The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

I’ve mentioned this in that past but surprisingly few people are aware of its existence and what it does. So just a reminder if you are buying or leasing a new diesel car or have recently taken delivery of one – quite simply it’s an additive.

It sits in a large at the back of the car, normally around 12 litres in size, and is squirted in small amounts, when the engine is running, into the exhaust gas causing a chemical reaction turning NOx gas into its constituent parts, Nitrogen and Oxygen.

Adblue is a trade name, created by its manufacturer to bring down NOx emissions in some cars that couldn’t meet the Euro 6 emissions tests. It isn’t always clear if your car uses Adblue, some include Blue in their name whilst VW uses SCR in the model name.

For most people, driving low mileage, the tank won’t need topping up between services but if you need to, following a warning light illuminating on the screen, some garages have Adbue on the pumps, costing around 60 pence per litre. Or you can buy it in Halfords or your main dealer for more.

Some cars have the top up away from the fuel filler to ensure that you don’t put Adblue in the fuel tank and vice versa. You need to check your handbook as some fillers can be well hidden, even in the spare wheel well. If you are unsure it might be wiser to call into the main dealer or Halfords who I believe offer to top it up for free if you buy the Adblue from them of course.

Warning:  The AA attended about 20,000 Adblue callouts last year, often because the car ran out of Adblue. A warning light will glow on the dashboard when you have about 3 litres left or about 1,200 miles. If you run out whilst driving, the car will continue but if you turn the engine off with no Adblue left in the tank it won’t restart. So if you need Adblue and you find somewhere to top it up – don’t turn the engine off just in case they’ve run out also. By Graham Hill

You would probably be surprised at the number of times I’m asked about the ability to fit a mix and match of 3 baby and booster seats in the back of a particular car. It doesn’t just apply to facilitating babies and youngsters, having say 3 teenagers in the back of your car can be equally demanding spacewise, if not more so than three baby seats.

If you like stats. 180,000 British families have a third or fourth child each year with 13% of families in the EU having 3 or more children. So not surprising that I get asked the question about seating. Now obviously with a 7 seater you have enough space to accommodate your 3 children, albeit you may have to stagger between the 2nd and 3rd row of seats.

According to What Car, who carried out some tests, even the bigger SUV’ s struggle with space. For example the Audi Q7, whilst it is a 7 seater you can accommodate all three of your darlings in one row. On the other hand, the BMW X5 requires you to stagger. As most questions relate to sitting all three children in the one row I’ve pulled out from What Car’s list of cars those that can do just that (even when they still have two more seats behind).

First is the Audi Q7 then the Citroen Grand C4 Spacetourer, it is a 7 seater but can accommodate three in one row. Others are Seat Alhambra (7 Seat), Vauxhall Zafira Tourer (7 Seat), VW Touran (7 Seat). Clearly, by fitting the kids in the one row, it leaves more space in the boot area for luggage. By Graham Hill

In this next story, Mel Buchan bought a Mini ‘off page’ from an Arnold Clark garage in Inverness. He saw the brand new car advertised on their website, with all its equipment listed, paid a deposit and waited for the car to be built and delivered.

Mel works offshore so couldn’t be at home to sign for the car but was sent photos. Upon inspection, he noticed that the car didn’t have the multifunction steering wheel, as advertised. He complained and was told that the advert was wrong but if he wanted the upgraded steering wheel he would have to pay £425 for it.

By now my blood was boiling and not because I was standing by a radiator. But it gets worse. He actually agreed to pay the extra £425 for the steering wheel – because he wanted it! It was only after this that he realised that the car was advertised as having parking sensors and floor mats. Again these items were missing despite them being clearly shown in the advert.

The only option given by the dealer was to re-order the car with the ‘bits’ on and pay thousands of pounds more! This is when he contacted my dear friends at Auto Express. Following contact between Auto Express and Arnold Clark the extras were fitted – all free of charge, with an apology for the incorrect advert due to ‘human error’. Does no-one read the Consumer Rights Act?

It covers inaccurate advertising and the big no no – supplying goods – ‘NOT AS DESCRIBED’. Whilst Arnold Clark appear to pat themselves on the back for being so nice to the customer someone needs to slap them with a bill for the inconvenience caused to Mr Buchan for inaccurately advertising the car and then giving him the runaround. If there was ever a more straightforward case of providing goods – not as described – I haven’t seen it!

I always support the guys at Auto Express because they constantly fight battles on behalf of consumers but unfortunately they don’t quite get to the right result in the right way, they probably need me on their panel of experts to help them in these sorts of cases. By Graham Hill

Over the years I’ve received the odd complaint about parking on a pavement and receiving a fine as a result, even though it was done so as to avoid blocking the road and only for a few minutes. Even more annoying when there are no other parking restrictions such as single or double yellow lines etc.

The fact is that the law goes back to The Highways Act of 1835 before cars were seen on our streets and as the law currently stands it still specifically refers to the parking of stagecoaches and wagons on pavements. The law is actually quite straightforward when it comes to London, referred to in the Highway Code under section 244 where it categorically states that you MUST NOT park on the pavement anywhere in London so expect a ticket if you are caught by an eagle-eyed warden (or whatever they are called these days) or by a CCTV camera.

The problems for drivers start outside of London where the Highway Code is less clear. Rule 244 says that outside of London you ‘should not’ park on the pavement which leaves the local authority the ability to set its own rules and decide whether to fine or not to fine.

