Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) is the latest manufacturer to face an emissions-based legal battle in the UK, as law firm PGMBM claims the manufacturer misled customers through the use of emissions ‘defeat’ devices.
PGMBM, which has also launched legal action against Mercedes-Benz and the Renault Nissan Alliance, says up to half a million of vehicles with FCA Group engines, manufactured since 2008, could be affected in England and Wales, .
Owners could be due £10,000 in compensation, if the claim is successful.
PGMBM managing partner Tom Goodhead said: “Fiat Chrysler Automobiles have misled drivers about the true diesel emissions that many of their vehicles produce. This is yet another instance of a huge automotive firm conning consumers – with a significant impact on the environment and our collective wellbeing.
“FCA must be held to account for these practices, and this case will give consumers the opportunity to pursue some justice and be compensated for being misled by a company that they may have trusted.
“Legally, consumers could be entitled to anything up to the full cost of the affected vehicles. But based on similar legal actions around the world, we believe that £10,000 per claimant should be expected.”
The car maker’s offices, including those of truck maker CNH, in Germany, Switzerland and Italy were raided in July, following claims that some of the company’s engines produced illegal levels of emissions.
According the PGMBM, potentially illegal software was used in the engine management systems used in Alfa Romeo, Jeep, Fiat and Suzuki cars, plus Iveco and Fiat commercial vehicles.
Affected engines, highlighted in the investigation, include Euro 5 and 6 variants of the 1.3-litre, 1.6-litre and 2.0-litre Multijet diesel engine.
A full list of potentially affected models can be viewed below.
In 2019, FCA agreed to a settlement worth $800 million to resolve claims from the US Justice Department and the state of California relating to the use of illegal software that produced false results on diesel-emissions tests.
The new claim alleges that FCA committed fraud by manufacturing vehicles whose true diesel emissions far exceeded the limits imposed by EU and UK laws.
An FCA spokesperson said: “FCA believes this claim to be totally without merit and we will vigorously defend ourselves against it.”
Potentially affected vehicles with FCA’s diesel engine:
Make / Model
1.3 litre
1.6 litre
2.0 litre
3.0 litre
3.0 litre (V6)
Fiat
500 500C 500L 500X Doblo Fiorino Panda Punto Punto Evo Grande Punto Qubo Tipo
500L 500X Bravo Doblo Grande Punto Punto Evo Scudo Talento Tipo
The following article was created for large fleet users but the same advice equally applies to consumers and small companies who drive electric vehicles
How long does an electric car battery last? Use the free Geotab EV Battery Degradation Tool to compare the average battery degradation over time for different vehicle makes and model years.
Geotab developed the tool based on an analysis of 6,300 fleet and consumer electric vehicles. Read on to learn about EV battery health and get key takeaways on real-world battery performance.
See also: To what degree does temperature impact EV range?
The importance of EV batteries
If you’re thinking about buying an electric vehicle (EV), there are some important factors to consider. These three questions are probably at the top of your list:
How much will the EV cost?
What is its range?
How long will the battery last?
From a life-cycle perspective, battery performance and health really are the key to it all. As the battery is an EV’s most expensive component, the degree of degradation will affect the vehicle’s residual value (which helps answer the cost question from above), and will also have a direct impact on maximum usable range over time.
See also: Podcast: EV myths and management with Charlotte Argue
How long will an EV battery last?
You might have noticed that it is tough to get a straight answer to questions about an EV’s battery lifespan. What you may find instead are assurances that batteries are covered by warranty should something go wrong. Typically, battery coverage is 8 years or 100,000 miles, but this will vary by manufacturer and country.
Warranties are reassuring, and so too is the fact that battery costs are decreasing significantly year over year. Since 2010, the price of an average Lithium-ion battery pack has dropped by over 80%.
An automaker’s guarantee of their battery technology and the promise of decreasing costs should inspire some confidence. However, most of us would find more comfort knowing how quickly our batteries are expected to degrade, and how to minimize this loss.
See also: Preparing for EVs: Charge the North EV study findings for fleet operators
What is EV battery degradation?
Battery degradation is a natural process that permanently reduces the amount of energy a battery can store, or the amount of power it can deliver. The batteries in EVs can generally deliver more power than the powertrain components can handle. As a result, power degradation is rarely observable in EVs and only the loss of the battery’s ability to store energy matters.
A battery’s condition is called its state of health (SOH). Batteries start their life with 100% SOH and over time they deteriorate. For example, a 60 kWh battery that has 90% SOH would effectively act like a 54 kWh battery.
