The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Now here is something really interesting that proves you can learn something new every day! And this piece of information could affect every single driver with his own insurance as well as companies running fleet cars. It all came about after I read a question regarding 3^rd party damage, following a car accident, when the damage is caused to local authority owned property.

For example if you were to hit a road sign or street light or maybe smash into a bollard or worse still damage barriers or even the road surface. I was shocked to read that a company running a fleet of vehicles was billed £46,000 for barrier repairs without realising the length of the replacement barriers.

The warning was raised by claims management company actually called Claims Management & Adjusting. They had found that in particular fleet operators were being targeted by local authorities for some obscene repair costs. As it turned out the claim mentioned was for a much shorter stretch of barrier as the authority had claimed in yards but the length was only a third as the measurement was actually in feet, not as stated in yards.

After pointing it out the claim was written off. The claims company also claimed a success when an invoice for £56,000 worth of re-surfacing work was challenged after obtaining information under the Freedom Of Information Act that showed a larger stretch of road had been repaired for £750.

It would seem that not only are there a few disproportionate claims for damage but Highways England has allowed certain contractors to decide upon charges and repairs without further reference as long as the claims were under a threshold, commonly £10,000. This caused me to look further into this situation and what a can of worms it turned out to be.

Most people are of the opinion that you only have to report an accident to the police and your insurance for the following reasons; if someone has been injured (report to police and insurance), there is a claim going to be made against you by another motorist (insurance only) or you are going to make a claim on your insurance for damage repairs to your own car or your contents/passengers (insurance only).

However, knock down a bollard and cause little or no damage to your car you may think that this is the responsibility of the local authority and simply drive off. In fact you have caused damage to a third party’s property so by driving off you could be committing a criminal offence. But then you may think that no-one saw you so where is the evidence but with CCTV cameras and people with mobile phones everywhere you may find that several weeks later you receive a bill for the damages.

But having not reported the accident to your insurance company within a certain period (see your policy) they may no longer be obliged to pay out. It seems  that it can take several months for a local authority to make a claim against a driver. Whilst I’m told that every car insurance policy will cover you for third party damage, that isn’t just someone else’s car or someone’s front wall, it also covers you for what is known as ‘street furniture’ which includes road signs, bollards, hoardings etc.

But if you fail to meet the terms and conditions of your insurance policy or they can prove contributory negligence you could be facing a hefty repair bill. In addition you are obliged to stop after an accident and pass your details to anyone involved or the owners of property that has been damaged. If there are no casualties you don’t have to involve the police.

However, if you have damaged privately or authority owned property you must report the accident to the police if the owner of the property is not available to take the details from you. So as you can see this is a bit of a minefield and what may have seemed like a minor accident could potentially leave you thousands of pounds out of pocket! By Graham Hill

Back in March of this year Ford made a fairly major announcement at the Geneva Motor Show that few newspapers or car journals picked up. They announced a new service scheme that would initially be rolled out to fleet customers but could finally be made available to all customers of Ford cars and vans both new and used.

As the manufacturers compete against large networks of independent service providers and small garages they have come up with a cheap and competitive option, mobile servicing. Specialist mobile service vans have been around for a few years to service commercial vehicles, that are often parked for hours on site or outside buildings, in which the drivers are working, saving the owners time and cost by having their vehicles serviced by a mobile unit during down time.

Initially Ford have successfully rolled out 8 mobile service units, as a pilot scheme, within the M25. They have now been operating for over a year. Ford’s chairman, Andy Barratt, announced that he plans to increase this number within the M25 to more than 100 operating out of Ford Stores and Transit centres. The scheme will be extended nationally if seen to be successful.

The first cars that will be included in the scheme will be the Ford premium brand, Vignales, sold through their 68 Ford Stores. It’s an interesting concept that other manufacturers will be looking at very carefully. By Graham Hill

I don’t know about you but speed cameras totally confuse me. Many have been shut down around the country because they were too expensive to keep going which is strange because I would have thought anything more than a couple of fines a week and they would be in profit.

I’m a believer in speed cameras being installed near danger spots such as schools, old people’s homes and play areas but as we know they were often put up behind a bush, tree or building where there was no extra danger to pedestrians or other drivers, they were there to catch motorists and boost the coffers of the local authority or those managing the cameras.

Well that’s what I thought but I clearly got that wrong with so many shut down. On the other hand those who argue against speed cameras would claim that they are unnecessary as the number of detected motoring offences more than halved between 2004 and 2014, from 4.33 million to 1.62 million, in their minds proving that cameras are unnecessary. Really?

