The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The cost of using a public charge point can vary by as much as nine times depending when and where the vehicle is recharged, research from the RAC Foundation suggests.

 

The analysis, available here, shows overnight charging at home can typically be done for as little as 8p per kWh but can be as high as 69p per kWh at a public rapid charge point.

 

This means that the fuel costs for a 100-mile journey in a 2018 Nissan Leaf could be anywhere between £2.67 and £23.

 

By comparison – based on official fuel consumption figures – the same journey in a 1.5 litre petrol-engine Ford Focus would cost around £12 in fuel, while a similar Ford Focus with a diesel engine might do it using around £10 of fuel.

 

The RAC Foundation research comes as What Car? reveals its own analysis. It found that a driver would pay £45.89 to charge an Audi E-tron from 10% to 80% at an Ionity ultra-rapid charger.

 

However, do the same charge on a domestic charger at an average night-time energy tariff of 7p per kWh and it would cost £4.66.

 

Using the Ionity charging network makes the E-tron even pricier to run than an equivalent diesel Audi Q7, says What Car?

 

The E-tron costs 34p per mile, while a Q7 50 TDI, which averages 27.2mpg, costs 22p per mile.

 

Ionity is one of a small number of extremely fast 350kW charging networks, capable of replenishing an EVs batteries in 30-40 minutes.

 

However, some slower public charging networks are also far pricier than charging at home, says What Car?

 

Getting the same battery boost for an E-tron at both a 50kW Shell Recharge point and a 50kW Ecotricity socket costs £25.94, although Ecotricity rates are cheaper for its home energy customers.

 

What Car? found that car owners who regularly need to use public charging networks could save money by signing up for a scheme with a one-off or a monthly fee because these often have a lower energy usage rate.

 

Sign up for a Source London Full plan and it will cost £4 a month, but just £6.32 every time you charge your car up.

 

Consumers also need to watch out for the hidden costs of using public chargers. Some EV-charger equipped car parks in London charge £9 per hour for parking with no discount for those using the chargers, and What Car?’s research found overstay fees levied by charging networks to discourage that ranged from £10 to £21 per hour.

 

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “Consumers are so sensitive to the cost of filling-up that petrol and diesel prices are routinely displayed to the tenth of a penny.

 

“Even at the extremes there is unlikely to be more than a 30-40% price differential between the keenest supermarket and the most expensive motorway service area. Not so with electricity. The cost of recharging your battery-powered car can differ dramatically with prices highly dependent on where and when you plug-in, what speed you recharge at and who is operating the facility and providing the power.

 

“The good news is that overnight charging at domestic rates at home can cost as little as a few pence per kilowatt hour.

 

“However, contrast that with the dizzying news that you could pay as much as ten times that if you decide to ‘fill up’ at certain ultra-rapid chargepoints on the motorway network.

 

“The canny consumer is going to have a good deal more homework to make sure their electric car delivers the scale of savings they’re expecting.”

 

What Car? editor Steve Huntingford added: “Although there are still a lot of slow (3kW) public charging points that are free to use, you’ll have to pay if you want a quick energy fix. And this is where the costs can rack up if you don’t research the various networks in advance.”

 

What Car? examples of public charging costs for an Audi E-tron

 

Network	Cost per kWh	10-80% charge
Ionity (350kW)	£0.69	£45.89
Polar Contactless (150kW)	£0.40	£26.60
Ecotricity (22kW, 43kW, 50kW)	£0.39	£25.94
Shell Recharge (50kW, 150kW)	£0.39	£25.94
Instavolt (50kW to 125kW)	£0.35	£23.28
Polar Instant (150kW)	£0.35	£23.28
Genie Point (43kW, 50kW)	£0.30	£20.95^
Polar Contactless (43kW, 50kW)	£0.30	£19.95
ESV EV Solutions (43kW, 50kW)	£0.29	£19.29
ESV EV Solutions (43kW, 50kW)	£0.25	£16.63<
Polar Instant (43kW, 50kW)	£0.25	£16.63
Pod Point (43kW, 50kW)	£0.23	£15.30
Charge Your Car*** (43kW, 50kW)	25p per min	£13.85*
Ubitricity (5.5kW)	£0.20	£13.45>
Polar Plus (150kW)	£0.20	£13.30**
Ecotricity domestic customers	£0.19	£12.64
Polar Plus (43kW, 50kW)	£0.15	£9.98**
Source London Flexi (22kW)	£0.12	£7.91***
Source London Full (22kW)	£0.10	£6.32

 

^ includes £1.00 fee per charge; < £4.00 monthly fee; *kWh rates vary depending on location; > £9.99 monthly fee, plus £0.15 per charge; ** £7.85 monthly fee; ***£10.00 sign-up fee.

