The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The country’s biggest leasing company, funding some 350,000-plus cars and vans, has seen its pre-tax profits plummet, according to its annual accounts.

Lex Autolease, part of the Black Horse Group, reported £153 million in pre-tax profits in 2019, a 27% (£57m) year-on-year decline from the £210m achieved in 2018.

As the fleet size remains pretty constant at 350,000 this indicates a pre-tax profit of less than £450 per car.

Revenues for the leasing giant, meanwhile, were up £125m (5.4%), from £2.38 billion to £2.5bn over the same period.

It equated to a profit margin of 6.1% – down on the 8.8% it achieved the previous year.

It says in its annual accounts for the year ending December 31, 2019, that the decrease in the company’s profits was “principally driven by decreased revenue” generated from its leased fleet, which had declined by 9% year on year.

This, it explains, was due to the uncertainties around tax legislation having an impact on corporate customers and resulting in fleet downsizing, as well as customers looking towards products such as personal contract purchase (PCP) agreements over traditional contract hire.

Lex Autolease also expects this downward trajectory to continue for the next 12 months due to the impact of Covid-19.  

Operating leases account for more than 90% of Lex Autolease’s funded fleet, with the leasing company receiving £1.41bn in rentals in 2019 – £71m less than the previous year. Meanwhile, proceeds from disposals grew more than £192m, from £823m to more than £1.01bn.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Following the last lockdown and the lack of police on the streets and the roads it has been suggested that there has been a sharp increase in the number of uninsured drivers on the roads.

The reasons for this are firstly circumstances as a result of furlough or unemployment causing drivers to believe that they can go without paying for a few months without anyone noticing.

A policemen reported that he’d stopped a driver with no insurance since February and when questioned about having no insurance he said that he didn’t think he needed to have it during lockdown.

These are desperate times. In the past uninsured drivers tended to be irresponsible youngsters, car thieves and other criminal types. But the police have now found that uninsured drivers are normal people in desperate situations.

They need to have use of their cars but simply can’t afford the insurance and are prepared to risk being caught, fined and having their licences taken away. So to combat this situation make sure that your insurance is fully paid.

And if you are travelling less miles than you anticipated when you took out your policy call your insurer and ask for a reduction in the cost.  By Graham Hill

The Government is being urged to revise its plans to introduce automated lane keeping systems (ALKS) onto UK roads in early 2021, because it will put road users’ lives at risk.

Thatcham Research and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) are calling on the Government to carry out further safety tests before the technology is introduced.

Thatcham Research and the ABI say that as it stands it is not safe enough to be classified as ‘automated driving’, because the functionality of ALKS technology and the regulations under which they will operate will mean that they cannot replicate what a competent and engaged human driver.

The Government could give the go-ahead for the automated lane keeping technology to be the first automated driving system on UK motorways up to speeds of 70 mph from the spring – pending the results of a safety consultation that ends on October 27.

It will mark the first time a driver can legally take their hands off the wheel and their eyes off the road and allow their vehicle to drive for them.

Thatcham Research says it has serious safety concerns about this plan, because automated lane keeping systems are largely based on today’s assisted driving technology.

“The Government’s plan threatens road safety,” warned Matthew Avery, Thatcham Research director of research. “Motorists could feasibly watch television in their car from early next year because they believe their automated lane keeping system can be completely trusted to do the job of a human driver.

“But that’s not the reality. The limitations of the technology mean it should be classified as ‘assisted driving’, because the driver must be engaged, ready to take over.”

James Dalton, ABI director of general insurance policy, added: “The insurance industry is 100% committed to supporting the development of automated vehicles, which have the potential to dramatically improve road safety and revolutionise our transport systems.

“Vehicles equipped with an automated lane-keeping system are a great step towards developing automated vehicles.

“However, drivers must not be given unrealistic expectations about a system’s capability. Thatcham Research has identified some concerning scenarios where ALKS may not operate safely without the driver intervening. We strongly believe the timings for the introduction of ALKS should be revised to prevent lives being put at risk.”