Keep in mind, this is not the same as vehicle range (distance the vehicle can travel on those kWhs), which will fluctuate on a daily or trip-by-trip basis, depending on a number of factors including charge level, topography, temperature, auxiliary use, driving habits and passenger or cargo load.
Common factors impacting Lithium-ion battery health:
Time
High temperatures
Operating at high and low state of charge
High electric current
Usage (energy cycles)
While there has been plenty of research done on battery health, there has been very little data following the real-world performance of EVs over time, let alone comparisons across different makes and models. Until now.
See also: J1939: Why having electric trucks and buses speak the same language is good for fleets
Introducing the EV Battery Degradation Tool
Geotab created the EV Battery Degradation Tool to assess how batteries have been holding up and to consider the relative importance of the above factors on EV battery life under real-world conditions.
We analyzed the battery health of 6,300 fleet and consumer EVs, representing 1.8 million days of data. From the telematics data processed, we have gained insight into how real-world conditions influence the battery health of electric vehicles, providing aggregated average degradation data for 21 distinct vehicle models, representing 64 makes, models and years.
Notes about the tool:
The degradation curves displayed below are the average trend line from the data analyzed.
These graphs can offer insight into average battery health over time, but should not be interpreted as a precise prediction for any specific vehicle.
A subset of vehicle makes, models and years are not available in the visualization tool – we have excluded vehicles with insufficient data, so don’t be alarmed if your car of choice is missing.
First and foremost, based on data from over 6,000 electric vehicles, spanning all the major makes and models, batteries are exhibiting high levels of sustained health. If the observed degradation rates are maintained, the vast majority of batteries will outlast the usable life of the vehicle.
Like us, health declines with age
As you might expect, the older a vehicle is, the more likely its battery has deteriorated. However, when looking at average decline across all vehicles, the loss is arguably minor, at 2.3% per year.
This means that if you purchase an EV today with a 150 mile range, losing about 17 miles of accessible range after five years is unlikely to impact your day-to-day needs.
Is EV battery degradation linear?
While this tool shows more or less linear degradation, as a general rule, EV batteries are expected to decline non-linearly: an initial drop, which then continues to decline but at a far more moderate pace. Towards the end of its life a battery will see a final significant drop, as seen below.
Figure 1: A normal degradation curve is expected to look something like this.
Fortunately for the drivers, too few batteries we’ve observed have reached the end-of-life drop for us to predict at what point this is likely to occur. We will continue to monitor to see when the non-linear degradation (also known as the “heel”) begins.
There is a measurable difference between makes, models and years
From our data, it appears that vehicle batteries respond differently to the test of time, depending on their make and model-year. Why do some vehicle models seem to, on average, degrade faster than others? Two potential contributors are battery chemistry and thermal management of the battery pack.
While EVs use Lithium-ion batteries, there are many different variations of Lithium-ion chemistries (the most prominent difference being the materials used for the electrodes). A battery’s chemical make-up will influence how it responds to stress. In addition to cell chemistry, temperature control techniques differ across vehicle models. A major distinction is if the battery pack is cooled and/or heated by air or by liquid.
Let’s compare a vehicle with a liquid cooling system to one with a passive air cooling system: the 2015 Tesla Model S and the 2015 Nissan Leaf, respectively. The Leaf has an average degradation rate of 4.2%, while the Model S is 2.3%. Good thermal management means better protection against degradation.
Figure 2: Battery degradation comparison of the 2015 Tesla Model S (liquid cooling) vs. the 2015 Nissan Leaf (passive air cooling).
State of charge (SOC) and the buffer effect
Another anticipated reason for the differences in battery health between manufacturers is how SOC is controlled. Operating a battery at near full or empty has implications on battery health. To limit this effect, many manufacturers add a buffer, effectively preventing access to the extreme ends of the SOC window (shown in the image below).
In addition to the protection buffers at the top end and bottom end of the battery range, many vehicles provide the EV owner the option to stop normal daily charging at a level below 100%.
Figure 3: Battery protection buffers control the usable state of charge window for an EV.
Did you know?
Removing the extremes is not only done for battery health but also for safe vehicle operation. At the extreme ends the battery wouldn’t be able to accept or deliver full power and the driving experience would be impacted. In essence, a battery at 100% isn’t completely charged from a pure battery chemistry standpoint.
Similarly, 0% isn’t completely empty. Since the vehicle owner is unable to access these parts of the battery range for safety and battery life reasons, it is likely that many are unaware of it.
Thanks to over-the-air software upgrades, it’s possible that the size of the buffer can change over time, as discovered by some Tesla owners in 2019 when they noticed a decrease in their top range. Tesla confirmed the upgrade was “to protect the battery and improve longevity.”
