The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

The new emissions tests were supposed to stop any emissions test fiddling and allow employers to make a more educated assessment when deciding on their car policy – even when the car policy only extended to one car. As a result, we all knew that there was a very high probability that the emissions figures, for both CO2 and NOx would both increase which would affect employees benefit in kind tax, vehicle excise duty and NI.

And that is pretty much the sum total of all the information provided by the Government. As over 60% of my cars are supplied on business agreements I thought I would explain where we are at the moment. The current testing procedure is called NEDC and it’s the result of those tests that we use to calculate benefit in kind tax.

Since September 2017 all new cars launched or facelifted have to be tested under the new regime, the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP). The other thing we know is that all new cars must be tested under WLTP from 1^st September 2018 (unless the car is on runout) but given an NEDC correlated figure.

This figure was assumed to mean that if your car had emissions of 95g/km of CO2 under NEDC and 120 g/km under WLTP a calculation would be made and we would end up somewhere close to the NEDC reading. Unfortunately, that’s it – all the information we have. So we have yet to learn how the changes will affect benefit in kind tax, vehicle excise duty and National Insurance.

From what I have been reading everything else, other then the two known deadlines, is total guesswork. We haven’t even been told that if the car you are driving is tested and the calculation applied to arrive at a CO2 emissions midpoint, whether you will pay increased benefit in kind tax and NI. The assumption is that if you already have the car you will continue to pay at the old NEDC emissions level. But we don’t know. Apparently, the Treasury is still ‘assessing the impact’.

Another assumption is that given company vehicle lifecycles it is assumed that until 2020, any cars taken by businesses and provided as company cars will attract BIK tax and NI based on the WLTP test results then run through the calculator, known as CO2MPAS, to arrive at the mid-point figure. Assuming also that after 2020 the full WLTP reading will be used. Again, whilst it is the general feeling of the industry, 2020 has not been confirmed as the change date.

Whilst it was originally believed that once the CO2MPAS calculation was applied that the CO2 readings would only increase marginally, it has been found that they have increased by between 10 and 20 percent, hitting company car drivers pretty hard as the readings bump them up the tax bands. This could lead to a number of employees switching from company cars to car allowances which is not good. Experience shows that employees don’t take such good care of their cars and they err towards used cars as opposed to new cars.

I have to say that I was a remainer, not a remoaner. I knew that the BREXIT decision could go either way and I was prepared to accept the decision – whatever the outcome. But if this is an example of how we take back control, we are in for a very rough ride! By Graham Hill

I first started using contract hire in the late 70’s. I was working for a large manufacturer and leasing company and as General Manager I had overall responsibility for over 700 vehicles. We owned all of our vehicles and I had to fight a massive battle to convince the board that we would be better off leasing our vehicles. I had progressed from being the Group Cost and Management Accountant through Group IT Manager to Group General Manager.

This background meant that I could put forward a very strong and convincing case. It also meant that in those days for a contract hire company to capture a fleet of that size they had to be very flexible. It meant that we could pool our mileage and whilst some cars would be returned in excellent condition some, with very high mileage, would go back in pretty ropey condition. Again they would take a view and we rarely received a charge for damage repair.

In other words, cars that were returned under mileage would use their mileage credit to offset any cars returning over mileage. So we effectively received a rebate. And cars in showroom condition when returned would help to balance out those in relatively poor condition.

Those days are long gone, causing many customers all sorts of issues at the end of their contracts. For example when you set your mileage at 10,000 miles per annum and at the end of 3 years you exceed the mileage allowance by say 3,000 miles you are likely to receive a bill for say £300 if your excess mileage charge was 10 pence per mile. However, if you sent back the car with just 27,000 miles on the clock, 3,000 miles under, you receive no rebate. That’s not fair. I wouldn’t even mind if your rebate was just 5 pence per mile for under mileage, I would be a little happier.

The same applies to end of lease damage, especially if you are a good customer. I have to say that whilst I’m currently taking on MB Finance over a lease extension, when it comes to returning a car with minor damage on it I have twice had the charge waived as a ‘gesture of goodwill’.

Here’s the point, All leasing companies tend to work the same when it comes to excess mileage but I have just quoted the same car on the same mileage with two different suppliers. The excess mileage with one company was 8 pence per mile whilst the other was more than twice as much at 16.7 pence per mile. It becomes very confusing.

The same applies to repairs if you return the car with damage. Most leasing companies use the BVRLA standard recommendations, which is good news. The bad news is that they charge different amounts for the same work to be carried out. We need more consistency if leasing is to expand at least cost to the customer. By Graham Hill

Far too often I’ve heard complaints from consumers who have made a warranty claim only to be told that the manufacturer won’t honour it – insisting that the problem was down to wear and tear or the driver’s driving style. In many cases the decision is wrong but what do you do if the manufacturer has point blank refused to carry out a repair?

