The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Disturbing news has been issued by Matthew Avery, head of research for UK safety company Thatcham Research. Suspicions were raised when they found components fitted to cars, sent for crash test assessment, marked, ‘For Crash Test Only’. The items marked included airbag modules and ISOFIX child seat mounts.

Matthew revealed that they had found previous instances of components being marked ‘Euro NCAP only, for crash test only’. With these and similar markings appearing in cars from various makers. The findings by Thatcham were confirmed to Auto Express by Euro NCAP, the body responsible for setting the test criteria. They said it had ‘Come across parts …. Airbags, seat foams etc. which have unusual or suspicious labelling’.

Whilst Euro NCAP set the safety standards and carry out the testing, conforming to very tight test procedures, in order to issue an NCAP Safety rating, after these tests researchers from organisations such as Thatcham, which test cars in conjunction with NCAP, periodically carry out a strip down audit, inspecting individual components. It’s during these audits that Thatcham and NCAP have found suspiciously marked parts.

Avery said, “Sometimes we’ve tested a vehicle and on the back of a module it says ‘Euro NCAP test’, that seems very suspicious to us.” Whilst some of the components come from 3^rd part suppliers, Thatcham and NCAP ask the manufacturers for explanations after such markings are found. In response, they have received a variety of explanations such as ‘Well no that’s a genuine component, that’s an early version’. But as Avery pointed out these are not stamped they have the notes crudely written on the components using marker pens. When they see that alarm bells ring.

NCAP went to lengths to explain that they follow up every suspicious incident asking the manufacturer to explain what is going on. They visit factories and component suppliers in order to interrogate all involved. A common thread is for manufacturers to explain that a batch of cars may be ordered internally by the safety department and that they may use Euro NCAP as special marking to identify the cars as they pass through production. ‘In some cases, this reference is written onto parts, in order to ensure that production isn’t delayed’.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) came out strongly on the side of manufacturers and disputed any possible wrongdoing and NCAP also said that they had no proof of any suspicious ‘fiddling’ of the tests by manufacturers but Avery is not convinced. Whilst marked components over the last year have become rare, according to his report to Auto Express, it could be that manufacturers are more careful as a result of ‘dieselgate’.

Personally, I find it very strange when you see very few people on the production line of a car manufacturer, because of the incredibly high level of automation, that they would then put cars together using parts marked with a marker pen. It somehow doesn’t make sense. I also found a comment made by the SMMT to be a little strange. They said, ‘It can be necessary to identify certain safety-critical components in order to confirm they are the latest, approved specification parts’. So would one assume from that statement that there are cars fitted with earlier, non-approved ‘safety critical’ parts being fitted at the same time on the production line?

All very suspicious and after the diesel scandal and the latest scandal relating to the rollout of new technology by German manufacturers how much can we trust the manufacturers? By Graham Hill

So far this year BMW has recalled 312,000 cars in the UK over a stalling issue whilst Toyota has issued two notices worldwide for 3.4 million recalls. VW and Seat have recalled Polos, Aronas and Ibiza’s over malfunctioning rear seatbelt buckles. Whilst recalls are becoming more common, if you receive a notice it doesn’t always make it clear as to what you are supposed to do.

Being told that you have a safety recall can be worrying but how serious should it be taken? Are manufacturers forced to issue recalls? How are the recalls issued? In an exclusive interview with Auto Express Neil Barlow, head of vehicle engineering at the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), explained how the system works.

The most critical level of recall is the ‘Stop Drive Recall’. This is very serious but very rare apparently. If this recall is issued it’s a little like an aeroplane being grounded, the car must not be driven. Next level is a Safety Recall. This is the most common recall that the DVSA has to deal with. Neil explained this as follows, ‘Where a vehicle or component is deemed by our engineers, usually along with the manufacturers’ engineers, to present some safety risks.’

Drivers can continue driving the affected car whilst waiting for the problem to be fixed, ‘Unless informed otherwise,’ according to Mr Barlow. The DVSA also gets involved when a manufacturer has ‘non-code actions’ and ‘service campaigns’, where it will assist them to contact owners regarding defects that do not present a serious safety risk.

According to Mr Barlow, they hear about problems mainly from manufacturers and they can sometimes hear about the issues from dealers who have had drivers come in with consistent faults. Drivers can also report issues directly to the DVSA via DVSA online.

8 Dedicated engineers and 350 examiners are on hand to assist with inspections. Once a fault has been identified the engineers discuss a fix with the manufacturer. Car brands are obliged to advise the DVSA if they identify safety-related problems and a recall notice issued if the fault is likely to affect the ‘safe operation’ of the car or may ‘pose a significant risk to the driver, occupants and others’.