In addition, some automakers have adjustable charge ceilings, where the user can pre-set at what point the battery stops charging (e.g., they can tell the vehicle to stop charging at 75% instead of 100%).
This owner-discretionary region (B in the graphic above) works in combination with the non-discretionary buffer (A) to limit battery operation in areas of higher degradation. In later updates to the degradation tool we intend to include the impact of owner’s operation within this discretionary (B) region and the resulting impact on degradation rates.
Let’s consider an example:
The Chevrolet Volt, especially the early model years, has comparatively large top and bottom protection buffers (regions A and D) that dynamically change as the battery ages. While the larger buffers mean less energy for driving, it should result in a longer lasting battery pack.
Given the larger SOC buffers, liquid thermal management, and dynamic (decreasing) buffer size, slower than average degradation rates should be expected on the Volt.
Figure 4: Battery degradation over time for a Chevrolet Volt vs. all vehicles.
What additional factors appear to influence battery health?
Based on the telematics data available, we were able to evaluate battery degradation by different factors the vehicles were exposed to and see if there was any correlation with health decline. These factors included:
Use
Extreme climates
Charging type
Over time, we hope to develop these insights into a degradation tool that can better predict EV state of health.
High vehicle use does not equal higher battery degradation
One exciting piece of information we were able to glean from the data was that vehicles with high use did not show significantly higher battery degradation. This should come as welcome news, since you don’t get the benefit of an EV if it’s just sitting in the fleet yard.
The takeaway? Don’t be afraid to put your EVs in high-use duty cycles. As long as they are within their daily driving range, their battery life won’t be negatively impacted.
One caveat: if high use requires routine DC fast charging, be sure to read the section on the impact of charging type.
Figure 5: Amount of use doesn’t appear to have much impact on degradation rates.
Vehicles driven in hot temperatures show faster decline in battery SOH
A battery exposed to very hot temperatures will be prone to more damage, but by how much? Will an EV in Arizona have a different battery life than the same car driven in Norway? To find out, we grouped the vehicles based on the following climate conditions:
Temperate: Fewer than 5 days per year over 80 F (27 C) or under 23 F (-5 C).
Hot: More than 5 days per year over 80 F (27 C).
As illustrated below, vehicles driven in hot climates showed a notably faster rate of decline than those driven in moderate climates. This is not great news if you and your fleet toil under the hot sun.
Heat and cold weather also impacts your day-to-day range. To understand how, take a look at our Temperature Tool for EV Range.
Figure 6: Batteries exposed to hot days degrade faster than those in temperate climates.
Taking a look at charge type
We were able to look at the predominant charging level used for the EVs in our system. North American EV charging stations are categorized in three common types:
Level 1: 120 volt – a regular home outlet in North America.
Level 2: 240 volt – typical for home or fleet charging.
Direct current fast charger: DCFC – for faster top ups.
Charging in most of Europe is referred to as AC charging (which is generally equivalent to Level 2 in North America) and DC charging (DCFC, as described above).
While Level 2 is often cited as the optimal way to charge an EV, the difference in battery health between cars that routinely charged on Level 2 as compared to those who used Level 1 appeared to be observable but was not beyond the level of statistical significance.
Figure 7: Battery degradation for vehicles that primarily charge on Level 1 compared with Level 2.
The use of DCFCs, however, does appear to impact the speed that batteries degrade. Rapidly charging a battery means high currents resulting in high temperatures, both known to strain batteries. In fact, many automakers do suggest limiting the use of DCFC in order to prolong their vehicles’ battery life.
Here we look at all battery electric vehicles in the same climate group (we chose to look at the most susceptible group – those operating in extreme climate conditions), and categorized them based on how frequently they used a DCFC: Never, occasionally (1–3 times per month) and frequently (more than 3 times per month).
Figure 8: Battery degradation appears to be strongly correlated with DCFC use for vehicles in seasonal or hot climates.
The difference between those vehicles that never used DCFC and those that used it even occasionally in seasonal or hot climates was notable. While there may be other factors at play (we want to stress that this wasn’t a controlled experiment), charging via lower power Level 2 charging should be prioritized.
Tips to prolong your EV battery’s life
While battery degradation varies by model and external conditions – such as climate and charging type – the majority of vehicles on the road today have not experienced significant decline. In fact, overall degradation has been very modest, with an average capacity loss of just 2.3% per year. Under ideal climate and charging conditions, the loss is 1.6%.
While some things are out of an operator’s control, there are ways you can extend the life of your EV’s battery.