 

By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

I mentioned last week that as of the 1^st April 2020 the new WLTP emissions ratings come into force. This will affect drivers’ benefit in kind tax if you drive a company car but it could also affect the 1^st year road fund licence costs which could also increase the rental costs as this is part of the ‘on the road’ cost of the car. So if you’ve been quoted on a car that will be delivered after 1^st April you could be paying a little more per month.

 

Some company cars could disappear from choice lists as new emissions test results put them beyond CO2 thresholds used by fleets.

 

Data published by manufacturers show some vehicles that were below 130g/km or 110g/km, using the NEDC-correlated CO2 figure, now fall outside those key benchmarks, thanks to the tougher testing regime.

 

The new CO2 values, derived from the Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP), will be used for tax purposes for all new cars registered from April.

 

However, as manufacturers begin to publish the data, fleets are finding that the new test has seen CO2 values for some cars increase.

 

For example, the BMW 520d M Sport originally had a NEDC-correlated CO2 figure of 108g/km, but under WLTP it has risen to 131g/km.

 

It’s a similar story for the Volvo XC40 D3 R Design, which will increase from 127g/km to 144g/km, and the Volkswagen Tiguan 2.0 TDI SE L, which will rise from 122g/km to 156g/km.

 

“We’re seeing a lot of vehicles breaching the 110g/km and even the 130g/km cap,” said David Bushnell, principal consultant at Alphabet GB.

 

It means some familiar models on today’s choice lists will have to be replaced by more tax-efficient, hybrid or fully electric versions.

 

Bushnell says the impact of WLTP on fleets will be comparable to the “re-set” of company car policies in 2002, when taxation moved from mileage to CO2.

 

Emissions caps for vehicles used by some fleets have followed the downward trajectory of the threshold for capital allowances and lease rental restrictions.

 

The main threshold for capital allowances and lease rental restrictions was reduced from 130g/km to 110g/km in 2018, after originally being cut from 160g/km in 2013.

 

Under capital allowance rules, cars bought by companies that emit up to 50g/km are eligible for 100% write-down in the first year; for those emitting 51-110g/km, it’s 18% a year; and for more than 110g/km it is 6% a year.

 

Under the lease rental restriction, new cars with emissions of 110g/km or less are eligible for 100% of their lease payments to be offset against corporation tax. For those with emissions of 111g/km or more, only 85% is claimable.

 

The Government refused to consider the impact of WLTP on capital allowances and the lease rental restriction when last year it launched a consultation on what it should do to mitigate its effect on company car tax and vehicle excise duty (VED).

 

Bushnell called for their inclusion at the time but says Treasury “weren’t prepared to talk about the (110g/km) derogation and now we’re seeing a lot of vehicles impacted”.

 

Fleets have used the CO2 thresholds to benchmark their emissions cap to ensure they are as tax efficient as possible.

 

Nick Hardy, sales and marketing director at Ogilvie Fleet, says 130g/km became the norm for many companies, with an increasing number choosing the lower 110g/km cap.

 

Faced with some cars potentially falling outside company car policies, because of an increase in CO2, he urged fleets not to be tempted to increase their cap to simply maintain vehicle choice.

 

He explained: “It’s not the right thing to do; it completely defeats what we’re all trying to achieve.”

 

However, in the short term, while WLTP CO2 data is still missing on many models (see page 4), Bushnell thinks fleets could consider a temporary removal of CO2 caps.

 

He said: “It’s not exactly palatable, but the issue is we could be delivering a car that we perceive is below the cap, but then by the time it’s configured and registered, it’s actually over the cap.”

 

Not only are large swathes of CO2 data missing for base models, but the impact of vehicle options on the final figure is also an issue for fleets.

 

Bushnell urged fleet operators to allow wholelife costs to guide vehicle choice.