The scenarios that Thatcham Research as identified, in which automated lane keeping system technology will not respond in the same way as a competent driver on a UK motorway, are:

Debris in the carriageway

Debris caused 11 serious accidents on UK motorways in 2019. Automated lane keeping system technology may not see this type of hazard and will continue in lane at its set speed, potentially causing a serious collision. An attentive driver, however, should recognise debris and attempt to move around it by safely changing lanes.

Pedestrian carriageway encroachment

Pedestrian casualties are increasing on UK motorways and accounted for 23% of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) on those roads in 2019. If a pedestrian encroaches on the carriageway while emerging from a broken-down vehicle, a human driver would either slow to a safe speed or move out of lane to avoid conflict. An automated lane keeping system won’t be allowed to do this because it’s forced to stay in lane and so will continue at motorway speed towards the pedestrian, significantly reducing the ability to brake and avoid a collision.

Motorway lane closure

There were 70 accidents caused by cars driving along a closed lane – marked with a red ‘X’ – on smart motorways in 2019. Automated lane keeping systems may not recognise a closed lane and break the law. If the vehicle does recognise the closed lane, it can only stop in lane under the red ‘X’, creating an additional hazard.

Avery said: “Current technology requires an attentive driver to be engaged so they can re-take control of the vehicle when required.

“Automated lane keeping system technology would need a quantum leap in development to be able to cope with these very real scenarios safely.

“With today’s radar sensors only able to monitor a relatively short distance up the carriageway and automated lane keeping system-equipped cars bound by legislation that will not allow them to change lane autonomously, it’s crucial that sensor performance moves on dramatically before a system can be classified as automated.”

The sensors contained within today’s Assisted Driving technology can only interpret up to around 120 metres. At motorway speeds, that distance allows only four seconds to take back control and avoid an incident.

But current studies suggest a driver needs more than 15 seconds to properly engage and react appropriately to a hazard. That’s 500 metres more required distance than today’s technology provides.

Thatcham Research and the ABI passionately believe in the safe adoption of Automated Driving technology because it will ultimately reduce accidents.

To support the development of suitable technology, both bodies published a ‘Defining Safe Automated Driving’ document in 2019 that clearly outlines the 12 key principles that must be met to ensure a safe transition towards an automated driving future for all road users.

But, crucially, the automated lane keeping systems the Government are proposing in 2021 only meet 2 of these 12 principles, thus failing to satisfy key safety criteria, it says.

Avery said: “Our conclusion is automated lane keeping system technology is not safe enough to be classified as automated. We believe it should be regarded as assisted technology because the driver needs to remain alert.

“The Government’s proposed timeline for the introduction of automated technology must be revised. It simply isn’t safe enough and its introduction will put UK motorists’ lives at risk.”

Thatcham Research and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) will make a joint submission to the Government’s Automated Lane Keeping System consultation before it closes to formally present their concerns around safety and liability.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

A deal to provide emergency funding to Transport for London (TfL) could rely on the expansion of London’s congestion charge zone.

Currently, the congestion charge operates in central London, covering the same area as the capital’s ultra-low-emission zone (ULEZ).

However, an initial bailout from the Government in the wake of the coronavirus crisis has already seen prices increased and its hours of operation extended.

It now applies from 7am to 10pm, seven days a week, while drivers must pay £15, rather than £11.50, to enter the zone.

At the time, TfL described that as a ‘temporary’ price increase as a result of a funding agreement between the Government and the transport authority.

It secured a £1.6 billion bailout from the Government after warning it could have to cut services.

TfL has asked for a £5.7bn package to prop up services for the next 18 months, after passenger numbers and revenues have fallen after the March lockdown.

An interim funding measure was agreed for the next fortnight with ministers last Friday, but the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has hit out at Government proposals for further TfL funding.

He labelled the plans “ill-advised and draconian”, and warned it would “punish Londoners for doing the right thing to tackle Covid-19”.

The extension to the £15 congestion charge zone would go live in October next year, when the expanded ULEZ is also introduced due to be introduced covering the same area.

It would see the zone expanded to cover approximately four million more Londoners.