Some tips for operating your EVs:
Avoid keeping your car sitting with a full or empty charge. Ideally, keep your SOC between 20–80% particularly when leaving it for longer periods, and only charge it fully for long distance trips.
Minimize fast charging (DCFC). Some high-use duty cycles will need a faster charge, but if your vehicle sits overnight, level 2 should be sufficient for the majority of your charging needs.
Climate is out of an operator’s control, but do what you can to avoid extreme hot temperatures, such as choosing shade when parked on hot days.
High-use is not a concern, so fleets shouldn’t hesitate to put them to work. An EV isn’t useful sitting idle in the fleet yard, and putting on more miles per vehicle is overall a better fleet management practice.
Final thought
Don’t sweat the small stuff. As vehicles come out with larger battery packs, losing some capacity may not impact your day-to-day driving needs, and shouldn’t overshadow the many benefits EVs have to offer. By Graham Hill thanks to Geotab
The number of people paying company car tax has again fallen substantially, with HMRC reporting 30,000 fewer people receiving the benefit.
The latest benefit-in-kind (BIK) statistics, published by HMRC, show there were 870,000 company car drivers in 2018-19 – a massive 30,000 year-on-year decline.
The provisional figures suggest that the number of employees receiving the benefit has fallen by some 90,000 in the past five years, from 960,000 in 2015/16.
HMRC has now confirmed that there were 900,000 people paying company car tax in 2017/18 – provisional figures published last year suggested 890,000.
That was a fall of 40,000 on some 940,000 company car tax-payers reported the previous tax year (2016/17).
HMRC figures have also shown that the amount of company car tax collected increased. Despite the decline in employees paying BIK on a car between 2016/17 and 2017/18, the taxman collected £1.62 billion – £70m more than the £1.55bn it collected the previous tax year.
The reduction in company cars seen over the past few years coincides with the introduction of voluntary payrolling, according to HMRC.
Like last year, it is claiming that at least part of the reduction is due to employers moving from submitting P11D returns to collecting tax on company cars through payroll.
In 2016 to 2017 employers were not able or required to submit more detailed information about company cars when collecting tax on this benefit through voluntary payrolling.
From 2017 to 2018 employers payrolling car benefit were able to provide more detailed data about the cars being provided through their FPS (Full Payment Submission), which HMRC told Fleet News would rectify the situation.
However, providing this data was not mandatory until 2018 to 2019 and even after mandation of providing more detailed data through FPS, HMRC says that there are non-trivial levels of non-reporting.
As such, it maintains that a significant number of company cars were not reported to HMRC between 2016 to 2017 and 2018 to 2019.
It is not possible to produce accurate estimates of the number of unreported company cars, but HMRC analysis suggests they account for a “high proportion” of the reduction observed.
The fleet industry will be hoping that new company car tax rates, which include a zero percentage rate for pure electric vehicles, introduced from April 2020 will go some way to bucking this downward trend.
Leasing companies began reporting a surge in interest in plug-in vehicles almost immediately after the new rates were announced in July 2019.
One year on, and demand shows no sign of diminishing. David Bushnell, principal consultant at Alphabet GB, said: “Year-on-year, the electric and hybrid sector is continuing to grow at a rapid pace. In 2020, we’re starting to see more of a shift towards pure electric vehicles over hybrids, with a 124% increase of pure electric vehicle orders compared with 2019. Hybrid vehicles remain popular however, and sales have continued to rise compared with last year’s figures, up by 41%.”
Almost half (48%) of Alphabet company car orders this year, have been for electric (12%) and plug-in hybrids (36%). By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
City of Edinburgh Council, Heriot-Watt University and Flexible Power Systems (FPS) have secured funding worth £1.6 million to investigate the benefits of wireless electric vehicle (EV) charging.
Wireless charging allows EVs to recharge while parked on charging pads instead of using cables that need to be manually plugged in by a driver.
In what is being claimed as the UK’s first wireless charging hub for light commercial vehicles (LCVs), devices will be installed at Heriot Watt University’s Edinburgh campus in early 2021 to service specially adapted vans from both City of Edinburgh Council and Heriot-Watt’s fleet.
The technology has already been proven for mass transit applications and will be supplied by specialist firm, Momentum Dynamics.
The project is being funded by the Office for Low-Emission Vehicles (OLEV) and delivered through Innovate UK.
A similar six-month trial of wireless charging technology for electric taxis in Nottingham was announced by the Government at the start of the year.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said that the £3.4m scheme could pave the way for a revolution in EV charging.
This latest project aims to accelerate the transition to EV in commercial vehicle fleets by reducing the cost of charging the vans.
