injured deer, foxes, badgers, otters, swans, geese or birds of prey; keep a safe distance from them and call our emergency line for assistance.

 

“Always wear gloves when handling all other animals and please take them to a vet for treatment where possible.

 

“We also urge people to take care in dangerous locations, like a busy road, and ask people to always report any animal obstructing a highway to the police and call for help if you can’t reach the animal safely.”

 

Find out more about what to do if you find an injured wild animal on the RSPCA’s website.

 

Richard Leonard, head of road safety at Highways England, added: “We urge drivers to look out for animal warning signs which let you know that animals are known to be about in the area, or likely to be roaming across the road.

 

“You may be well-travelled and on a known route where you’ve never seen an animal before – but there may one in nearby foliage or woodlands.

 

“We want everyone to reach their destination safely – so my top tip is if you see an animal warning signs slow down, remain vigilant and keep your distance.”

 

Key points

 

• By law, you are required to tell the police if you’ve hit a dog, horse, cattle, sheep, pig or goat.
• If you hit any animal, it’s best to report it to the police, particularly if it could be a pet, so that the owner can be informed.
• If you see a dead animal by the roadside, you can contact the local council

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News and GoCompare

UK drivers have revealed that ‘not indicating’ is the most annoying driving habit.

 

In a survey compiled by Click4Reg, drivers outlined the top 10 things that regularly irritate them on the road.

 

Not indicating was voted as the worst driving habit by 55% of respondents.

 

More than half (52%) also felt that ‘leaving full beams on’ was annoying, placing it second. The study shows that women find this habit more annoying than men (55% of women stated it annoyed them, compared to only 49% of men).

 

Driving 10 mph below the speed limit seems to infuriate many UK drivers, with 39% finding it frustrating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of those that voted in the survey, 87% also admitted doing at least one of the annoying habits.

 

Looking at the difference between genders, 39% of females stated that their worst driving habit was bad parking while nearly half of men (43%) admitting their worst habit was speeding.

 

The study also asked its participants which drivers they found most annoying on the roads. Elderly drivers were picked as the most irritating, despite young drivers being much more likely to cause a crash.

 

Young male drivers were rated the second most annoying and lorry drivers appeared in third, with 26% finding them irritating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Graham Hill with thanks to Fleet News and Click4Reg.

The RAC saw a 20% upturn in pothole-related breakdowns in the last quarter of 2019, compared to the same period the year before.

 

It attended more than 2,000 breakdowns in the three months to the end of 2019 believed to be as a result of potholes – 300 more than during the same period in 2018.

 

The breakdown data, released to coincide with National Pothole Day, also showed that of all the breakdowns experienced by RAC members in 2019, just short of 9,200 were for pothole-related faults such as distorted wheels, broken suspensions springs and damaged shock absorbers.

 

While this was down from 13,000 in 2018, a year which saw a dramatic increase in potholes following the so-called ‘Beast from the East’, it still represented 1.1% of all breakdowns attended.

 

Between October and December 2019, 0.9% of all breakdowns were for pothole-related faults, up from 0.8% in the previous three months (July to September 2019) and up from 0.8% in the fourth quarter of 2018.

 

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said: “We might so far be experiencing a milder but wetter winter than in the last couple of years, but our figures clearly show the problem of potholes has not gone away.

 

“Our patrols are still attending on average around one pothole-related breakdown every hour of the day.”

 

The RAC’s Pothole Index, which is an accurate long-term indicator of the health of the UK’s roads, suggests the widespread problem of potholes and poor-quality roads remains as the Index currently stands at 1.7, down from 1.8 in the third quarter of 2019.

 

This means drivers are 1.7 times more likely to break down as a result of pothole-related damage than they were back in 2006 when the RAC first started collecting data.

 

Lyes continued: “We anticipate the Government will pledge further funds to help cash-strapped councils mend potholes in the March Budget, but such pledges are only chipping away at the problem, and they’re unfortunately not addressing the root cause of why so much of the UK is still characterised by crumbling road surfaces.

 

“What we need is for central Government to think differently about how councils are funded to maintain the roads under their control.

 

“Short-term commitments of cash, while welcome, are not enough on their own – councils need the security of long-term funding so they can plan proper preventative road maintenance.”

 

Lyes believes a solution to the UK’s long-term pothole problem is possible. “From this year, the money raised from vehicle excise duty in England will be ring-fenced to help fund motorways and major A-roads over successive five-year periods,” he said. “But as yet, there is no similar model for local roads where the vast majority of drivers begin and end their journeys.