The Mayor also says that the Government wants to increase TfL fares by more than RPI+1%.

A further Government proposal is to introduce a new council tax precept charge in the capital ­­– effectively increasing council tax by an as yet unspecified amount for all Londoners, regardless of whether they use public transport, claims Khan.

He said: “I simply cannot accept this Government plan, which would hit Londoners with a triple whammy of higher costs at a time when so many people are already facing hardship.

“The Government should be supporting Londoners through this difficult time – not making ill-advised and draconian proposals which will choke off our economic recovery.

“Ministers already forced TfL to bring forward proposals to increase the cost and hours of the congestion charge in May – now they want to expand it to cover four million more Londoners.

“They also want to significantly increase fares in London and hit all Londoners with a regressive new tax.

“It is clear that difficult choices lie ahead to plug the huge gap the pandemic left in TfL’s finances. I have been ready to talk with Government about how the necessary funds can be raised – but a proposal which singles out Londoners for punishment is completely unacceptable, as well as making no economic sense.

“I urge Ministers to come back to the table with a revised proposal which does not punish Londoners for doing the right thing to tackle Covid-19 – and to publish their review into TfL’s finances in full. I remain ready to talk.”

The Department for Transport (DfT) says talks over a settlement were ongoing. By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The past 90 days have seen a total of 3,805 videos uploaded to the National Dash Cam Safety Portal (NDCSP) – 78% higher than average – despite the impact of Covid-19, says Nextbase.

The new figures have been released today by the dashcam manufacturer and security software specialist Egress, who is responsible for developing and delivering the platform’s technology, show the growing success of the platform.

The National Dash Cam Safety Portal, which allows motorists to quickly and securely upload footage of dangerous driving to the relevant police authority, is now being used by 33 forces, which have collectively received 21,324 uploads in total since 2018, when it was launched.

Saving on average eight hours per case, Nextbase estimates that the platform has saved these forces at least 170,000 hours – the equivalent of more than 20 years’ of police time.

Kelly McCann, sales director at Egress, said: “It has been encouraging to watch the system grow from strength to strength, as we do really believe that this offering can help make the roads a safer place.

“We were a little surprised to see uploads continue to come through during lockdown, as there was less traffic on the roads, but it just goes to show that there were motorists that remained concerned for road safety and did their part to assist the authorities.”

By using the NDCSP system, the public has assisted police in identifying, warning and prosecuting offenders nationwide, says Nextbase.

From court cases to awareness courses, or fixed penalty notices to warning letters, 52% of all cases have been taken further by the relevant force.

The fact that fewer than one in five cases have resulted in no further action (NFA), demonstrates the success of the platform in identifying the most severe of incidents and linking motorists with police in a bid to crack down on this behaviour, argues Nextbase.

Furthermore, it says that the growing success of the NDCSP has inspired further police forces to sign up to use the not-for-profit resource, with more constabularies are set to join before the end of the year.

Richard Browning, director of Nextbase, said: “Just because there are less vehicles on the road, doesn’t necessarily make driving safer.

“In fact, less busy roads can encourage motorists to bend the rules or lose some concentration. However, the Portal was created to make our roads safer and it is encouraging to see that people have still been reporting issues where reckless motorists have thought that they can take advantage of the clear pathways – potentially endangering others.

“We have watched this platform grow from both a public and police perspective and are hugely encouraged by its continued appeal.”

TRL – formerly the Transport Research Laboratory – has said it wants to increase the role of dashcams, and other filming devices such as smartphones, in a bid to reduce the amount of dangerous driving on UK roads by encouraging drivers to upload footage.  By Graham Hill Thanks To Fleet News

The Government wants to close a loophole in the law around the use of hand-held mobile phones behind the wheel.

Roads Minister Baroness Vere unveiled plans over the weekend that would mean people using a hand-held mobile phone in all circumstances while driving would be breaking the law.

It is already a criminal offence to use a hand-held mobile phone to call or text while driving, but not for other actions such as taking photos.

The law says that an offence is committed if a driver uses a handheld mobile phone for “interactive telecommunication” while behind the wheel.