The project team says that high-powered wireless electric vehicle charging is expected to have considerable benefits for commercial vehicle users, including: faster starts to charging sessions with no downtime for plugging in to improve vehicle use and create bigger benefits from opportunity charging sessions; no cables to cause trip hazards or require maintenance; and future proofing for the advent of autonomous vehicles (which will not have a driver to plug them in).
The project ultimately aims to apply wireless charging to shared logistics hubs where fulfilment functions can be combined with charging.
Wireless charging technology will be applied to improve vehicle turnaround times and staff productivity at the hubs enhancing cost savings, it says
FPS’ managing director, Michael Ayres explained: “Productivity drivers and longer journeys mean commercial vehicles may need to charge away from the depot or at high speeds during the day.
“Rapid and ultra-rapid chargers required for a fast turnaround make up less than 25% of publicly available chargers and can be difficult to access if they are in use or out of service.”
High-power rapid chargers can be expensive both in terms of the chargers themselves and the electricity network infrastructure required to support them, says Ayres.
Sharing the cost of the charger and the connection through a shared charging hub can mitigate a portion of these costs.
He continued: “The project is testing sharing of the charging hubs between logistics, retailer, local government, and university owned commercial vehicles.
“These charging hubs require high use to be economically viable. The project uses powerful wireless charging to shorten the length of time vehicles need to be in the charging hubs.
“At the same time, we are investigating adding basic fulfilment capabilities to improve the productivity of logistics vehicles visiting the hubs.”
Professor Phil Greening, a co-director of the Centre for Sustainable Road Freight, based at Heriot-Watt University added: “While highly utilised shared infrastructure and collaboration have great potential to reduce the costs of decarbonising road freight, there are complex scheduling and commercial trade-offs to be considered.
“The modelling tools and approaches developed in our Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) funded research at the Centre, combined with the collaboration we’ve undertaken with FPS over the last two years will both be key to untangling these challenges and making sure this potential is realised.”
The charging hub concept has the potential to contribute to decarbonising commercial vehicles in the City of Edinburgh.
City of Edinburgh Council’s transport and environment convener councillor, Lesley Macinnes, said: “We’re delighted to be working with Heriot-Watt University on this innovative project, helping to facilitate the use of electric vehicles across our fleet.
“We are committed to supporting the use of sustainable, low emission travel and continue to replace vehicles with cleaner models wherever possible.
“Our own Electric Vehicle Action Plan will result in a significant increase in charging points across the city which, alongside projects such as this, will help encourage the take-up of electric vehicles as a low carbon, environmentally-friendly transport choice.”
Scott Millar, fleet and workshops Manager for The City of Edinburgh Council, added: “We are already deploying electric vehicles across our fleet and we’re looking at ways we can drive adoption in the wider community.
“Providing charging infrastructure like shared hubs has the potential to play a key part of removing barriers to uptake for both the council and the community.
“We’re excited to take a leadership role here as a successful project in Edinburgh could present a model for other councils to use to reduce transport emissions in cities.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
IAM RoadSmart is calling for clearer guidelines on the use of police technology to encourage use of mobile safety cameras and dash cams in prosecuting motorists using handheld mobile phones and not wearing seatbelts.
It found that nearly two thirds of police forces contacted were not using mobile safety cameras to prosecute motorists spotted committing these offences, as they incorrectly thought it was illegal. Unbelievable!
The road safety charity believes the inconstancy is encouraging motorists to flout the law and has highlighted the issue as part of its response to the Department for Transport’s Roads Policing review.
Neil Greig, policy and research director at IAM RoadSmart, said: “Clearer guidelines must be created so that police forces can be confident that they can enforce laws with the equipment available to them today – laws which were specifically designed to reduce the number of road casualties.
“Our research showed that the use of mobile safety cameras to pursue phone users and seatbelt offenders varies from one force to another. What we need are clear and consistent guidelines on what the cameras can be used for, what training staff need and how the images can be used as evidence.
Stiffer penalties are only part of the enforcement jigsaw and fear of being caught must be increased so that resources are not wasted, or drivers think they can get away with flouting the law.”
The findings, which came from a Freedom of Information request, revealed that out of the 44 police forces, only 16 of them used images from the cameras to pursue these offences as a matter of routine, with a further four doing so occasionally.
In addition, not all forces have adopted ‘Operation Snap’, which seeks to integrate dash cam footage into the prosecution system.
With 70% of drivers thinking mobile phone use behind the wheel has got worse in the last three years and 90% seeing it as a threat to their personal safety, IAM RoadSmart believes more must be done to utilise available technologies to improve road safety and reduce the number of road casualties. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News.