 

“We believe this could easily be changed by ring-fencing 2p a litre from existing fuel duty revenue to generate £4.7bn of additional funding over five years.

 

“Pothole-free roads shouldn’t be a ‘nice to have’ in 2020, drivers should surely be able to expect the vast majority of roads they drive on to be of a good standard, especially given they pay around £40bn in motoring-related tax every year.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Researchers from car leasing giants LeaseCar.uk have revealed the English councils that received the highest number of compensation requests from vehicle owners due to pothole damage over 2018-2019.

 

They have also revealed the amounts paid out to motorists, with Surrey topping both lists.

 

A total of 37,578 relevant claims were made across England during the period in question, with poorly maintained roads meaning councils compensated motorists to the tune of £3.5 million.

 

Surrey County Council received by far the most claims for pothole damage – 3,533 – and paid out the most in compensation – £323,222.

 

Hampshire (2,665), Hertfordshire, Kent and Northamptonshire County Councils also faced over 2,000 claims each throughout 2018-2019, with counties such as Essex (1,841) and West Sussex among those comfortably topping 1,000.

 

Other local authorities paying out substantial amounts of compensation include Bury Metropolitan Borough (£217,992.15) in Greater Manchester.

 

Cumbria, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire (£214,804.22), Warwickshire, Suffolk and Devon also paid out six figure sums.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only councils that didn’t have to use a single penny of taxpayers’ money to compensate motorists were the Greater London Boroughs of Islington and Sutton.

 

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Sefton Borough Council on Merseyside and St Helens Council were among others to keep compensation for pothole damage to a minimum.

 

They paid out just £353, £582.60 and £594 respectively, with the local authorities in Harrow, Hounslow, Redbridge and Waltham Forest also received bills of less than £1,000.

 

Only two claims were issued, meanwhile, against Richmond upon Thames Borough Council – 21 less than any other area in England.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A spokesperson for LeaseCar.uk said: “Taking greater steps to repair and prevent potholes would improve safety for road users and be popular among the voters across the country that councillors are accountable to.

 

“It could also ultimately reduce councils’ costs by bringing down the number of successful compensation claims by long suffering vehicle owners.

 

“We’d advise any driver who drives over a significant pothole, or is worried their vehicle may have been damaged, to urgently check their tyres and suspension.”

 

The data was obtained by Freedom of Information request and covers the period January 1 2018 to October 17 2019.

 

The full breakdown of English councils and their claims for compensation is available here.

 

To report a pothole, or to find out if you suffer from damage from one and wonder if you can claim for compensation, visit the RAC’s pothole online guide.

 

By Graham Hill with thanks to Fleet News

‘Intrusive’ black box technology criticised as insurers force policyholders to defend anomalies in the telematics data from their cars.

 

Black box car insurance policies – which see location and driving data used to set insurance premiums – have been slammed as “exploitative data-for-discounts schemes”, amid privacy concerns and a series of complaints that malfunctioning black boxes have seen drivers threatened with cancelled insurance policies.

 

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which regulates the UK insurance industry, admitted in 2018 that it had received complaints from “a number of people who believed the data their ‘black box’ had collected wasn’t right”. Those growing numbers may be linked to the increasing use of black-box policies, but a worrying number of readers have contacted Auto Express to complain that their telematics devices had gone wrong – sometimes significantly so.

 

 

“106mph” in a 30 limit

 

Emily D wrote to us after her black box provider E-mailed, claiming that she had spent an extended period driving at 106mph in a 30mph limit. As well as being a speed Emily said she would “never dream” of reaching, the location of the alleged incident meant she would have had to travel 120 miles from her home in less than a minute. Her black box also deemed a local road with

a 60mph limit to be a 30mph zone.

 

 

Emily contacted her insurer, and it admitted that the results were “bogus”, although the company assured her false readings such as this were “very rare”.

 

 

“I wasn’t impressed to say the least,” Emily said. “Is it really worth having a black box if they’re this faulty? It seems insurers need to update or upgrade them, or just stop using them altogether.”

 

 

Case study: Ian L’s daughter

 

Because telematics insurance is typically purchased by new drivers who otherwise struggle to get affordable cover, many of those with malfunctioning black boxes are young, and may not be experienced in handling complex complaints. So when Ian L’s daughter received an E-mail telling her that her insurance would be cancelled within seven days due to her allegedly poor driving, Ian contacted the company on her behalf.