 

Wholelife costs take account of several factors, including fuel, employer Class 1A National Insurance Contributions, service, maintenance and repair, and insurance, as well as any cash allowances paid to employees.

 

Bushnell said: “You’ve got to be looking at your choice list on a wholelife cost basis, but there are still a lot of businesses that don’t.”

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has previously reported that just 32% of employers offering company cars use wholelife costs to determine the vehicles available.

I’ve said it many times that it is my belief that the panic over electric vehicle charging infrastructure is unfounded. We can already super fast charge an electric car up to 80% capacity in about the same time that it takes to fill up a petrol or diesel car and pay for it.

 

At the same time the new purpose built electric cars are increasing their ranges dramatically so within a short period of time we will no longer need charging ponts attached to lamp posts and trees.

 

On to the report.

 

A European battery research project aims to develop the next generation of batteries for electric vehicles (EVs).

 

The Coventry University’s Centre for Advanced Low Carbon Propulsion Systems (C-ALPS) is involved in the Sense project, which includes five research institutes and six industrial companies from seven European countries working together over the next four years.

 

Swedish company Northvolt, which intends to set up two large-scale production facilities (gigafactories) for vehicle batteries in Europe in the next few years, is also a partner on the project.

 

The research project is coordinated by Empa researcher Corsin Battaglia and his team. Coventry University’s work on the project is led by Tazdin Amietszajew, assistant professor in battery diagnostics at C-ALPS. The EU is funding Sense with 10 million euros (£8.3m).

 

The demand for batteries for electric cars will increase dramatically in the next few years. At present, more than 90% of these batteries come from Asia.

 

In response, the EU Commission set up the European Battery Alliance in 2017 to build up competences and production capacities for this key technology in Europe.

 

Experts estimate that the European demand for lithium-ion batteries alone will require 10 to 20 so-called ‘gigafactories’ – large-scale production facilities for batteries.

 

The research in the Sense project is part of this European Battery Alliance initiative and is supported by the EU research funding programme Horizon 2020.

 

The 11 research partners of Sense – five research institutes and six industrial companies – are conducting research on next-generation lithium-ion batteries – the so-called ‘Generation 3b’.

 

In contrast to current traction batteries, this next generation will have higher energy density and improved cell chemistry and battery management system: instead of pure graphite anodes, the aim is to use silicon-graphite composites.

 

The content of critical cobalt in the cathode will be further reduced. New additives in the electrolyte and interphase design approaches will slow down battery aging and extend cycle life.

 

New sensors will also contribute to a longer service life and improve fast charging capability by supplying data from inside the battery cells to the battery management system. This data should allow a much more refined temperature management compared to today’s lithium-ion cells.

 

The sustainability of Generation 3b cells is also expected to exceed that of the current generation.

 

The cathode will be manufactured without the use of flammable and toxic solvents, which will greatly simplify the series production of the cells and reduce their cost, it says.

 

All aspects of Sense re-search are geared towards producing the next generation of cells in European gigafactories.

 

To be competitive in the future, cost-effective and raw material-saving production methods are therefore crucial.

 

The Sense project also considers the second life use of decommissioned vehicle batteries as stationary storage units and, finally, the recycling of the batteries.

 

The research partners of Empa, which is leading the project, are the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, the Forschungszentrum Jülich, Coventry University, the Austrian Institute of Technology, and the companies Solvionic, FPT Motorenforschung, Lithops, Northvolt, Enwires and Huntsman Advanced Materials.

 

The Swedish company Northvolt plays a decisive role in the research project. The company was co-founded in 2016 by two former Tesla employees, who were involved in the construction of the Tesla gigafactory in Nevada (USA).

 

Northvolt is currently planning the first European gigafactory with a production capacity of 32 GWh per year to be built in Sweden.

 

A further gigafactory with an annual production of 16 GWh is to be built as a joint venture with Volkswagen in Salzgitter (Germany). For comparison, the Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada currently produces around 30 GWh of batteries per year, according to management.

 

Experts from Northvolt will advise the Sense researchers through regular briefings.

 

By the end of the project, a series of battery cell prototypes will have been developed.

 

A demonstrator with 1 kWh storage capacity will demonstrate the capabilities of the battery cell Generation 3b.

