The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

According to Auto Express, cars that are vulnerable to keyless theft are set to face higher insurance costs, after the industry experts responsible for setting vehicle “risk ratings” confirmed they would be penalising vehicles that are susceptible to relay attacks.

Thatcham Research, the insurance industry’s automotive research centre, confirmed that if manufacturers failed to include countermeasures to fend off relay attacks on cars with keyless entry systems, the organisation would recommend insurers judge them less favourably when calculating premiums.

While carmakers will be given a grace period to beef up the robustness of keyless systems, from 2021 Thatcham will change its new vehicle security assessment programme (NVSA) to reflect which models are most vulnerable to keyless theft. Insurers don’t have to abide by the guidelines, but the NVSA rating system helps to determine a car’s insurance group rating, meaning many cars are likely to attract higher premiums once the changes come into place.

Owners seeking to future-proof any prospective new-car purchase against potential insurance price hikes post 2021, meanwhile, can head to Thatcham’s security page to check if a car has a Superior, Good, Basic, Poor, or Unacceptable NVSA rating – though the grading system only applies to models introduced since the start of 2019.

You can reach the Thatcham Security Page by following this link:

https://www.thatcham.org/what-we-do/security/consumer-rating-2

The UK is currently experiencing an epidemic of car theft, with insurance payouts for stolen cars at their highest level since 2012, a study by German engineers finding almost every keyless system can be hacked, and police recording under half of all stolen cars being recovered. Carmakers have recently started to roll out fixes to the keyless conundrum, however, with Ford introducing a new keyless key with a motion sensor that puts the fob to sleep when it is not moving.

Commenting on the news, Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said the automotive industry “takes vehicle crime extremely seriously”, while the latest models “feature sophisticated immobilisers, tracking devices and encrypted key codes which prevent cloning.” Hawes also called for the government to ban the relay boxes that facilitate keyless theft. By Graham Hill

I read with interest the case of Alexia Ohene as reported in What Car. Alexia bought a used  car but sadly 14 days after taking delivery the car developed a problem with its clutch. The garage agreed to take the car back to repair but couldn’t take it for 5 days due to a backlog in the workshops. However, they offered Alexia a loan car but he would have to collect the car which he couldn’t.

He, therefore, decided to reject the car as he had the car less than 30 days, something he is fully entitled to do under the Consumer Rights Act. When he mentioned this to the dealer he was met with a shower of abuse and threats to take him to court. They insisted that he keep the car saying that it would be stupid to reject it and they would deduct a mileage charge for the miles he covered and the cost of fitting some bumper protectors that the customer had requested.

The car had undergone a new MOT, service and inspection prior to collection so the clutch problem should have been identified and this failure of a major component was certainly grounds for rejection. What Car suggested, and I agree, that Alexia, shouldn’t get into an argument but simply send a formal letter to the dealer, by recorded delivery, simply stating that he wishes to reject the car as a result of suffering the failure of a major component within the first 30 days of ownership, quoting the Consumer Rights Act.

The dealer had no right to charge for mileage use and if the bumper protectors could be removed without damage there should be no charge for removing them. They then go on to say that if the customer still has problems that he should contact Trading Standards – again I agree but you now have to contact trading standards through the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, not a major issue but it takes longer.

They then suggested that the customer contact the Motor Ombudsman, something I don’t recommend as dispute resolution. You can only have your complaint listened to if the dealer is signed up to the Motor Ombudsman which is paid for by the very companies that are signed up. Think you’ll get a favourable solution? In my opinion a complete waste of time.

What he should have done in the circumstances is pay a deposit of say £100 on a credit card. This means that under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act you can now get the credit card company to take back the car as under Section 75 they are jointly and severally liable for the quality of the car. And if you don’t get a result from the credit card company you can take it up with the much fairer Financial Ombudsman.

It’s a shame that the motor magazines don’t go quite far enough or have enough knowledge when coming up with solutions. By Graham Hill

At the start of 2019, rumours swept the internet that speed camera tolerances on certain motorways were so strict, they would issue tickets if drivers exceeded the 70mph limit by just 1mph.