 

 

From day one, Ian’s daughter had complained about the accuracy of the black box, which rarely marked her acceleration and braking above 0 out of 100. Ian said his daughter drove sensibly and appropriately, and had even been given discounts for her driving with previous telematics policies.

 

 

After hours spent on the phone, Ian was able to get the cancellation delayed while the insurer reviewed the data. Ian asked the company to provide specific journey times where the infringements had allegedly taken place. These investigations uncovered incorrect data had been logged by the black box, and the company agreed to strike the low scores from Ian’s daughter’s records.

 

 

Ian told us: “I can see the benefits to insurers of the black-box system, but the heartache it causes when data is inaccurate is not advantageous to good driving habits, as it shifts the focus from correct driving procedures to fear.”

 

 

Rising black box complaints

 

 

The FOS doesn’t track how many complaints it receives over black box insurance. The organisation does, however, log the total number of complaints it receives for car and motorcycle insurance, and this almost doubled from 7,190 in the 2013/14 financial year, to 12,977 in 2018/19.

 

 

While there is no way of telling how many of these complaints related to telematics insurance, the British Insurers’ Brokers Association estimates there were just 296,000 black box policies in 2013, and around one million today.

 

 

Commenting on our investigation, Silkie Carlo, director of privacy group Big Brother Watch, said: “Affordable insurance shouldn’t be predicated on intrusive surveillance and profiling.” Carlo said the fact black boxes malfunction is “totally absurd”, and added: “We oppose these exploitative data-for-discounts schemes and urge insurance companies and customers alike to reconsider using them.”

 

 

The Association of British Insurers said that black-box insurance was of “particular benefit” to young drivers, and advised: “Where a motorist is unhappy with their device and believes the information recorded is inaccurate, they should speak to their insurer, who should investigate.”

 

 

A spokesperson from the FOS said drivers should complain to their insurer if they feel that their black box device has malfunctioned. If this does not solve the issue, they should contact the FOS, which would “decide if the insurer has treated you fairly and [has] the power to put things right if they haven’t”.

 

 

Cancelled policies have to be declared forever

 

While insurance companies will only ask about speeding convictions issued within the last five years, and even drink-drive convictions become ‘spent’ after 11 years, anyone who has ever had an insurance policy cancelled on them – as can happen with malfunctioning black boxes – must declare this for the rest of their motoring life. As a result, cover may be permanently harder and more expensive to secure.

 

 

Drivers whose cancelled black-box policies are subsequently overturned on the basis of faulty data are advised by the Financial Ombudsman Service to get written evidence to explain this cancellation to future insurers. However, this will be cold comfort to innocent drivers who are unable to prove that their black boxes have malfunctioned.

 

 

Reader’s complaint highlighted box issues

 

In May 2018, we investigated the case of student Cydney Crean, who had been accused by her insurer of speeding on three separate occasions, despite time-stamped home CCTV footage clearly showing her Fiat 500 parked on her driveway when the alleged offences took place.

 

 

Cydney’s insurer said it would cancel her policy, but after our intervention admitted “the clocks changing to British Summer Time” had caused “data inconsistencies” in her black box. Cydney’s insurer maintained she had been speeding, but despite this claim fitted a new telematics device to her car, arranged a 50 per cent discount for the remaining balance of the policy, and offered £150 in compensation. By Graham Hill thanks to Auto Express

This is an interesting case forwarded by a lawyer friend of mine. Buy a faulty car and the law is on your side. Your rights were strengthened by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Within the first 30 days you can return a faulty car and demand your money back but we all know that life isn’t that simple with dealers pretty much refusing point-blank to take back the car.

 

This can lead to a lot of distress which isn’t covered by the act but is the point of this case. Here is what was said by the defending lawyer, defending the car dealer:

 

The driver took the dealer to court claiming that the car he bought was faulty. An element of the claim contained words to the effect that they demanded in the region of £2,000 in compensation for the distress caused – resulting in a deterioration in the buyer’s mental health.

 

Part of the defence was that if any part of a claim was for damages (compensation) for personal injury (physical, mental or psychological) then the whole claim was subject to compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol on Personal Injury.

 

And that as the amount sought was over £1,000 the case had to be allocated to fast track not to small claims. £1.000 is the threshold for personal injury claims to be held in the “small claims” track of the county court.  The lawyers invited the court to dismiss the whole of the claim because none of the claimant’s actions prior to issuing the claim had followed the mandatory Pre-Action protocol.