This doesn’t mean that the local council can avoid parking restriction signs. Quite the contrary, they have to be very clear because the law isn’t! It would seem that most local authorities take a fairly relaxed view as long as your parking doesn’t obstruct the infirmed, the blind, the wheelchair user and anyone else who legitimately views the pavement as being there for footfall only.

Some tougher local authorities have not only put up warning signs, stopping cars from parking on pavements, they have also extended into cycle lanes so parking in a cycle lane could also generate a fine. You are able to drive across a pavement in order to access a property and to park where the road signs say you can but in all other circumstances, you could be facing a fine if caught parking on the pavement – as always you’ve been warned! By Graham Hill

According to the findings of the BBC, who surveyed 245 local authorities, yes you should. Because 4 in 10 parking and bus lane fines have been overturned by local authorities during the 5 years 2012 – 2017, During this period 4.3 million appeals were lodged with 1.8 million being successful.

Basingstoke and Dean council in Hampshire overturned the highest proportion of tickets at 90% of the 12,804 appeals lodged. In addition, a quarter of all parking and bus lane fines were eventually canceled. Couldn’t be arsed I guess!

Their excuse was aging equipment meant that often the machines were faulty causing problems with the issuing of tickets. New ticket machines installed in 2017 have apparently reduced the number of successful appeals. Aberdeen council overturned 70% of tickets on appeal, they said that if they had a first time offender it could often cost more to collect the fine than simply overturn it.

That’s what I like to hear, if you appeal a ticket, you are unlikely to pay it if they don’t overturn it so they may as well overturn it and save the bother of chasing the fine. The BBC found that 84 authorities overturned over 50% of all tickets issued on appeal.

When asked by Auto Express an RAC spokesman took a slightly different approach than me, suggesting that with so many appeals succeeding should the tickets have been issued in the first place so should the local authorities review their ticketing procedures? I tend to agree!  By Graham Hill

Roelant De Waard, Ford Vice President of Europe, announced at the Geneva Motor Show that Ford is to continue its diesel push. Something that must have surprised a few. In the UK Ford’s combined car and commercial vehicle sales in February made it the lead manufacturer with its highest vehicle sales for the month of February since 2004.

Roelant explained, ‘We wouldn’t find it the right decision to move away from diesel because it’s best for CO2, we’ve got NOx under control, it’s better economy wise, it has cheaper operating costs and it’s therefore, by far the most efficient choice. We’re basically putting it back on the map and allowing it to be the powertrain of choice for us.’

Their new Edge SUV is planned to have an 8-speed auto later this year and with an already fuel efficient engine, it is planned to have an even more environmentally friendly engine as it’s planned to be Euro 6.2 compliant. From an NOx point of view, it will be comparable with a petrol engine but with lower CO2 emissions.

With the further planned downsizing of diesel engines from 2.0l to 1.5l the fuel efficiency will continue to improve. So will this change of heart by the UK’s leading car manufacturer bring diesel back into focus? Personally, I think it will and certainly may convince the Government that we need clearer direction rather than the petrol, diesel flip flopping!

Seems like I’m having a week of moaning and talking about the environment – it wasn’t planned like that. By Graham Hill

The Chancellor announced last November that grants would be extended till 2020 but they are still to clarify the rules. For the moment the Government has confirmed that the current grants will last till at least the end of April whilst they continue their review.

Whilst the Chancellor confirmed that a scheme would last till 2020 they only confirmed that the current rates would last till the end of March. I hope that for the sake of the industry the DfT doesn’t simply extend the current rules a month at a time, especially where orders are placed on cars that won’t be delivered till after the end of April.

The best information we have at the moment is that the Department for Transport will advise any changes in due course. However, this hasn’t encouraged manufacturers to come up with some cheap rates for this month although we have just had a reduction on the all-electric Nissan Leaf.

The current structure, that many think will continue, is as follows: Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 70 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £4,500. Cars with CO2 emissions less than 50g/km and a range of at least 10 miles with zero CO2 emissions – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500.

Finally, cars with CO2 emissions of between 50g/km and 75g/km that can travel a minimum of 20 miles emission free – the grant is up to 35% of the cost of the car, up to a maximum of £2,500. The latter two categories exclude cars costing over £60,000.

I somehow feel that if we are to encourage investment by manufacturers in low and zero-emission cars we need a more serious approach by the Government. We are badly lagging behind Europe when it comes to fast charge points and if they end up lowering the grants we will be back to fighting over the emission differences between petrol and diesel. By Graham Hill

You may have read the sad story last weekend about the accident that took place in Arizona when a lady was killed by an autonomous Uber car. traveling at 40 miles per hour when it hit her whilst crossing the road with her bike. The car, an XC90, modified for driverless travel and operated by Uber, had a backup driver behind the wheel.

There were no passengers in the car and investigations are underway but the accident has certainly caused US States, the Government and operators to re-think the potential dangers. Arizona chose to impose very few regulations on autonomous cars in order to attract operators away from neighbouring California which attracted a lot of operators and developers but imposed tough regulations.

As a result, it now looks like the US Government will step in and create countrywide regulations that will overrule individual states. It has also caused many operators in both the States and around the rest of the world to review their safety systems and ask whether the drop in regulations in Arizona and other states has caused development in some developers to drop safety down the list of priorities.

The real worry for many is that there was a driver at the controls of the car that had the accident, acting as backup, and still an accident happened. Was the driver locked out of the controls at the time of the accident? The eyes of the world are now on the findings of the investigation. Much depends on what is uncovered as to how soon we will get to see autonomous vehicles on the road.

And if I may make a final point, I don’t see the benefit of a driverless car if it still needs a driver – just putting it out there. By Graham Hill