Used car values dipped by 2.1% in October – the first fall since March – and look set to fall further, while wholesale sold prices fell across the board, according to new data from at Cap HPI.
It says that there has been a drop off in trade demand, with buyers becoming more reluctant to pay high prices for used stock.
“The market appears to now be undergoing some realignment,” explained Derren Martin, head of valuations UK at Cap HPI.
“There are several factors at play. Values do tend to drop in the final quarter of the year, by varying degrees, as demand drops away in the run-up to Christmas and supply levels usually increase.
“We do appear to be experiencing that drop off in trade demand, but it is exacerbated this year by economic uncertainty, high prices and reasonable predictions that the consumer appetite for used cars that has driven up prices cannot last forever.”
Both city cars and superminis have seen the most increases over the last few months but experienced above-average falls in October.
City cars reduced by an average of 2.9% (£150) at the three-year point, with larger drops for the Citroen C1, Skoda Citigo, Vauxhall Viva and Volkswagen Up.
Superminis reduced by 2.5% (£200) in October, with some of the most heavily affected at the three-year age being the Ford Fiesta, Hyundai i20 and Kia Rio.
Younger used cars were less affected by a pricing move, with franchise dealers switching customers from new to used when availability was an issue.
All other mainstream sectors experienced a downturn in values, with lower medium (C-sector) cars, the next most heavily affected.
SUVs, although still dropping in price, have held up slightly better than most, despite being almost one-third of wholesale volume now.
Large SUV models have performed the best in terms of price, moving down in value overall by just 0.5% (£150) at three-years-old.
Volumes seem to have been steady, and manufacturers have continued to steer these vehicles back into their dealer network whenever they can, particularly if volumes are low, says Cap HPI.
The supply of electric vehicles being offered in the used wholesale market continues to grow; year-to-date disposal volumes have increased by around 20% over the same period last year.
While there is no doubt that there is a demand for used EVs, Cap HPI says that an increase in supply and the premium they attract over a petrol or diesel vehicle still acts as a barrier to the mass market.
Martin concluded: “2020 has been completely different from any other year in history and that includes what has happened to values of used cars, rising against all expectations.
“It is particularly difficult to predict what may happen, with so much uncertainty due to localised lockdowns – whether or not car retailers can sell and deliver cars in Wales remains a grey area at the time of writing.
“Whilst trade volumes are not as high as in previous years due to lower than normal registration volumes, and leased vehicles are still on extensions, plus new car supply issues, it is still highly unlikely that demand for wholesale stock will overtake supply for the remainder of the year.
“As a result, with values remaining higher than they were a year ago, by over five per cent on average despite the recent Live drops, we are forecasting that values will continue to drop in November.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
Manufacturers are warning leasing companies that they cannot guarantee company car prices beyond the end of the year, even for some models being ordered now.
In letters sent to vehicle lease provides by major carmakers, including BMW, Jaguar Land Rover and Mercedes-Benz, they say that the threat of a ‘no deal’ Brexit is to blame for the potential price hike.
If no deal is reached and ratified before December 31, World Trade Organisation (WTO) non-preferential rules, including a 10% tariff on cars and up to 22% on vans and trucks would apply.
That would equate to a price increase of almost £3,000 on the average UK exported car to the EU, a £2,000 price increase on UK vans exported to the EU and a price increase of £1,800 on cars and vans imported from the EU, if fully passed on to UK consumers, according to UK Automotive Trade Report from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
It adds that additional customs duties, costs and complexity would significantly disrupt sourcing of parts and components from the EU.
A price hike could see rentals increased and result in company car drivers paying more in benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax thanks to higher P11d prices.
Mercedes-Benz says in a letter sent to leasing companies, that it will guarantee the prices of all Mercedes-Benz and Smart cars ordered before Saturday (October 31), that have a quoted UK delivery date on its ordering system prior to December 31, regardless of its arrival date into the UK.
Mercedes-Benz said: “Should a customs duty tariff become applicable on cars imported into the UK after leaving the EU Customs Union and Single Market, we would look to increase the price of our cars accordingly, to offset the amount of the tariff (unless covered by the stated price protection).
“The increase would be applicable to all vehicles and factory fitted options, whether marked sold or unsold and regardless of the order, allocation date or sales channel. This would potentially vary model by model.”
BMW issued its warning a few weeks before MB, saying that “unless there is a free trade agreement with the EU, additional customs duties are likely to be applied to BMW and MINI vehicles imported into the UK”.
“This means that any vehicles which are delivered into the UK on or after January 1, 2021, regardless of date ordered, may have additional customs duties imposed on them,” it said.