The phrase reflects how, when the law was written in 2003, smartphones were not in existence and mobile devices were used for sending texts or making calls.

It has enabled lawyers to successfully argue that using a phone’s camera while driving does not constitute “interactive telecommunication”.

It was brought to a head last year, after the Director of Public Prosecutions had lodged an appeal with the High Court after Ramsey Barreto had a conviction quashed for filming a crash on his mobile phone.

The 51-year-old was prosecuted and found guilty after police saw him driving past an accident using his phone to make a video. However, he had the conviction overturned at Isleworth Crown Court, after his lawyers successfully argued that the law only banned the use of mobile phones to speak or communicate while behind the wheel.

Publishing its decision in July 2019, the High Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with Barreto’s lawyers.

Now, following a review of the offence announced in the wake of the appeal, a consultation has been launched on bringing the law into line with modern technology – meaning drivers caught taking photos, playing games or scrolling through a playlist behind the wheel will be clearly breaking the law on mobile phone use.

However, recognising that mobile phones are commonly used as a method of payment – such as at drive-thrus – an exemption will apply to contactless payments, if a vehicle is stationary, and if goods or services – such as a takeaway meal – are delivered immediately.

Roads minister Baroness Vere said: “We’re looking to strengthen the law to make using a hand-held phone while driving illegal in a wider range of circumstances – it’s distracting and dangerous and for too long risky drivers have been able to escape punishment but this update will mean those doing the wrong thing will face the full force of the law.

“Ministers have rejected calls to go further by banning the use of hands-free functions – drivers will still be able to continue safely using devices ‘hands-free’ while driving, such as a sat-nav secured in a cradle.”

The proposals come as new research published by the Government gives a further snapshot into driver behaviour in the UK.

The project, commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and carried out by the University of Leeds, looked at footage of 51 drivers and found over 765 trips, 662 mobile phone interactions were observed with only 38 completely hands-free.

At 30mph, a car travels 100 feet in 2.3 seconds – meaning even a split-second lapse from changing a song on a playlist or checking an app could result in a crash.

By updating the law, police powers will be bolstered to tackle this behaviour even further – ensuring they can take immediate action if they see a driver holding and using their phone at the wheel, says the DfT.

The penalties in place for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving are six penalty points and a £200 fine.

National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for roads policing, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, said: “Using a mobile phone while driving is incredibly dangerous and being distracted at the wheel can change lives forever.

“Police will take robust action against those using a hand-held mobile phone illegally and proposals to make the law clearer are welcome.”

The Government is also conducting a review of road traffic policing and wider traffic enforcement – to look at how roads policing currently works, its effectiveness, and where improvements could be made.

Road safety charity, Brake has welcomed the Government’s move to consult on and improve the offence of driving while using a hand-held mobile device, and close potential loopholes, but still wants to see the dangers of hands-free devices addressed.

The safety campaigners are highlighting last year’s Transport Select Committee report on mobile phone use when driving, which found that: “The evidence shows that using a hands-free device  creates  the  same  risks  of  a  collision  as  using  a  hand-held  device,  and  it  is  therefore  inappropriate  for  the  law  to  condone  it  by  omission.”

The Government response to the Select Committee report did not dispute the evidence, stating “The  Government  acknowledges  the  risks  associated  with  the  use  of  hands-free  mobile  phones while driving” but went on to note that, “However, despite those risks, there are many difficulties associated with a potential ban on hands-free use.” 

Director of campaigns for Brake, Joshua Harris, said: “When amending the law on phone use when driving, the Government must also take the opportunity to prohibit the use of hands-free devices.

“The current law gives the impression that it is safe to use a mobile phone with a hands-free kit when the evidence is clear that it is not.

“Banning hands-free devices may be challenging but we urge the Government to prioritise the lives of road users and take action now.” By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The Government has set out tough carbon emissions targets for carmakers after a warning a lack of legislation could threaten electric vehicle (EV) supply in 2021.

Environmental campaign group Transport and Environment (T&E) claimed that the UK could face long lead times for EV orders in 2021, with manufacturers having to meet targets to reduce the average emissions of the cars they sell in Europe or pay fines.