 

At the end of the project, the production technology developed will find its way into industry in the form of patents.

 

The four-year Sense research project ends in spring 2024.

 

Corsin Battaglia’s team at Empa is involved in another European research project called Solidify. It looks even further into the future and is developing future-generation batteries – so-called solid-state lithium-metal batteries.

 

In contrast to today’s lithium-ion batteries and those of Generation 3b, these solid-state batteries will no longer contain any liquid, flammable components.

 

They are therefore safer and more tolerant to elevated temperatures, can deliver higher power, and can be charged and discharged faster, it says.

 

According to experts, these batteries – called Generation 4b – could be ready for the market in about 10 years.

 

At half the weight and half the size, they should deliver the same storage capacity as today’s lithium-ion batteries. Production costs are also expected to be cut in half.

 

New electrode architectures are necessary, as are cost-effective innovative production methods for the cathode of these batteries, it says. The anode will consist of metallic lithium.

 

The Solidify research project started on January 1 and will also run for four years. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The future of the plug-in car and van grant is expected to be revealed by the new Chancellor in the Budget in March.

 

The electric car and van subsidy was cut in 2018 by £1,000 and fleets were told it would no longer apply to hybrid cars with a range of less than 70 zero emission miles.

 

The Government said the reduction in funding – from £4,500 to £3,500 – for the cleanest cars, and withdrawing the grant completely for the likes of the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV and the Toyota Prius Plug-in, was a sign of its success.

 

Talking to delegates at the ICFM’s annual conference last summer, deputy head of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV), Phil Killingley, acknowledged that incentives will be of continued importance beyond 2020, but stressed the detail was still being “talked through”.

 

Meanwhile, the Treasury told the Telegraph that “consumers incentives will continue to play a role beyond 2020”.

 

A Whitehall source said: “We have always said we would phase out the subsidies gradually, but there are other ways we can help people to go electric.”

 

BVRLA chief executive, Gerry Keaney, says that the Budget on March 11 will be an opportunity to set the tone for a new decade in which the transition to decarbonised road transport will be won or lost.

 

“Fleets are being asked to invest billions of pounds in new electric vehicle technology and infrastructure, which comes at a hefty price premium to its petrol and diesel alternatives,” he said.

 

“To achieve these goals the Government must provide a clear support package through to at least 2025. It must preserve the Plug in Car and Van Grants, maintain a strong set of tax incentives and tackle the huge and often arbitrary costs associated with fleet charging infrastructure.”  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

One in three drivers (35%) say they are more dependent on using their car than 12 months ago, with public transport seen as an expensive and unreliable alternative.

 

The data, released as part of the latest RAC Report on Motoring, shows that most drivers would use their cars less if public transport was better.

 

At a time when the Government and local councils are keen for drivers to use their cars less frequently to improve air quality and cut congestion, the RAC believes the findings are a stark reminder that many people, especially those who live outside the biggest cities, remain dependent on their cars for many types of journeys.

 

Just 14% of drivers say they have become less dependent than a year ago, though this has also increased from 12% in 2018 indicating a small rise in those saying they are less dependent on their vehicles.

 

The top reasons drivers give for using their cars more are a greater need to transport family members (28%), family and friends moving further away (24%) and, perhaps most strikingly, a reduction in the provision or quality of public transport (25%) – with drivers in the North East (42%) significantly more likely to call this out as a reason for them increasingly turning to the car.

 

Drivers are particularly frustrated by the lack of feasible alternatives to the car for the journeys they need to make, according to the data.

 

More than half (57%) say they would be willing to use their cars less if the quality of public transport was better, and agreement with this statement has been high for an incredible 11 consecutive years.

 

Around half of drivers (53%) say they are frustrated by the lack of feasible alternative modes of transport for long journeys, with a similar proportion (52%) saying the same about short journeys. These figures both rise to 55% for drivers aged between 25 and 44.

 

Frustrations with public transport

 

Among drivers who would be willing to use public transport more, half (50%) say the reason they don’t use public transport more is that fares are too high – up by five percentage points on last year – while 41% say services are not frequent enough.

 

Meanwhile, a growing number of people (36% – up from 31% in 2018) say that a lack of punctuality is a significant barrier to them using public transport as an alternative to driving, and 38% say services don’t run where they need them to.