Well first off you read the relevant sections in my PCP guide – soon to be available as a free download. The same rules apply whether you took the car on PCP, HP or PCH finance. You don’t own the car so your beef is with the owner of the car – the finance provider.

If you’re not satisfied with the response from the dealer and the manufacturer, make a formal complaint to the finance provider. If you still can’t get the problem sorted you report both the lender and the dealer to Trading Standards. They will contact the dealer and the lender. Still no joy? Move on to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) but only if you have financed the car. If you bought for cash there is nothing they can do. The official alternative is what used to be called Motor Codes, now the Motor Ombudsman.

This isn’t part of FOS. FOS is a government-run independent body very much on the side of consumers. However, the Motor Ombudsman is funded by the garages that sign up to their scheme and you can only complain about a garage that is one of their members. Are you starting to get the same feelings as I’m getting? How certain can you be that you’ll be treated fairly over a part that is very expensive and needs replacing? In my opinion, avoid the Motor Ombudsman.

Next down the list are the trade bodies, a route very rarely suggested but can be very effective. Your issue is actually with the lender so check on the websites to see if the finance provider is a member of the Finance and Leasing Association (FLA) and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA), you should make a formal complaint against the funder if he fails to get involved or come up with an acceptable solution.

You can also ask the association for details of their Dispute Resolution Service and make an application to them to help if you are in a stalemate. Every trade body must have a Dispute Resolution Service that they can provide details of. The dealer and manufacturer must carry some responsibility, so make the same complaint to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) and if you want to take up the case with them (not the lender) you can, but beware of stepping on the toes of a lender. They will also have a Dispute Resolution Service which you can call upon.

Finally, you can file a legal claim through the small claims court but hopefully, you would have resolved the problem before you get to this stage at no cost other than your time. By Graham Hill

If you are a regular reader of my blog posts you will know how frustrated I can get when the advice that is handed out by so-called experts to drivers with a problem falls short of the full and accurate advice. Just because a fault appears on a car that is out of warranty doesn’t mean that you have no claim against the dealer from whom you bought the car. Or if the car is on finance against the finance provider.

I have explained that any complaints should be raised with Trading Standards and also with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Write a letter of complaint to the manufacturer if you feel that the dealer you are using, his franchisee, isn’t treating you fairly.

But there is another line of fire that I rarely discuss. A route that I am about to embark upon with Mercedes who have rather foolishly decided to take me on! Interesting times. You may know that you can go to conciliation if you have a complaint. There are various types of Conciliation. County courts offer a Mediation Service which is free and can resolve issues before they get to court. But to use it you must already have taken steps to sue the other party and that could end up costing you money.

The purpose of the Mediation Service is to see if there is a quick solution that could avoid court time and expense on the part of all concerned. Another form of conciliation service is one provided via a trade body that the supplier is a member of. And this is the real heavy guns in my opinion. First of all establish which trade bodies are involved. You can check out their website for details.

Most lenders are members of the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) with some also members of the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA). So first of all you need to explain that you want to use the conciliation service of the trade association. The finance company you are dealing with must do that. You can then make a formal complaint to their trade association then discuss the complaint with the independent adjudicator.

As the lender stands a chance of being disciplined or even thrown out of their trade association they will want to avoid this, especially if you are in the right. So you may find their approach relax once you have filed your formal complaint. You can then proceed with the conciliation service.

If the car wasn’t financed you can still raise your complaints with the conciliation service run by the Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders. You don’t have to accept their findings, you can take up the case with the Financial Ombudsman Service and/or pursue them through the court.

What I do is make a formal complaint against the company to its trade body for bringing the industry into disrepute. This will be followed by an enquiry into what happened and some sort of penalty if they were found to be in breach of the rules. All the time you are breaking them down to the point where they normally roll over.

Too many people are being abused by both lenders and manufacturers when dealing with legitimate complaints. This has got to stop! By Graham Hill

Matthew Avery, director of research at Thatcham Research, explains that the safety star rating isn’t quite as it seems or as people perceive it to be. Over the 20 years that they’ve been testing cars they’ve tested nearly 700 models and awarded ratings to 94%. Of those half have been rated 5 stars.

Over the years the tests have been refined and updated to take account of new technology and legislation. But not all 5 star ratings are equal and comparable. Not because of when the test was carried out, although clearly that has a bearing, but the ratings are awarded within the class of car. It is therefore not possible to compare ratings between say a small family car like a Fiesta and a large luxury SUV such as a BMW X5.