Maybe it has something to do with the huge drop in active speed cameras. Having reviewed the situation a committee of MP’s have suggested that relatively low cost average speed cameras should be used more widely. These would help to replace the large drop in traffic police who not only caught those speeding but also acted as a deterrent parked at the side of motorways or simply cruising our roads.

The committee have recommended that revenue generated by fines should be re-invested, through road safety grants, rather than kept by local authorities. Even with the shut down of many Gatso’s 90% of all Fixed Penalty Notices in England and Wales are detected by cameras. Exceeding the speed limit resulted in 254 fatal accidents in 2014, 16% of all fatal accidents, as well as 1,199 serious accidents.

Whilst the committee has recommended the use of average speed cameras there are some experts that have said that you have to ask why people speed and in many instances it is a result of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, so these people get away with a fine and points for speeding when in fact they were committing a much more serious crime.

Speed cameras also allow those driving carelessly or without due care and attention to get away with a relatively small fine and 3 points. Personally I’m not sure what the answer is but time will tell if the roads are made safer through the installation of average speed cameras on motorways and A roads. By Graham Hill

The number of plug in car grants could reach the Government’s latest target much quicker than expected after 11,000 applications were made in February. The surge came about because the £5,000 Government grant was to be replaced by a new grant structure for Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV) as of 1^st March.

The new structure, consisting of 3 tiers, is now in force. For cars with zero emissions and a range of more than 70 miles (category 1) there is a grant of £4,500 on offer from the Government. Vehicles with a lower zero emission range than 70 miles (category 2 & 3), such as plug in hybrids, with either a petrol or diesel engine there is a £2,500 grant.

There is also a price cap, so category 2 & 3 cars costing more than £60,000 will receive no grant although category 1 cars with a zero emission range of over 70 miles will attract the full £4,500 grant. According to the Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) a total of 16,000 low emission plug in vehicles were ordered in January and February compared to 14,500 for the whole of 2015.

So clearly zero and low emission cars are gaining acceptance helped along by some very attractive deals from the leasing companies. OLEV explained that the new grants are set to run till March 2017 or until 40,000 sales of category 1 vehicles and combined sales of 45,000 category 2 & 3 vehicles have been reached. To date a total of 67,000 grants have been provided and on current trends the Government targets could well be reached before the end of the year.

The Department for Transport would not confirm that due to the increased pace of hybrid and zero emission car sales they would review their targets but given their ultimate objective that all vehicles should have zero tailpipe emissions by 2050 it is highly likely that they will continue to encourage the sale of low emission vehicles with grants, albeit that they are likely to reduce in time.

On the other hand support is likely through improving lease rates as manufacturers aim to hit their lowering emission targets across their vehicle ranges. So if you are looking to help save the planet keep an eye out for my great hybrid deals as a preference to buying outright. There could be even greater savings than the grants offered by the Government. By Graham Hill

I know we all get a little irritated when we see the sign ahead slowing us down to 40mph and the 3 lanes we were happily trundling along about to reduce to a mere single lane but I didn’t realise that when this happens that the roadworkers are in serious danger.

Not of being run over by an inattentive speeding motorist, although this does happen, but in danger of being duffed up by a motorist who feels annoyed that he has been slowed down, abused, spat at, hit with all sorts of projectiles etc. Labourers near Wivanhoe in Essex have been subject to increasing violence from passing motorists whilst creating a new cycle lane, with one motorist caught brandishing a knuckle duster.

The local council has now followed other councils with similar problems and issued workers with police style body cameras to hopefully act as a deterrent as well as provide proof in the case where an attack takes place leading to a prosecution. Other councils suffering similar problems are in the North East and Midlands leading to the issue of these cameras to workers. Reports of attacks range from workers being punched to being shot at with an air rifle.

Ten companies that carry out roadworks have reported 441 incidents in one year alone, including 174 physical attacks. With this scale of incidents it probably won’t be long before all roadworkers are issued with body cams and even portable CCTV to record any illegal behaviour or attacks by motorists.

A sad reflection on our society when people are just doing their jobs. And if you want to duff up someone find the health & safety pen pusher who decided to cone off 5 miles of road for a hundred yards worth of repair work! By Graham Hill

You will probably remember the sad case of the Glasgow refuse truck driver who fainted at the wheel resulting in an accident causing six people to lose their lives and several more to suffer injuries.

The driver had suffered fainting attacks since 1976 but this was unknown to his employer who was held responsible, as any employer would, for the actions of their employee and for allowing him to drive their truck in the first place.