 

Of those who would be willing to consider using public transport if services were better, almost a third (31%) say they would make more use of it if there was greater availability of services – a figure that rises to 40% for rural motorists, reflecting to some extent the significant cuts that were made to rail services following the Beeching Report and, more recently, to rural bus services as highlighted last year by the Parliamentary Transport Committee.

 

The RAC’s findings also show that motorists who live in London are more likely to use alternatives to their cars compared to drivers elsewhere in the UK.

 

In the capital, on average 38% of each driver’s weekly journeys are made either by public transport, walking or cycling, compared with a national average of just 24%.

 

For those who live in villages or other rural areas, cars typically account for an enormous 85% of all journeys, with just 15% currently represented by public transport, cycling or walking.

 

RAC data insight spokesman Rod Dennis said: “These findings present the stark reality for so many people in the UK – that for good or bad, in 2020 the car remains an essential means of getting about whether that is for commuting, dropping off and collecting children or going to visit family and friends.

 

“While the car might be the obvious choice for many people’s journeys, especially for those who have already invested a lot of money in buying or leasing one, it is also clear just how frustrated many drivers are with the lack of decent alternatives for some of their trips.

 

“For more than a decade now, drivers have been saying that they are willing to use their cars less if public transport was better – and this year’s figures indicate it’s the high cost and low frequency of services that are the biggest problems cited by drivers. At the same time,

 

“The ongoing challenge for national and local government, and combined authorities, is therefore to deliver credible alternatives to the car for specific journeys that are regularly completed by a lot of people.

 

“Connecting large residential areas with popular locations for work would surely be a good starting point – giving drivers the opportunity to swap sitting in daily traffic jams for a fast, frequent alternative.

 

“Greater investment in walking and cycling infrastructure could also go a long way to encouraging drivers to use of their cars less, especially for short journeys that make up around a quarter of all drivers’ trips.

 

“But it remains the case that short of cheap, reliable and integrated public transport systems operating all over the UK, it is very difficult to see things changing radically in the years ahead.

 

“The car remains an integral part of so many people’s lives, whether that is for carrying heavy shopping, transporting family members or going to visit friends in all the corners of the UK.”

 

In charts and tables: car dependency in the UK

Source: RAC Report on Motoring 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	More dependent	Less dependent	No change
All drivers
Drivers aged 17-24
Drivers aged 25-44
Drivers aged 45-64
Drivers aged 75+
Drivers in towns and cities
Drivers in rural areas

The problems with public transport: insights into bus and rail use

At the end of last year, the Campaign for Better Transport’s Future of Rail report indicated that the cost of rail fares has increased by 47% over the last 10 years, with motoring costs having gone up by 32% over the same period.

The same organisation’s Future of the Bus report also found that national and local funding for buses is now almost £400m a year lower than it was a decade ago.

The last National Travel Survey also showed that bus use is falling across much of England.

Last May meanwhile, the Parliamentary Transport Committee published a report which called for the introduction of a national bus strategy to address the paucity of services available outside of London, where bus provision is regulated by Transport for London.

The committee said that more than 3,000 bus routes had been reduced, withdrawn or altered since 2010-11.

By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

I know that you like to read legal stories that make no sense whatsoever – so here is one that makes no sense whatsoever. It shows that you can be held responsible for the health and safety of anyone who breaks into your property! Totally ridiculous.

 

The article revolves around the following incident. Click on the link before reading further

 

https://garagewire.co.uk/news/thief-crushed-to-death-while-stealing-catalytic-converter/

 

The question was asked – what liability could there be on the garage where someone breaks in and ends up getting injured or getting killed when they are there unlawfully?

 

Some people think that if you have broken into someone else’s property with ill intent then you deserve anything and everything you get.  This is not so in the eyes of the law – as Norfolk farmer Tony Martin found when he shot burglars encroaching into his home in 1999 killing one of them – as he was sent to prison initially for murder but downgraded to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

 

It is the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 which imposes a duty of care on landowners (occupiers) to take reasonable care for the safety of trespassers in respect of any risk of their suffering by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises – or to things done or omitted to be done on them.

 

The threshold test is set out in Section 1 (3) of the Act which provides that a duty is owed to trespassers in respect of any such risk if

 

(a)        The occupier is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;

 

(b)        The occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger; and

 

(c)        The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer the trespasser some protection.