The test procedures are revised every couple of years, responding to new safety technologies. For example when Autonomous Emergency Braking was introduced the tests were altered to accommodate it. It was introduced in 2008 and by 2014 it became part of the star rating test. Although it is only this year that it becomes a pre-requisite of the 5 star rating.

Matthew went on to explain that the car mass (weight) plays a part as a bigger heavier car would be expected to be safer than a small car if involved in an accident. So the ratings are relative within the group. The Fiesta and the X5 could both be considered safe within their class even though they have major differences.

Crash safety science is complicated so they’re looking to make it more comparable. In the meantime, the recommendation is to seek out cars with 5 star ratings.

Now I have to say that I was shocked when I read this. I always believed that if you bought a car with a 5 star rating I believed it to be one of the safest cars on the road but what it really meant was that it was one of the safest cars on the road – within class. But what is ‘the class’? Would a Ford Focus, that cost a similar amount to say a Tiguan 4WD, be in the same class?

As I understand it the stars that are awarded are therefore relative to other cars ‘in their class’. But if a manufacturer introduces some new safety technology as standard on their car and they already have 5 Stars – where do they go from there? Six stars? If a Vauxhall Astra already has 5 Stars then Ford, who also have 5 stars awarded to their Focus, make their car even safer, how would you as a buyer be able to draw the distinction? Especially is safety is your deciding factor.

All very worrying! By Graham Hill

I’ve written about this before but as the Government is putting the squeeze on fleets, private drivers and manufacturers to push the green agenda and at least take the first step along the greener road by moving to hybrids or plug-in hybrids, car warnings were issued by fleet experts that they could be costing more to run than diesel cars.

Employees love the idea of plug-in hybrids as they dramatically drop their benefit in kind tax. And some individual drivers have moved from say their Prius hybrid to a plug-in hybrid and wondered why their fuel usage has gone up when they haven’t been charging their new car from the mains.

First, let me explain the difference. The original hybrids, cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight were petrol driven but with rechargeable batteries, like the KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery System) system on Formula 1 cars. When freewheeling or braking energy would transfer to the batteries giving you a small boost whenever you needed it from traffic lights or pulling away on a roundabout, the times when the engine burns most fuel.

You didn’t need to do anything – just drive and you would achieve better fuel consumption and emit fewer CO2’s than your old petrol or diesel engine. The plugin hybrids go one step further with some manufacturers claiming 140 + miles per gallon. But to achieve this fuel consumption you need to plug in the car in order to charge the batteries as the car is far more reliant on the battery power.

The problem is that many companies, under pressure from over-taxed employees, adopted a plug-in hybrid approach, only to see fuel consumption higher than it was with their diesel fleet. The problem is that if you don’t charge the car and drive it as you would have driven a Prius the 140 MPG that you should be achieving drops to around 25 MPG.

So if you’re thinking of going greener by taking a plugin hybrid (PHEV) make sure you are able to plug in your vehicle, either at work or at home, and if you are supplying company PHEV vehicles to staff, in order to save them BIK tax, make sure that the employees are able to and more important, willing to, plug them in at night and use them as they were intended. By Graham Hill

In a survey carried out by the AA of over 21,000 motorists, an astonishing 85% expressed fear for their safety and that of others when driving on our poorly maintained roads. 92% were concerned about the damage to their cars whilst more than half (52%) had sustained damage over the last few years as a result of roads being allowed to deteriorate.

Simon Benson, director of motoring services at AA Cars, said: “With many local councils lacking the funds to adequately repair roads, the country’s highway system is deteriorating – which in turn puts drivers at risk and makes pothole-related damage to cars increasingly likely. He pointed out, “Clearly, drivers are well aware of this problem, as we can see by their distinct lack of confidence in the state of British roads”.

He went on to share a few gems of advice. Firstly, keep your tyres properly inflated. Underinflated tyres can suffer greater damage if they hit a pothole. Slow down if you approach a pothole. Some people confuse their car with a hovercraft and believe that a pothole approached at speed will allow you to skim over it – you won’t. Take similar care when approaching what appears to be a puddle in the road – it could be a pothole.

Also beware of cyclists. They may see a pothole at the last minute and swerve to avoid it, if the conditions are known to be bad allow plenty of space when overtaking a push bike. The report also revealed that 75% of motorists are becoming aware of longer journey times as drivers slow down for potholes.

Finally, it calculated that 4.6 million motorists are now reluctant to use their cars for local journeys and 3.7 million are reluctant to use their cars on longer journeys for fear that they may damage their cars. In summing up the report revealed that nearly three quarters of motorists (72%) felt that their road fund licence wasn’t used properly and more of what they pay should be used to maintain the roads. I totally agree, the infrastructure in this relatively small island is a disgrace. By Graham Hill