This would have been worrying had you not read my report last week on the accuracy of car speedo’s.

The stories  and rumours turned out to be untrue and unfounded. But rather than allow misinformation about speed camera ‘thresholds’ to circulate unchecked, Auto Express asked the UK’s 45 police forces via Freedom of Information requests how strictly their 3,224 speed cameras enforce limits.

The majority of the forces that responded to Auto Express said their cameras would only activate when drivers exceed the speed limit by 10 per cent plus 2mph, in line with prosecution guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers.

This means cameras won’t issue tickets until someone is driving at 35mph or more in a 30mph limit, or 79mph or more on the motorway, for example.

The Metropolitan Police, which uses a less strict, 10 per cent plus 3mph threshold, say this is “a proportional response to the high volumes of traffic” in the capital. Lancashire Police also sets its cameras so that they activate at 10 per cent plus 3mph, and says that this has been done “to ensure greater tolerance or discretion”.

A number of forces wouldn’t tell us their camera thresholds, arguing that knowledge of these would encourage drivers to speed. All police forces that told us their thresholds said these applied to both fixed and average speed cameras.

Speed camera thresholds across the UK

I should make it clear that this in no way should encourage drivers to break speed limits as they realise they have a ‘free allowance’. Especially in built-up areas and areas close to schools and homes for the elderly.

Personally, I would like to see greater enforcement of the ‘Keep Left’ rules. Far too often I see cars hogging the outside lane of motorways causing frustrated drivers to either undertake or end up flashing the car in front potentially leading to road rage. By Graham Hill

The Motoring Ombudsman (not to be confused with the Financial Ombudsman) has revealed that few drivers are aware that they can extend their manufacturer’s warranty beyond the initial period. Really? If that’s the case a few dealership salesmen should be sacked!

Anyway, they found that more than half of all participants in a recent survey didn’t know that you can extend the manufacturers warranty. 32% were not aware that you can use an independent provider, you don’t have to take the manufacturer’s warranty.

This is quite important as more people are opting for 4 and even 5 year agreements in order to reduce the costs. In most cases that takes you beyond the manufacturer’s warranty period but whether you take an extended manufacturer’s warranty or take one from an independent provider make sure you check what you are covered for.

Also, if you decide to take out a 4 or 5 year PCP or PCH remember that you have other costs to take into account. Often new cars come with a breakdown service for the first 3 years which would need to be renewed or replaced. Service and maintenance costs increase as more items need to be replaced or renewed. Then there are often connectivity services and subscriptions that need to be renewed such as Sat Nav updates and alerts.

So what may seem like a good deal over say 4 years compared to 3 years, saving £20 per month could easily be eaten up by the added costs in the 4^th year. Graham Hill

Auto Express investigated how accurate the speedometers were on 10 cars were. They did this by comparing how fast the speedos said they were going with the actual speed, revealed by a VBox meter.

Car speedometers are not allowed to ‘under-read’ – they can’t tell you that you’re going more slowly than you really are – but they are allowed to over-read by up to 10 per cent plus 6.25mph. So they could read 50.25mph at 40mph.

All the cars that were assessed were well within legal limits, although some read with near-perfect accuracy, while others over-read by 3mph. This, with the different approaches police have to enforcing limits, means some variance will always remain around speeding.

Commenting on the investigation, AA president Edmund King said it is “sensible to have some flexibility” with speed-limit enforcement, “as the last thing we need is drivers concentrating solely on the speedo and not the road”.

King added that, with speedometers becoming increasingly accurate, “Auto Express’s testing is a valid reminder to drivers not to gamble on their speedo perhaps providing some leeway”.

The speedo accuracy test explained:

The VBox is a clever piece of kit that uses a GPS signal to measure a car’s speed. It’s very accurate, gauging velocity to within 0.1km/h, so is perfect for assessing speedos.

They set their test cars to 30, 50, 60 and 70mph using the built-in speed limiter or cruise control to ensure a steady speed, then used the VBox to measure how fast they were going. This gave them a fair idea of the discrepancy between actual and indicated speed.