However, the Department for Transport (DfT) has now tabled similar regulations for manufacturers 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.

Manufacturers currently balance the CO2 emissions of new vehicles sold across the 28 individual EU markets to deliver compliance. They often offset sales of higher emitting vehicles in one market against sales of lower emitting vehicles in another.

Post-transition period, manufacturers will not be able to meet UK targets using sales in the EU27.

The Government launched a consultation in the summer on how it would adopt EU emissions targets for cars, vans and HGVs in January 2021.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

Drivers want tougher sentences for those that cause death by dangerous driving, with two in five (40%) backing the ‘Violet-Grace Law’ amendment.

A majority of drivers – some two thirds – also believe the current 14-year maximum is insufficient, according to new research from the RAC.

On the day a Private Members’ Bill aimed at tackling the issue is scheduled to have its second reading in Parliament, the research carried out with 2,800 drivers found that a quarter (25%) believe maximum sentences should be increased to somewhere between 15 years and a life sentence, from the present maximum of 14 years.

But 40% think courts should be able to go further and hand down a life sentence if they deem it appropriate. Just 16% felt the current maximum term is sufficient, while 18% were unsure whether it should be changed.

In July, former Prime Minister and Home Secretary Theresa May introduced a Bill seeking to amend The Road Traffic Offenders Act, which currently dates from 1988, and to increase courts’ abilities to issue much tougher sentences.

The amendment has come to be known as the ‘Violet-Grace Law’, in memory of a four-year-old child who was killed by a motorist driving at over 80mph in a 30mph zone in 2017.

The driver was jailed for nine years and four months in 2017 but may be released as early as next year.

RAC road safety spokesman Simon Williams says drivers are “crystal clear” that the current maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is insufficient.

In the year to March 2020, police forces in England and Wales recorded 555 cases of death or serious injury caused by dangerous driving.

While this was seven fewer cases than a year earlier, the general trend since 2008 has been for an increase in cases across both countries.

Williams continued: “While Britain might have some of the safest roads in Europe, it is an horrendous thought that each year more than 500 drivers in England and Wales are convicted of killing others as a result of their decision to drive dangerously.

“Permitting courts to issue much tougher sentences will send a strong message to motorists and will go some way towards reassuring families of victims killed in collisions that the law is on their side.”

The Government announced its intention to introduce stronger sentences several years ago, but little progress has been made, according to Williams.

“That’s why this Bill is so important – we may still be some way off the Violet-Grace amendment being made, but many people up and down the country will be interested to see the progress that it makes in the hope that one day soon those convicted of these truly terrible crimes will have to spend much longer behind bars,” he said.

Scheduled today is the second reading of Theresa May MP’s ‘Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21’, which may be debated in the House of Commons. To track the progress of the Bill, visit the Parliament.uk website.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The clean air zone (CAZ) in Leeds is no longer required after fleets switched to cleaner vehicles faster than expected, a joint review by Leeds City Council and Government has found.

The decision comes as Bath and Birmingham announced plans to forge ahead with their charging CAZs.

Birmingham’s CAZ will start from June 1, 2021, while Bath will start charging non-compliant vehicles from March 15, 2021.

Leeds City Council suspended the introduction of its CAZ in August, while it re-assessed the air quality issues in the city.

It found that more than 90% of buses and 80% of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) driven in the city now use cleaner Euro VI engines and therefore wouldn’t be charged if a zone was introduced.

Research shows that the newer vehicles emit significantly fewer emissions than older models, especially when travelling at the slower speeds often travelled in urban environments.

Nearly half of the city’s licensed taxi and private hire cars are also now hybrid or electric.

The review found that, because of the dramatic shift to cleaner vehicles, air pollution in Leeds on key routes is below legal limits and is not likely to exceed them again—even if traffic were to return to ‘normal’ levels or slightly higher.

Transport infrastructure improvements and the surging popularity of ultra-low emission vehicles in Leeds are further accelerating improvements to the city’s air quality, it said.