“Should there be a no-deal Brexit, BMW UK will provide details of the implications of that including any price changes for vehicles as soon as possible.”
It added that “orders must be confirmed within the BMW Retailer ordering system on, or before December 31 to receive price protection against the economic price increase”.
“Any unfilled orders will be highlighted to you by the supplying retailer or leasing company and will not be price protected. Economic price protection does not include the potential additional customs duties.”
It was similar warning from Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which said it is “not in a position to guarantee pricing for vehicles that are registered after December 31”.
All vehicles, regardless of build location, it says may be subject to a price increase when registered from January 1, 2021.
Meanwhile, Volkswagen Group in a letter sent to leasing companies, on behalf of its VW, Audi, Seat, VW Commercial Vehicles and Skoda brands, says it is closely monitoring developments surrounding the UK’s transitional period.
As part of its preparations, it says that it has established an understanding of all Brexit eventualities and is “confident” of its readiness.
Actions it has taken include: obtaining an EORI number (used for customs declarations); optimising stock availability to mitigate the risk of supply constraints; appointing customs agents allowing it to import cars and parts into the UK in line with HMRC regulations; and implementing and tested required systems changes.
It adds that in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, the “application of import tariffs and/or increases to prices are required, then we will communicate our plans to deal with this as quickly as possible”.
“In the meantime, we reserve the right to amend the price/discount of vehicles at any time if a change to regulation, legislation, application of tariffs, duties, taxes or other charge/event causes an increase to the costs of supply of vehicles,” it said.
Trade talks between the EU and the UK Government are ongoing.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis said the extended talks were “a very good sign” a deal can be done.
But he told the BBC: “We have got to make sure it is a deal that works, not just for our partners in Europe… but one that works for the United Kingdom.”
The two sides are thought to be working on legal texts, but Whitehall sources have indicated major sticking points – like fishing rights and competition rules – remain unresolved.
The UK left the EU on January 31 but has been in a transition period – continuing to follow EU rules and pay into the bloc – while the two sides try to agree a post-Brexit trade agreement. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
Police forces and safer roads partnerships are being urged to adopt a new speed camera enforcement strategy to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on UK roads.
Road Safety Support has released, ‘Enforcement Strategy – Raising the Game’, a report which calls for forces to leave traditional camera enforcement behind and introduce a new wide-area, ‘flexible’ approach to speed camera operations.
Provisional data shows that road deaths in the UK were higher in 2019, than in 2010.
There were 1,721 reported road deaths in 2019, similar to levels seen in 2012, data from the Department for Transport (DfT) shows.
Road Safety Support says the report highlights the complacency among drivers in relation to speed camera use and urges forces to adopt a new approach to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured.
It recommends a step change to increase the perception of speed camera detection to encourage motorists to drive more carefully on all roads, not just where they expect to see a camera.
Mobile speed camera vans should be used to support traditional road policing efforts, because they can detect offences over a larger range and can be moved around frequently, the report states.
Detective chief superintendent, Andy Cox, of Lincolnshire Police and national lead for fatal collision investigation reporting to the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC), said he backs the report.
He said: “Speeding remains the biggest risk to road safety and should be the number one focus and priority for traffic enforcement.
“I would urge all forces to download this report, if they haven’t already done so, and follow the recommendations in it in relation to enforcement and communications.
“I urge people to drive within the speed limit, stay safe and keep a clean licence. I thank most lawful road users who are doing so.”
Trevor Hall, managing director of Road Safety Support, said: “Police forces and safer roads partnerships have very effective technology at their fingertips that we know reduces casualties; we have the evidence.
“We just need to adopt a new strategy to use it more efficiently and, through regular, proactive communications, help the public to understand that if they speed or commit other offences on the roads, there is every chance that they will be caught.”
Police forces in Northumbria, Essex, Wales and North Yorkshire have made changes to their enforcement strategies based on the recommendations in the ‘Raising the Game’ report. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
Car manufacturers are achieving significant reductions in average emissions levels, putting them on track to hit targets set by the European Commission.
That’s despite new car registrations being severely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, according to new research from Jato Dynamics.
Looking at the data for 21 countries in Europe, the average CO2 emissions totalled 102.2g/km – under the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) between January – August 2020.
By these calculations, the European automotive market is currently 6.5g/km over their combined target for 2020.
Despite overall registrations falling by 29% between January and September this year – when contrasted with the same period in 2019 – registrations for electric vehicles (EVs) increased by 67% through September to 1.54 million units.