“Not many drivers have access to a VBox, but a separate smartphone app or sat-nav can give you an idea of how accurate your speedo is. Here are the results of the tests:

By Graham Hill & Auto Express

At the end of November 2018, Middlesbrough Trading Standards prosecuted a car dealership, Evans Halshaw, which resulted in the court issuing a £134,000 fine for an alleged offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

That being for their second-time failure to disclose in its advertising that a vehicle it was selling had once been owned by a leasing company.  Specifically, stating that it had “one previous owner” without disclosing that this owner was a leasing company.

Trading Standards (in support of a previous opinion by the Advertising Standards Authority) felt that failure to mention this point was “misleading” and could affect the decision of a prospective buyer whether to buy or not.

The consumer who complained about it, had found out about its history prior to purchase and so never went ahead to buy the car in the first place.

For several months subsequently other Trading Standards Departments and consumers have used the ruling to force dealers to reduce selling prices.

I for one was extremely happy to hear in April that on appeal, the fine had been overturned.  The judge ruling that the ex-business use of the car would have had no effect on its value. In order to clarify his position and in a veiled criticism of the original prosecution and its original outcome, the judge added that the courts exist to protect consumers against bad bargains where the playing-field is not level – and not irrational prejudice against ex-business use vehicles whose values are entirely unaffected.

In my opinion, this case illustrated a total naivety of those who are responsible for legal decisions. I know more about the motor industry than most in the UK which means I constantly see bad advice being given to consumers and businesses. Most businesses lease their cars and vans these days but some still buy them outright and service and maintain them themselves.

So what trading standards was saying was that if a car had been leased it was likely to be in poorer condition than those which were privately owned or owned by a business and in the case of BT maintained in their own workshops. As the leasing companies own the leased vehicles there is no way of finding out whether the car was leased privately or through a business.

And even if the cars were leased through a business the constraints on the lessees by the leasing companies are such that the condition of ex leased cars is better than privately owned cars and cars owned by companies.

Had the ruling remained ex-lease car values would have plummeted pushing up lease costs to customers. Another declaration that should be made to buyers is whether a car was an ex rental car. But again this isn’t as straight forward as it seems. Stephen Byers stopped the activity of heavily discounting pre-registered cars with his Supply Of New Cars Order 2000.

As a result, cars have been sold to daily rental companies at big discounts then sold on as ‘Pre-Registered’ but with the first owner a daily rental company. The problem is that you can’t tell if the car that was first registered to a daily rental company was actually used for rental by possibly a hundred different drivers or was sold as a Pre-Reg with no miles on the clock.

The one car that finds itself outside the constraints is the ex-demonstrator which can be a bag of bolts. They are often abused by sales staff who take the cars home at night and over the weekend. One manufacturer revealed that they mop up parts from all over the world from their various production plants which can result in some poor quality cars with many suffering with squeaks and various noises that simply can’t be repaired.

In industry, I was general manager in a large PLC and I had the transport department within my control. We had 700 cars and vans and they were meticulously looked after by the drivers but every week we had transporter loads of demonstrators dropped off from BMW’s to Vauxhalls, Hondas to Mercedes all with zero miles on the clock. Frankly, we allowed the salesmen and engineers to use the cars to let off steam in. They were abused and mistreated but were returned fully valeted looking like new cars. I would personally never ever have a demo. By Graham Hill

Drivers repeatedly caught leaving their car engine running while parked could be hit with instant fines in a bid to curb pollution, according to reports.

Environment secretary Michael Gove has backed Westminster City Council’s call to be granted powers which could see drivers who are caught idling to be fined without warning, the Times says.

The existing arrangement sees officers issue a warning, followed by a fine if a driver keeps the car running for at least a minute – depending on which regulation is used by an authority fines can either be £20 or £80.

Experts claim idling engines are harmful to the environment as they can produce greater emissions than one which is in motion.

Westminster City Council issued just 20 fines last year but other councils – including City of London, Camden, Croydon, Reading, Norwich and Canterbury did not issue fines for idling.