 

As you can imagine, cases turn on their specific facts such as several years ago when the High Court in Buckett v Staffordshire County Council dismissed a claim brought against them by a Claimant after he fell through a skylight whilst trespassing on the roof a school when he was aged 16.  The court decided that even though his presence on the roof near the skylight ought reasonably to have been foreseen, the council did not owe a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 as the skylight’s structure, makeup and location on the roof did not constitute a danger.

 

Even though children trespassing on the roof and proximity to the skylight was foreseeable, the claimant’s injuries were caused by his own action of jumping onto the skylight.  And because the skylight was not faulty or inherently dangerous, the council was not liable.

 

This followed a principle set by the House of Lords in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council in 2004 where a 12 year old was injured falling on a fire escape when trespassing.  As the fire escape was not defective, in need of repair or otherwise dangerous, the council had no liability. You see what I mean – totally dopey! By Graham Hill

As many of my readers know I have written about this in the past because it can be very confusing. My work with the BBC and various motoring journals has highlighted some of the crooked methods to extract large ‘deposits’ from customers then mis-state the law in order to prevent paying money back when the customer decides not to go ahead with a purchase.

 

A law firm has given advice to dealers as follows:

 

It has long been thought that if a consumer decides to pull out of a car purchase having paid a deposit, that the car dealer is automatically entitled to retain that deposit.  However, there are several important considerations that need to be met before that is allowable, the first of which is especially relevant.

 

1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says that a contract term may be considered unfair (and thus unenforceable) if it is “A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the trader where the trader is the party cancelling the contract. We are advising that your terms/conditions, order form and any document that makes reference to a non-refundable deposit, be reworded as below, followed (where possible) by the consumer’s signature:

 

“By paying a deposit you are entering into a legally binding contract.  If you change your mind and do not pay the balance due, you will be in breach of contract and we will be entitled to retain the deposit in full and not return it to you.  However, if we are in breach of contract and do not agree to sell you the car upon payment of the balance, we will return your deposit in full and you may be entitled to additional compensation from us up to the full value of the deposit amount”.

 

2. The amount of deposit is the most you can retain. You cannot retain a deposit and then on top of that seek losses such as prep time or having to re-advertise or re-selling at a lower value.  The whole purpose of a deposit is that it gives certainty as to what can be lost in the event of contractual beach – regardless of whether your actual loss is greater or less than the amount of the deposit.  HOWEVER………

 

3. The deposit figure must be proportionate to the value of the vehicle – you cannot simply seek to punish the buyer by making him pay a hugely disproportionate deposit and retaining it if he or she does not pay the balance. The Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 (and gave a new test of what is allowable) and removed the test of “reasonable pre-estimate of loss” and “penalty clauses” and replaced it with this, somewhat wordy conclusion:

 

“The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance.[Emphasis added].”

 

4. Whilst the courts – and only the courts can decide – we think that a deposit that is greater than 10-15% of the value of the car might be seen as difficult to justify except in very rare circumstances. Maybe where something is being built to such an unusual, bespoke and personal specification that the sale to anyone else other than the actual buyer would be compromised substantially or could only be re-sold at a price significantly less than agreed with the intended buyer (who then did not pay the balance after the deposit was made).

 

5. Where a deposit is taken in contemplation that the car will be financed by, say a hire-purchase agreement, the deposit must be refunded if the consumer withdraws from the deal BEFORE all three parties sign the finance agreement – as set out by Section 57 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Withdrawal from a Prospective Agreement). This does NOT form an obligation to fund the purchase of the car by some other means.

 

6. Where the consumer cancels the credit agreement within 14 days of all parties signing the credit agreement, then there IS an obligation to buy the car by some alternative means BUT we will argue that this obligation is between the consumer and the finance company (not the dealer) as the finance company have bought the car from the dealer, has good title in it and the dealer is not in breach of contract. Again, though, some finance companies may, in their terms and conditions have a clause that states that the dealer has to indemnify them in the event that this happens!

 

So, anyone who tells you that the law of refunds of deposits is straight-forward, invite them to read the above!