This was still the case even though they claimed that the driver had not told them of his condition. But this raises an interesting point because I only recently found out that it is unlawful for an employer to ask a job applicant about their disability or health until after they have been offered the job.

How crazy is that? However, you can apply for the medical records on the applicant, provided he or she agrees, under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. The medical practitioner (normally the applicant’s GP) is then obliged to provide the records requested.

If you are an employer who either provides company vehicles or pays employees to drive their own vehicles on company business by way of a car allowance or pence per mile, you have an obligation to ensure that they have the appropriate licences and do not suffer from health conditions that may affect their driving.

As an employer you are able to carry out regular assessments on drivers to ensure that they are still fit to drive. And as an employee if you have a condition that may affect your driving you are equally obliged to make your employer aware. By Graham Hill

There’s an app for that is rapidly becoming part of everyday conversation. Having created an award winning app myself that enables users to compare lease deals or simply to evaluate a deal to see if it represents good value, I know that app boundaries are limitless.

The latest app relating to motoring is aimed at younger, less than responsible, drivers that could help to prevent an accident, reduce their insurance premiums and help parents to worry a little less. The app has been created by employee tracking specialist, Romex. The app uses the driver’s phone to detect whether the car is exceeding 4 miles per hour via the phone’s GPS system.

At this point the app locks the device disabling calls, texts, emails and social media accounts, amongst other distractions. It can also monitor the speed the car is travelling at and the time spent driving. The company already has a similar product available to fleet users as part of its telematics systems to help companies and drivers to comply with legislation.

The maker has announced that the new app could be available as early as May 2016. Sales director, Steve Arscott explained, ‘It’s called distraction prevention, we’re approaching younger drivers because they’re the ones most likely to be glued to their phones.’ There will be a charge for the service and it will work alongside another of their apps called Guardian, which allows parents to monitor where their youngster is and whether they have been speeding – just as companies can do with their fleet drivers.

The company is optimistic that they will find an insurance company to partner up with, providing users with a rebate on their policy. The Guardian app can be extended to non drivers for worried parents who want to know where their off spring are. I’m sure it will lead to some very interesting debates between parents and children! By Graham Hill

The Consumer Rights Act came into force in October 2015. The biggest change to consumer rights, included in the Act, was the right to return goods within 30 days for a full refund. This applies to all goods not just cars so please bear in mind if your 3 piece suite arrives damaged or the TV arrives with a scratch on it.

The question is, what constitutes a fault? My reading of the Act was anything that makes the car imperfect. But this view isn’t shared by lawyers who have challenged the right to reject by some customers when representing dealer clients. It’s down to interpretation and degree. The emerging fear from dealers is the freeloader who simply wants a free car for 30 days then return it to the dealer saying he wants his money back claiming that the car is faulty.

In this respect I have a little sympathy with the dealers (yes I did actually say that), because as with most English Law it lacks total clarity leaving it up to a judge to interpret it on a case by case basis and I have to say few judges are actually car experts. In order to protect their long term position some dealers have chosen to fight customer rejections citing that if a car is to be rejected and the client have his money refunded, according to the law, the ‘faults must be present at the point of sale’ AND render ‘the vehicle not satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose.’

The files of a lawyer showed recent claims by consumers to reject their cars to appear to be extreme and misuse of the law. For example ‘The parcel shelf clip was missing’, ‘The cup holder does not work’ and ‘The FM button on the radio doesn’t work. As a consumer you have the right to either reject the car, if you feel that the fault satisfies the test shown above, or you can allow the dealer to fix it.

What the files didn’t show was if the customer had already allowed the dealer to attempt to repair or replace the faulty items, other circumstances that may have prevailed to cause the customer to reject and how long after taking delivery the customer chose to reject. The fact is that the law was created to prevent dealers taking anything up to a year to correct a fault that existed on a car at the point of sale, constantly fobbing of the customer who was left without a car for most of the time.

Was it intended that drivers should be able to drive around in a car for a month then simply return it for a refund because the cigarette lighter doesn’t work? Probably not but without tighter legal tests it is going to happen. Incidentally, this law may not only help the ‘freeloader’ but also customers who suffer from a condition, known in selling as ‘Customer Remorse’. These are customers who buy something then within hours, for often unexplainable reasons, regret the purchase.

It is why a good salesman will often congratulate you on your purchase after he has made the sale. Many people fail to see why the salesperson says things like, ‘I’m so pleased you chose that model, it is my favourite in the range and I should know I’ve been selling these for over 20 years’. It may seem daft – but it works! By Graham Hill