City asks to keep CAZ funding

The council has written to the Government requesting to keep £6.9 million of CAZ funding that Leeds had previously secured to ‘lock in’ the full extent of air quality improvements.

The money would be used to continue offering grants to help local businesses switch to cleaner vehicles as well as to provide free licensing costs to drivers of less polluting taxi and private hire cars.

Leeds will also be able to keep and repurpose the ANPR camera infrastructure that had been installed to monitor and enforce the zone.

In the unlikely event that air quality declined for any reason, the council retains this infrastructure and says it could seek support from central Government to introduce a CAZ.

As part of an updated air quality strategy being brought forward early next year, Leeds City Council is also proposing to voluntarily introduce stricter new targets for local air quality that are aligned with World Health Organisation guidelines.

Councillor James Lewis, deputy leader for Leeds City Council and executive board member with responsibility for air quality, said: “Thanks to our city’s collective effort, Leeds residents are breathing air that is cleaner and safer than ever before.

“When we consulted on the CAZ in 2018, we said that we hoped that no one would be charged because businesses would switch to less-polluting vehicles before the charging system takes effect. That is exactly what has happened.

“We have achieved the aims of the clean air zone without having to charge a single vehicle.

“If Leeds were to introduce a CAZ today, only a fraction of vehicles would be affected because the vast majority of businesses are now driving cleaner vehicles than they were just a few years ago.

“Not out of the woods yet”

However, Andrea Lee, clean air campaigns manager at environmental law charity ClientEarth, insisted that Leeds is “not out of the woods yet” and accused the council of “abandoning the one measure guaranteed to protect people in the shortest possible time”.

“While the promise of a clean air zone has prompted drivers and businesses to switch to cleaner vehicles, the latest reported air pollution measurements from the council still show that parts of the city are over national air quality standards,” she added.

“With Covid-19 endangering people’s respiratory health, rowing back on a measure that has been proven to reduce pollution seems not only illogical but reckless – leaving Leeds unprotected as other cities implement their own clean air zones.” 

Senior councillors will discuss the conclusions and proposals to voluntarily introduce new air quality targets that go further than the national standards at a meeting of the council’s executive board next week.  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News

The classification of journeys is causing a headache for fleets, because of the rise of homeworking due to coronavirus, says the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP).

Describing the problem as ‘The New Commute’, the AFP says that problems revolve around whether an employee’s home is now officially their place of work.

AFP chairman Paul Hollick explained: “If someone is working from home rather than the office, then it raises the question of which is actually their place of work. This is important when it comes to both expenses and risk management.

“For example, if someone now drives their own car to the office once a week, are they allowed to reclaim their travel costs using AMAP rates, as they would for any other business journey that they undertake?

“The other major issue is whether, if someone now uses their own car to travel from home to work, whether that is now seen as a business journey from a risk management point of view, rather a commute.”

HMRC rules

Hollick says that the HMRC rules in this area were often inconsistently applied. Normally, they were based on the employee’s contract of employment showing that they were home-based but there was also a reasonableness test, to ensure that the employee is working from home rather than the office for a proportionally greater length to time.

“As always with points of taxation,” Hollick explains, “it is better to have hard and fast rules but these are open to local interpretation and fleets can potentially suffer from a lack of uniformity.”

He added that the issue of risk management was probably clearer but also open to some degree of interpretation.

“Any employees who work from home for the majority of time but sometimes visit the office using their own vehicles have, strictly speaking, all become grey fleet – and should be subject to all the usual grey fleet management practices,” he said.

“Again, we have yet to hear from any fleets who have been in touch with the Health and Safety Executive about this but it is an area that would benefit from future clarification.”

The pandemic is creating a series of questions for fleets that AFP members were currently discussing and to which they were attempting to find solutions.

“The New Commute is just one of a series of issues that we are working hard to resolve for members but sharing best practice ideas,” said Hollick.

“It is at times such as now, when so much surrounding fleet management is fluid, that the AFP can really add value.”

The AFP was formed in March from the merging of the Association of Car Fleet Operators (ACFO) and the Institute of Car Fleet Management (ICFM).  By Graham Hill thanks to Fleet News