 

The court held a preliminary hearing and convinced the claimant not to pursue the mental health aspect of the claim.  According to the lawyers, they suspected that the Judge was generally unimpressed by the claimant and encouraged the parties to come to a settlement out of court purely on the issue of the value of the car alone – and nothing else.

 

The parties agreed to such a settlement there and then, which was endorsed by the court – but not giving the claimant anything towards the substantial issue fee that the claimant had paid to issue the claim in the first place.

 

Whilst the lawyers were obviously pleased with the outcome this is a real problem. I hear all the time about problems faced by drivers with dealers, both new car and used car dealers, who provide a dreadful service and cause a great deal of unnecessary grief which is never compensated for. Something needs to be done to stop disputes getting to these ridiculous level where consumers are affected mentally. By Graham Hill

 

 

A Dealer Scam Costing Them A Fortune

I don’t usually have a lot of sympathy for dealers but when I read about this scam going round catching dealers out I had to feel sorry as they’ve done nothing wrong. It involves taking payment for cars by Debit Card. Here’s the scam as revealed by a lawyer with a warning to car dealers:

 

The scenario is this. Customer purchases a vehicle. They pay with one, maybe two debit cards. They collect the car (but more usually ask to have it delivered) and are very happy. They are so happy in fact that they later look to purchase a second car.

 

 

The previous sale went without issues, there have been no complaints and so you sell the second car. They may come back for a third or more. All is well. Then, out of the blue 3 months later, your bank take all the money for those cars out of your account and so you have no cars, no cash.

 

The buyer has done a bunk and you are left with a fight on your hands to a) track down the vehicle and b) try and make a civil case that title never passed to your original buyer (the fraudster) and so you can have the car back.

 

These cases are never straightforward as you, as a car dealer, can imagine as you could find yourself in the position of the dealer who has been the victim of the chargeback or you might be the dealer who purchased the car further down the line in good faith. Who wins? Well, that is for the court to decide as the police will generally consider it a civil matter and each case can be determined on its merits as all these cases will have different facts despite being the similar bigger picture.

 

Going forward, be aware that chargebacks can typically be made by a cardholder up to 4 months after a sale. Bank transfer is a much better option. If someone is buying multiple cars with debit cards, then ensure it raises a red flag, even when you have all the information needed for the bank to process the transaction and especially, if they ask to have the car delivered.

 

So it’s not all one-sided with dealers always coming out on top. This scam is costing dealers a great deal of money. OK, sympathy for dealers over! By Graham Hill

Car thieves are stealing some of the most desirable cars and selling them on the black market for as little as £1,000, according to vehicle protection and management technology provider AX.

 

The most sought-after vehicles – usually those with a higher street value – include models from prestige brands such as Audi, BMW and Mercedes.

 

Despite costing from between £18,000-£100,000 to buy new, the vehicles are stolen and quickly sold on for a fraction of their retail or used value – sometimes for just £1,000.

 

The investigation by AX further exposes the activities of car theft gangs as Home Office figures show the number of vehicles stolen in Britain has almost doubled in the last five years.

 

According to an AX source, criminals have put a black-market value of just £1,000 on an Audi A1, while a Range Rover, which costs upwards of £80,000 when new, will go for £1,500-2,000. Once the theft has occurred, the vehicles are typically sold rapidly to a known network which then exports or dismantles them for parts.

 

The BMW 3 Series, a popular model for fleets, was given a  black market value of just £1,500-£1,800.

 

Director of Investigative Services at AX Neil Thomas said: “The list is quite shocking, despite my 30 years working in the police force. We know how the criminals operate but, with the UK theft figures in mind, it’s a sharp reminder of the problem car owners and the industry faces.

 

“Rather than the cars that are stolen most in the UK, this list represents the criminals’ wish list of preferred targets. A typical, current Ford Fiesta, for example, would change hands for little more than £200.

 

“Business and private owners alike are affected by the increase in thefts, so it’s paramount to take precautions to avoid being targeted, or ensure vehicles have robust covert technology so that they can be recovered. Most tracking devices are simply removed after being stolen.”

 

Last month, AX revealed that criminals are using WhatsApp groups to plan and execute car thefts as the UK vehicle crime wave continues, while further research also indicates the growing use of messaging application Telegram for organised vehicle theft.

 

In 2017-18, nearly 112,000 cars were taken illegally, up from 75,308 in the 2013-14 financial year.  By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News