 

My advice has always been to pay as little deposit as possible if you need to pay a deposit to secure a car. If possible pay with a credit card as this gives you greater rights. Even the suggestion of 10 – 15% is not reasonable in my opinion.

 

You can also get your deposit back if it was paid towards the finance of the car as shown above. So if you are paying a deposit and intend the money to be used to pay towards the HP or PCP agreement you should make sure that you make that clear to the dealer and have it written on the receipt. But beware that when the contract has been executed (all parties have signed it) you cannot cancel the contract without the risk of being in breach. Don’t sign the contract till the last minute.

 

If you have a large deposit to pay towards the finance keep it till the last minute. We only provide contract hire and personal contract hire and we take no money whatsoever until you have received your car. The safest way. The initial rental is taken by direct debit after the car has been delivered and signed for.  By Graham Hill

 

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

There has been an increase of late in extensions and customers taking out 4 year PCP, PCH and contract hire agreements. This is done mainly to save money on the monthly rental but after allowing for the various costs that come into play after 3 years you may find that it’s a false saving.

 

When I looked to extend the lease on my Mercedes E Class I checked with my local dealer and was quoted nearly £900 for a 1 year extension to the Mercedes warranty. Had I leased my car over 4 years the lease cost would have been just £18 + VAT less per month when compared to the 3 year rate.

 

Then there are other subscriptions such as the Sat Nav which generally come with free updates for 3 years but you have to pay the subscription thereafter. Roadside assistance is also generally included for a minimum of 3 years with all new cars so there’s another extra to pay for. It all adds up.

 

On top of that, there is service and maintenance and possibly another pair of tyres. Obviously, as the car gets older it requires more wear and tear parts to ne replaced, brake discs, suspension dampers, filters etc.

 

So this raises the question as to whether it’s worth taking a car over 4 years given the fact that you will need to take out an extended warranty that could represent around half of the down payment on the next car, which of course comes with a new car warranty.

 

There are of course cars that come with 5 and even 7 year warranties but on closer inspection, you will find that a large number of components drop off cover after 3 years as a result of normal wear and tear. So things are not always as they seem. You could, of course, Google the market for a lower-priced warranty than the manufacturer’s own. However, whilst they love to take your money there are some that hate paying it back out.

 

Beware of betterment! As cars get older the warranty companies will try it on. Let’s say in the 4^th year you have a problem with the gearbox. The manufacturer or the warranty company agrees to replace it under the warranty but as the car is, say three and a half years old they have a betterment clause in their warranty that says, if the replacement part puts the car in a better condition than it was before the part went faulty that you should contribute to the replacement.

 

So the replacement gearbox could cost you 2 or even £3,000 towards the cost of the replacement gearbox. It’s a scandal. So if you are going to take out a 4-year contract or extend a 3 year contract, check the true cost of that last year and if you extend the warranty check the betterment clause. Also check out Warranty Direct. They may be a little more expensive than some other 3^rd party warranties but the have some of the best terms and conditions and no betterment charges. By Graham Hill

The split between business/fleet funding and private/retail for cars has changed dramatically over the past year.

 

Private/retail now accounts for 18% of the FN50’s car risk fleet, up from 12.8% in 2018, reflecting the increasing popularity of personal contract hire (PCH) products.

 

“There’s nothing new about the ‘cash or car’ conundrum,” says Ben Creswick, managing director of JCT600 VLS.

 

“However, there is no doubt the radical changes to the industry over the past 24 months have made this conversation much more prevalent.”

 

Where a company wishes to support employees by offering an alternative, JCT600 VLS says this has been done through a ‘structured’ PCH offering, where duty of care is tightly controlled and, typically, the financial model is based on a business mileage reimbursement mechanism, rather than pure salary.

 

However, as with all historical fluctuations in the company car market, Creswick says this is not applicable to the entire populace.

 

He explains: “For the majority of our customers’ core fleet requirements, business contract hire remains the most cost-effective for the business and the driver.

 

“While (JCT600) VLS has not seen a material change to PCH, what we have witnessed in the overall marketplace is an aggressive push into ‘affinity’ PCH, as a way of mitigating poor levels of traditional BCH (business contract hire) growth, or to soften the degree of fleet shrinkage within leasing companies.”