Recently there have been several press reports when it came to light that the DVSA recommended a safety recall be issued but the manufacturer initially refused. This has now been cleared up as a result of the DVSA taking legal advice. The result is that the DVSA can insist on notices being issued. If the manufacturers don’t conform the DVSA can take legal action or place a suspension notice on vehicles that are affected to prevent them from being sold.

If you receive a notice you should contact your local dealer or follow the instructions included in the notice. Notices are sent by recorded delivery but the problem faced by manufacturers and the DVSA is that too many drivers don’t respond to the notice. Then sell the car to an unsuspecting purchaser.

As Barlow pointed out it is possible for drivers to check their cars to see if there is an outstanding recall notice by visiting www.check-mot.service.gov.uk. Drivers may have to pay for remedial work when it relates to ‘non-code actions’ but work done under a safety recall should be free of charge. By Graham Hill

I won’t go into the fine detail but the driver of an F-Type had the under bonnet pedestrian airbag deploy twice without the need to, costing him £4,000 as the dealer and the manufacturer refused to accept that there was a manufacturing or design fault and therefore refused a warranty claim.

What Car got involved but still no joy. In the meantime, fearing that the airbag would deploy again the driver, Aiden Magee, stopped using the car. What Car then recommended that he lodge a complaint with the Motor Ombudsman. After investigating, their adjudicator stated he didn’t think that it was a manufacturing defect as it only affected around 2% of F-Types. WHAT THE F!!!! Are they serious?

OK, so it isn’t a manufacturing defect if only 2% of electric kettles blow up! Or if the brakes only fail on 2% of a particular model of car. What a disgraceful argument. But it gets worse. But before I get to that I should point out that the Motor Ombudsman isn’t like the Financial Ombudsman, financed by the Government they are an independent profit-making body set up to confuse customers.

They are paid for by their member dealers so they can hardly be considered as independent. In fact in some promotional text I managed to see, they explain that being a member of the group and paying fees gives all members great publicity giving the public confidence in using those signed up to the ‘code’. So it’s a marketing con. Here are the reviews on Trustpilot:

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.themotorombudsman.org

As the car was pre-2016 when Jaguar changed its handbook to say that the pedestrian protection system was active between 12mph and 31mph they felt that as he didn’t know that he had to drive the car at speeds of lower than 12mph when approaching obstacles that Jaguar should pay for the first repair. However, as he had been made aware of the constraints when the first airbag was replaced he was responsible for the second deployment.

None of the above made any sense to me. The ‘Ombudsman’ said that the ‘fault’ only affected 2% of all F-Types so not a manufacturing fault but then referred to the fact that there was no note of the way the pedestrian airbag deployed in the handbook, being the reason why the first replacement should have been made under the warranty but even though no pedestrian was involved in the second deployment the car owner should be responsible.

Not surprising I don’t recommend that you ever use the Motor Ombudsman – what a waste of space. I’m currently attempting to find out if legal expense insurance will cover you for warranty claims. By Graham Hill

I recently announced in my newsletter that the Government was going to pull the plug (get it) on electric vehicle and hybrid grants in November. Hybrid cars that have an electric, zero-emission, range of less than 70 miles were to have their grants reduced to zero and the grants for full electric vehicles were to drop from £4,500 to £3,500.

Whilst drivers brought forward their purchases to benefit from the last of the grants the Government forgot to mention that there was a pot of grant available and when that pot went so did the old grants and the new grants were to kick in.

So imagine the shock when car dealers and leasing company staff rocked up for work on Monday to find that the new grant structure was effective from Monday morning. Presumably, because the old pot of grant money had gone by Sunday night. The Government revealed that qualifying car sales increased by 6 fold following the Government’s announcement.

I covered the announcement in a previous blog/post so I won’t repeat but we are already behind most of Europe when it comes to charger infrastructure and the take-up of hybrids and EV’s is still low even though the higher uptake of the two is the reason given by the Government for people buying hybrids and EV’s. More would take electric vehicles if there was less anxiety over the range, hence the popularity of hybrids.

Personally, I think that removing the grants on hybrids is a bad move. Many used it as a stepping stone towards a full electric but they are now being pushed out of the market and back into petrol and diesel cars purely because of cost – retro-move! By Graham Hill

The Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that an amazing 1 in 4 drivers who died on our roads in 2017 wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Official figures revealed that 1,793 people were killed on UK roads last year. Of those, 27% were not wearing a seatbelt, up from 20% the previous year.

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt is currently £100 which rises to £500 if the case goes to court. Clearly, this isn’t enough of a deterrent. As much as we hated Jimmy Saville his clunk click campaigns worked but what on earth causes drivers not to belt up when they get into a car? It just doesn’t make sense. We need some new campaigns to make drivers aware of the dangers that still exist.