Nickie Aiken, Westminster Council leader, said: “Fines are our last resort but when we establish a pattern of persistent idling we need to be able to send a message.”

And she argued the likes of supermarket delivery vans should be hit with a four-figure sum to be “sufficient deterrent”

Mr Gove said that instant fines for repeat offenders should be considered as a solution to the problem.

It was important to ensure that the new powers would be used proportionately by councils, he added.

Camden council, which wants to be able to issue instant fines, has warned more than 400 drivers but has issued no fines since it was granted the powers last year

The Department for Transport said: “We are determined to reduce the damaging environmental impacts of drivers who keep their engines running while stationary, especially those in school zones.

“This is why we are making guidance for local authorities clearer, so that they know how and when to target drivers falling foul of the law. We will be polling local authorities to understand how any potential review of these powers may look in the future.” By Graham Hill & AOL News

Did you know that some insurers reduce their premiums by up to 20% if you have a dash cam fitted in your car? I personally believe that fitting a dash cam as standard in a car should be a legal requirement and could be fitted into the rear of the rear view mirror.

Years ago cars didn’t have immobilisers fitted but they are now a statutory requirement along with a car alarm. And it would cost considerably less than the cost of fitting an aftermarket unit.

Dash cams can be incredibly useful in the event of an accident in order to help the driver prove his case and the incidents of ‘Cash For Crash’, where a driver pulls in front of an innocent driver and brakes hard causing the car behind to hit the car in front, then every person in the car in front making a whiplash claim, has reduced as a result of dashcams.

Dashcam footage has also helped police to apprehend dangerous drivers and drunk drivers following erratic and dangerous driving. But for the cameras to be effective they must be capable of creating clear footage with easy transfer to a mobile device.

With this in mind AutoExpress have tested out some of the popular brands and come up with their top 3 cameras.

Their Best Buy was the Nextbase 612GW, priced at £249.99. It has a 150 degree lens capture with recording in 4K Ultra HD. In the tests number plates were easy to read as were road signs and pedestrians could be seen I a low light. A polarised filter enhanced colour quality and settings were easily adjusted on the move. The BlackVue had better picture quality but the price difference gave the Nextbase the edge.

Recommended was the Blackvue DR900S-1CH with the best picture quality but priced at £399.95. It has a 162 degree lens capture with recording in 4K Ultra HD at 30 frames per second making it the most accurate. In the tests this cam recorded pedestrians and number plates well even in low light as a result of the 8megapixel camera. Settings are changed via a downloadable app. It is WiFi enabled so recordings can be uploaded from the camera to Cloud Storage. In summary the cam and the features justify the high cost – loved by the testers.

Also recommended was the Thinkware Q800 Pro at a cost of £269. The unit looks a little messy as it comes with a hardwire lead powered by a plug and play 12v unit. There is no screen and and footage is accessed by the Thinkware app. The unit comes with a Sony Exmor R Starvis sensor to record 1440p quad HD quality footage at 30 frames per second. The review describes the quality as good but behind the first two. Lowlight conditions are the strength of the Thinkware with Night Vision 2.0 is excellent.

If you want to see all of the reviews you need to get your hands on the 1^st May edition of Auto Express. By Graham Hill

My new training video series will cover this subject but in the meantime, I thought I should highlight a not so uncommon problem. Let’s face it when we lease or buy a vehicle we take it on to either solve a problem or massage our egos or both.

The problem could simply be to get the kids to school and get you to work as effortless as possible or to cart around goods or equipment to deliver to customers or to use in your trade as a plumber, carpenter etc. On the other hand, you may opt for a car that has the wow factor and gets you from a standing start to 60 mph faster than a fighter jet.

Whatever the reason you shouldn’t need to have a law degree, be a qualified accountant or be a qualified car mechanic in order to enjoy effortless use of your vehicle throughout the time you possess it. Especially if you lease the vehicle and the vehicle is covered by a manufacturer’s warranty throughout the lease period.

Which brings me to a problem faced by an old client of mine. One of his vehicles was a van that suddenly developed a leak from the windscreen turning the passenger well into – a well – literally, any time it rained.