This remarkable increase goes some way to explain the double-digit drops seen in demand for gasoline and diesel cars, and the increase in market share for EVs from 7.8% in January – September 2019, to 18.1% in January – September 2020, says Jato.
At the start of the year, Europe’s 13 top car manufacturers were predicted to miss their 2021 CO2 emissions targets and face fines of more than €14.5bn (£12.5bn), according to analysis by PA Consulting.
It shows the dramatic change achieved in average emissions in the past year.
In the UK, the Government has set out tough carbon emissions targets for carmakers based on similar regulations to those in the EU from January 1, 2021.
Currently, the European Commission sets an EU fleet average target that must be met by the EU fleet. For cars, this target is currently 95g/km in 2020. For vans, the target is 147g/km in 2020.
These targets will be converted into WLTP CO2 emissions targets in 2021 following the change in the vehicle CO2 test procedure, and the 2021 actual emissions will represent the new baseline.
Manufacturers will then have to meet a 15% reduction for cars and vans by 2025, and a 37.5% reduction for cars and a 31% reduction for vans by 2030, both against this 2021 baseline.
From these, manufacturers receive individual targets that are set according to the mass of their fleet. Manufacturers with heavier fleets receive individual targets above the EU target; manufacturers with lighter fleets receive targets below the EU target.
Manufacturers will be fined for missing their targets. The new UK rules will mirror those in the EU, including fine an £86 fine for each g/km above the target multiplied by the number of vehicles registered in the year.
Jato’s analysis shows that in Europe, Geely Group has secured pole position in race for CO2 rankings and smashed its target. Outperforming Toyota – which has traditionally led by brand in the CO2 race – the owner of Volvo (which accounts for 99% of Geely Group’s volume in Europe), Polestar, LEVC and Lotus, met the target by August, four months ahead of the deadline.
Geely’s CO2 target for 2020 was an average of 110.3g/km, but by August 31 its average was 103.1g/km – making Geely the only manufacturer to outperform the target.
A consistent focus on EVs is behind this achievement, with electrified vehicles accounting for almost half of its registrations in August, and 38% in January – August 2020, says Jato.
BMW is next in line to meet the target. With an average of 103.5g/km in August, they are only 0.54g/km above their target of 102.9g/km.
If this average remained the same, the German carmaker would only have to pay a minimal penalty at the end of the year, says Jato.
Meeting its target is more than achievable due to their mix of two strategies: increasing the share of EVs on sale, and the relatively low emissions generated by their diesel cars.
Toyota seems to be in a good position, only 2.2 grammes away from its target. However, its hybridisation objectives (which started some years ago) are now stalling, claims Jato.
For the past three years, hybrids have accounted for around two third of Toyota’s registrations in Europe, yet they are still not meeting the targets.
Furthermore, Jato says that its pure EVs have also taken a long time to arrive in Europe – with the new Lexus UX 300e, the first fully electric vehicle of the group, finally hitting the market this year.
The strategy of Korea’s largest maker, Hyundai, has been to boost its small SUVs and green compact cars, explains Jato. While hybrids accounted for 65% of Toyota Group volume in August, they only made up 13% for Hyundai.
However, pure electric cars represented 8% of registrations for the Korean manufacturer, while Toyota has been unable to put any on sale this year.
Jato says that his perfectly demonstrates how pure EVs are much more strongly placed to meet emissions targets, perhaps more so, than hybrid vehicles. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
A man who fraudulently bought £27,000 of fuel in eight months using a company fuel card has been given an 18-month suspended jail sentence.
Steven Green, 45, began working as a driver for a shed company in Wisbech in July 2018 and was given a company fuel card.
A month later, in August 2018, his employment was terminated, but Green kept the fuel card and then purchased £27,268 worth of fuel between September 2018 and April 2019.
Company bosses noticed the large amount after reviewing the card balances in April last year.
Police investigating the incident established that Green was the person behind the purchases.
Officers from Norfolk Constabulary also confirmed they had done a stop check on Green in their area in January 2019 and reported he had a number of empty 25 litre containers in his vehicle.
During the investigation it emerged that Green had attempted to purchased a final £255 worth of fuel, but when the card was declined he left without paying.
Green pleaded guilty to fraud by false representation and making off without payment.
He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for 18 months at Cambridge Crown Court on Monday October 19.
He was also ordered to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and 50 days rehabilitation activity requirement.
Detective Constable, Ahmed Ishaq, who investigated, told the Peterborough Telegraph: “It’s clear Green thought he could get away with using the fuel card and nothing was going to stop him until the company cancelled the card.
“He has defrauded the company out of a substantial amount of money and I am glad justice has been done.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News