On to cars:

Cars are exposed to dangers as a result of ineffective speed bumps. A survey carried out by Confused.com revealed that over a fifth of drivers had experienced car damage as a result of speed bumps with repairs costing an average of £141. Whilst not classed as a road defect local authorities have paid out over £35,000 over the last two years in compensation.

Confused.com surveyed 2,000 motorists of whom 22% reported damage caused by driving over a speed bump of which there are 29,000 in the UK. Tyre damage was the most common – in 48% of the cases followed by 33% reporting suspension damage. 41% felt that speed bumps caused too much damage whilst a quarter said that they did nothing to reduce speed – probably the drivers who sustained damage to their cars – idiots!

Advice from Confused.com’s motoring editor, Amanda Stretton was to check the height of the speed hump if they sustained damage whilst driving at a reasonable speed to see if you qualify for compensation. Might have been handy to explain what that height should be! By Graham Hill

The Press Association has carried out an investigation into vehicle thefts and found that between March 2017 and March 2018 theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle in England and Wales was 106,334, the highest since 2009/10. But even more worrying was the fact that 81,778 of these cases were concluded as ‘Investigation complete, no suspect identified’.

This means that 77% of all thefts resulted in no suspects being identified or arrested. That is frankly shocking. In the West Midlands it was even worse with 91% of car theft cases being closed with no suspect being identified. London’s Metropolitan police was a little lower at 85% of cases being closed for the same reasons.

All but 5 of the 44 forces analysed closed at least half of car theft cases with no suspects identified. When taken up with the Home Office a spokesman said, ‘We recognise that crime is changing and police demand is becoming increasingly complex, (no I don’t know what that means either). That’s why we have provided a strong and comprehensive £13 billion funding settlement to ensure the police have the resources they need to carry out their vital work.’

Well I’ve news for you sunshine, they ‘aint spending it on catching bloody car thieves! By Graham Hill

I have to say that when I’m stuck in traffic on the M25, a far too frequent occurrence, I have a little chuckle to myself, as I’m sure you do, (just me then eh?) when I see a number plate that looks a little cheeky or risque. Often I’m sure that I’m the only one who has spotted it but it brightens up my day.

But that may be coming to an end as the DVLA in this politically correct world that we live in has decided that it needs to tighten up a little on plates that may cause offence or upset. For goodness sake! But have they gone a little too far? I mean you really have to look at the plates to see what the letter and number combo have been interpreted as. Let’s give it a try to see what you think?

The first to get banned amongst the new 68 plates was NO68 EAD along with OR68 ASM. Now, most people probably wouldn’t even notice but these miserable BU68 GER’s are destroying hours of motorway fun by trying not to offend most people who wouldn’t even realise.

Apparently, they sift through the number plates every March and September to remove offensive, political and criminal leaning number plates. BU68 GER was banned as were AL68 HOL and BA68 TRD – really? Oh and I can see all sorts of problems if they hadn’t banned EU68 BAD and MU68 GER.

If we really have come down to this sort of silliness (swear words and serious crime connotations accepted) I dread to think of the cost of sifting through the 69 plates next September – nudge, nudge, wink, wink! Better start recruiting plate checker now DVLA! By Graham Hill

These days most of us are of the opinion that new cars, whatever their make, are all pretty reliable. After all, it’s in the manufacturer and dealer’s interest to make sure that you don’t suffer breakdowns in the first 30 days and end up handing the car back for a full refund.

This resulting in the dealer suffering the massive depreciation that happens the moment the tyres hit the road when the car turns from being new to second hand. Beyond the first 30 days with strong warranties and consumer rights one would think that the manufacturers have been doing everything to ensure that the vehicles are fault free. But What Car has found this not to be the case.

Which is disappointing for those buying new cars as opposed to used because often the decision to buy a new car is based on the perceived greater reliability of a new car over a used car. Of course, What Car must justify its spend on these sorts of surveys so one would expect a degree of exaggeration but it doesn’t hide the fact that 30% of their survey respondents, driving cars that were 4 years old or less, said that they had suffered a fault within the last 12 months.

Some cars come with a 3-year warranty whilst others cover up to 7 years but even so only 52% of those with faults had them repaired under warranty. 22% had to pay bills of £101-£200 whilst 6% had bills in excess of £1,500. Their report goes into great detail and covers 159 models over 31 brands.

I have to say that some of the findings were surprising and certainly didn’t agree with the feelings of some of my customers but if you are thinking of buying or leasing a car the report  may be of interest. The October edition of What Car is still available on the newsagent’s shelves.

In answer to the question – which is the most reliable? Up top 4 years old it is Suzuki followed by Lexus. Over 4 years old Lexus followed by Dacia. Bottom of the pile, 20% lower than the next up was Tesla at 57.3% reliability with Land Rover second from bottom at 76.5%. By Graham Hill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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