It seemed fairly obvious that as there was no damage to the glass that there must have either been a manufacturing fault or an assembly fault so the driver took the van into the main dealer for them to sort out as part of the warranty.

The dealer, after consulting with the manufacturer, decided that it wasn’t covered by the warranty. At this stage, the client contacted the leasing company. After all, they own the van at all times, the client simply rents it. Knowing that the customer needed the van as part of his business they instructed the dealer to carry out the repair which was done and the van returned to the customer.

One would think that this was a happy ending and it was until the customer received an invoice from the leasing company for the cost of the repair. Clearly, he shouldn’t have had to pay for the replacement screen and re-fitting. Whilst I’m not wanting to point the finger of blame I simply want to bring this situation to the attention of all of those leasing a car or van because it raises some very fundamental questions.

First of all, in my opinion, this should have been a very simple warranty claim and the manufacturer should have simply paid for the repairs. However, once the repair was refused and hindsight is a great thing, the client’s insurer should have been called in.

Insurers will only pay out on a claim if the windscreen was damaged. As experts in their field had they said that the leak was a result of manufacture or assembly faults the manufacturer would have been hard pushed to continue to refuse the claim. On the other hand, they could have agreed that the leak was attributed to accidental damage and the screen replaced with the customer having to pay a small excess fee.

Now, as I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, my clients are not engineers or car mechanics so I wouldn’t expect them to think about contacting the windscreen company but I would expect the dealer to suggest this route unless they were simply looking to replace the screen and make money out of the customer, supported by the dealer. Why did they not do this?

Moving on to the owners of the vehicle, the leasing company. They have their own engineering department who deal with service and maintenance issues. As they own the car I would also suggest that they should take up any warranty claims on behalf of the customer.

After all, if you rent a car from Avis you would expect them to take care of the problem if you suddenly heard a knock from the engine. Down to them to sort out any warranty claims as they own the car and the warranty.

But even if they didn’t accept that they should take responsibility for the warranty claim they did take up the case with the dealer. At that stage, an engineer to engineer discussion should have taken place and if the leasing company agreed with the dealer and manufacturer that this was accidental they should have explained this to their client and recommended that the customer make a claim on his insurance, after all, they are the experts, not my (and their) client.

Finally, without reference to their customer, the repairs were authorised by the leasing company. However, they didn’t have the permission of the customer to spend his money. It is unlawful to spend someone elses money without authorisation, which wasn’t given in this case so the customer has every right to refuse to pay. The argument continues but I’ll let you into a little known secret.

This all took place in the third year of the warranty. Did you know that in most cases the manufacturer only provides the first two years of the ‘manufacturer’s’ warranty? The 3^rd year is ‘paid for’ by the supplying dealer. And whilst the way this is done is shrouded in secrecy I have heard that one large dealership group self-funds.

In other words, if you make a warranty claim in the 3^rd year and repairs are carried out the supplying dealer will pay for them. It works out cheaper than paying for the warranty cover on every car.

So there is an incentive to decline a warranty claim. Now I’m not saying that this is the case in this instance but it throws a big question mark over the way that warranty claims are handled.

I’ll be keeping an eye on things with regard to my client and report back the final outcome. By Graham Hill

Brexit will not diminish the emissions rules either, given the Government has said they will apply when the UK leaves the EU.

The rules have been called into question in the courts, however, with three cities – Brussels, Madrid and Paris – successfully challenging the provision allowing on-the-road emission limits to vary from those required in the laboratory.

The European Court of Justice ruled in their favour, saying that the European Commission (EC) had no power to weaken the emission limits.

The ruling meant the Commission needed to amend the RDE regulation to ensure that diesel vehicles actually emit less than 80mg/km during the on-the-road test.

The EC subsequently lodged an appeal against the ruling and is also preparing new legislation that will have the same effect as the law declared illegal by the courts in December.

Elzbieta Bienkowska, European Commissioner for industry, says that if the new legislation is adopted in time, the commission will withdraw the appeal. By Graham Hill (Thanks To Fleet News)