 

The impact of OpRA

 

The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) says PCH accounted for 68% of all new leasing broker car contracts in 2018 and, across its membership, personal contracts saw the highest level of growth at 14%, accounting for nearly 1.9 million vehicles.

 

Looking at all the funding methods offered by the top 50 leasing companies, contract hire/operating lease retains its dominant position for financing cars.

 

Out of the 1.26 million cars on the FN50’s risk fleet, 92% are classed as an operating lease, where the leasing company takes the residual value risk. That is up slightly year-on-year from 91% in 2018; contract hire/finance lease also increased, from 2% to 3.1%.

 

Salary sacrifice retained its risk fleet share, with 3.9% of cars funded this way compared with 4% in 2018.

 

Meanwhile, employee car ownership (ECO) schemes (0.4%) and others (0.6%) both saw slight declines.

 

Ashley Barnett, head of consultancy at Lex Autolease, says: “Since the introduction of Optional Remuneration Arrangements (OpRA) in 2017, which saw employees taxed on the greater of the cash allowance foregone or the company car benefit, we saw increased complexity added to employee car ownership schemes and salary sacrifice arrangements.

 

“Many customers using these products exited, and new interest reduced.

 

“This saw contract hire continue to be the funding product of choice for the traditional company car user.

 

“Perk users who have the option to take a cash alternative are showing continued interested in PCH as they move away from traditional company car schemes into the consumer market.

 

“Most are using this option as a means of avoiding restrictions typically associated with company car policies such as emissions caps and restrictions on makes and models that often aren’t monitored in grey fleet.”

 

Arval, like many of the FN50, offers PCH products and other alternatives to the traditional company car.

 

“These have been growing, especially over the last year, because of the long period of uncertainty surrounding company car taxation and WLTP,” it says.

 

The absence of future benefit-in-kind (BIK) rates, and uncertainty over how the tax regime would adapt to the new emissions test – the Worldwide harmonised Light vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) – had been blamed, in part, for falling company car numbers.

 

BIK statistics, published by HMRC in the summer, showed the number of company car drivers had fallen by 50,000 year-on-year.

 

However, tax officials said initial analysis suggested a new way of reporting company car tax could have skewed the figures.

 

How many company car users are there?

Since 2009-10, the number of company car users had remained relatively stable (at just under a million). But, the latest data indicated a dramatic fall from 940,000 in 2016/17 to 890,000 in 2017/18 – a 5.3% decline.

 

Another company car market indicator, fleet and business sales, shows registrations down by 1.7% last year, according to data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

 

However, that could simply be due to employees and companies keeping cars for longer as they awaited BIK clarification, rather than a reduction in company cars.

 

The tax picture was finally clarified last summer, with the Treasury publishing two tax tables, one for cars registered before April 2020, and one for those registered after. BIK rates were also published up to April 2023, and there was a new 0% BIK rate for pure electric vehicles (EVs).

 

Leasing companies report a surge in fleet orders, with company car drivers and businesses eager to take advantage of the tax rates for the cleanest cars.

 

Arval says: “It’s important to recognise the reason people have been moving out of company cars has been the ongoing uncertainty around their personal tax, rather than any structural change in its effectiveness as a business tool or employee benefit. Faced with an unknown cost, they have been using the cash option to fund a PCH, effectively the nearest alternative.”

 

It is a trend reported by many in the FN50. Dominic Graf, head of commercial performance at Alphabet, explains: “We’re not seeing any significant movement in the funding methods being used by businesses to give employees access to cars; what we are seeing is a change in how they gain access to these funding products.”

 

Over the past 12 months, it has seen a 120% increase in its private/retail fleet – albeit from a low base – as employees opting out, or being provided with a cash allowance, look at PCH options.

 

Lex Autolease has also seen an increase in interest from previous company car drivers in PCH products, but Barnett warns: “Many should take care when seeing deals with low mileage, needing to realise that this presents a new restriction compared with the company car environment, and that, along with wear and tear, might lead to additional charges.”

 

LeasePlan created Select and Drive, a members-only, employer-endorsed web platform, to offer cash-taking employees access to cars.

 

Matthew Walters, head of consultancy and customer data services at LeasePlan UK, predicts: “Segmenting your fleet to various populations to ensure the fleet provision is right for the employee and the business will become an important factor in ensuring that the fleet strategy is future-proof for tomorrow.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News