The Best Car Finance Blog In The World

Following a ‘super complaint’ to the Competitions and Markets Authority by the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) the FCA announced at the end of last year that it was instigating an investigation into the way that car and home insurance was being sold.

 

Citizen’s Advice alleges that ‘Loyalty Pricing’ is rife throughout insurance, mortgage, savings and telecoms industries. The process gives customers the impression that they are receiving preferential rates when in fact they are conning us out of £4.1 billion every year according to the CAB.

 

We’ve probably all been there, I know I was taken in with the wording of my car insurance renewal letter many years ago, something along the lines of ‘Thank you for being a loyal customer, as a result of which we can offer you the special loyalty rate of £xx for the next 12 months. You don’t have to do anything if you wish to continue with us blah blah blah’.

 

There I was thinking I had a good rate until I tested the market and found that I could save £300 a year – the crooks! And don’t get me started on ‘Loyalty’ phone upgrades! So I for one am all in favour of the FCA investigation. The FCA has already said that it understands the conflict between consumers’ perception of what Loyalty means and the truth – they will be addressing the situation.

 

Reading the various reports it is far worse than I thought. It would seem that insurance companies assess the likelihood that you will shop around before giving you the new quote. This can see some subjected to ‘price discrimination’, whereby they are charged more than other customers who present the same risk to insurers, and cost no more to provide cover for.

 

The FCA said it has ‘Concerns that these pricing practices can potentially disadvantage some consumers significantly, in particular, the most vulnerable and least resilient customers’. It seems that older drivers and those with disabilities are less likely to shop around relying on the term ‘Loyalty’ to suggest that they are being treated fairly.

 

I await the results of the investigation with interest. By Graham Hill

We all know that the more electric vehicles on our roads in the UK the greater the demand for public charge points. Even with public charge points you will need a domestic charge point as the cost of charging an electric car using a public charge point pushes up the cost per mile.

 

When the fuel stations started to introduce fast chargers they were charging an introductory rate which was roughly half price. Once they increased the rates the cost per mile was higher for an electric car than a petrol or diesel car. Whilst local authority installed charge points should be cheaper they will still be more expensive than domestic chargers.

 

However, London has decided to assist motorists and encourage the purchase of electric cars by converting lamp posts into EV charge points as part of a £300,000 project. The points can deliver charge rates of up to 7.7Kw, and are being installed at 50 lamp posts in Southwark.

 

The charge points are being supplied by char.gy and funded by Go Ultra Low City Scheme. The chargers can be accessed by EV drivers on pay-as-you-go basis. Poppy Welch from Go Ultra Low said she wants to see, ‘All new street lighting columns include charging points’ in areas with on-street parking. By Graham Hill

Similar to speed cameras, new cameras are being trialled to measure noise levels from vehicles and like speed cameras, they will record the registration number of the vehicle exceeding legal limits.

 

The trial has been authorised by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling and will take place later this year. The cameras will detect noisy vehicles in quiet residential areas and anyone caught breaking noise level laws will be fined.

 

Noise pollution is becoming a big problem. So much so that many police forces have set up on-line systems that allow members of the public to report incidents. Mr Grayling is following the example set by Canada, Singapore, Australia and the UAE who are already using noise cameras.

 

Mr Grayling is keen to see the results of the trials as he is concerned about the misery caused to communities by thoughtless drivers exceeding acceptable noise pollution levels. If the trials are successful he will roll the cameras out across the whole of the UK.  The trials will also help to formalise legal noise levels. As a general rule noise levels over 90 decibels constitutes a nuisance but there is no formal noise limit.

 

So if you are having problems with car or motorcycle noise you can report it but it probably won’t be long before they install noise cameras somewhere near you. By Graham Hill

Dometic.com has developed a new tech portable battery to plug all of your technology into including portable fridges and freezers. In their words, they have developed ‘the most advanced battery technology on the market’ to keep all your kit charged and powered.

 

Their heavy duty unit, the PL40 uses a 40Ah LiFePo4 (Lithium Iron Phosphate) power pack which the makers claim can deliver a stable output for longer than lithium-ion versions. The Swedish makers claim that it is also the lightest and most powerful battery in its class.

 

It comes with a range of outputs including twin USB slots for charging, phones, laptops and tablets. But the main role when camping, picnicking or on holiday is to power something like one of Dometic’s cool and freezer boxes via its 12v socket. It can run one for up to 40 hours.

 

It has a built-in LCD display which shows charging and output status. There’s also a sturdy handle for easy carrying. There are three ways to charge the unit. From mains power at home, via the 12v socket in the car or with a solar panel once you’ve arrived at your destination.

 

Dometic has also released a new range of inverters that turn 12v into mains power. The Sinepower DSP-C Series delivers up to 2,000w from the car battery and can charge it when plugged into the mains. There are three models, starting at £129. See their website at www.dometic.com  By Graham Hill

According to Auto Express, cars that are vulnerable to keyless theft are set to face higher insurance costs, after the industry experts responsible for setting vehicle “risk ratings” confirmed they would be penalising vehicles that are susceptible to relay attacks.

 

Thatcham Research, the insurance industry’s automotive research centre, confirmed that if manufacturers failed to include countermeasures to fend off relay attacks on cars with keyless entry systems, the organisation would recommend insurers judge them less favourably when calculating premiums.

 

While carmakers will be given a grace period to beef up the robustness of keyless systems, from 2021 Thatcham will change its new vehicle security assessment programme (NVSA) to reflect which models are most vulnerable to keyless theft. Insurers don’t have to abide by the guidelines, but the NVSA rating system helps to determine a car’s insurance group rating, meaning many cars are likely to attract higher premiums once the changes come into place.

 

Owners seeking to future-proof any prospective new-car purchase against potential insurance price hikes post 2021, meanwhile, can head to Thatcham’s security page to check if a car has a Superior, Good, Basic, Poor, or Unacceptable NVSA rating – though the grading system only applies to models introduced since the start of 2019.

 

You can reach the Thatcham Security Page by following this link:

https://www.thatcham.org/what-we-do/security/consumer-rating-2

 

The UK is currently experiencing an epidemic of car theft, with insurance payouts for stolen cars at their highest level since 2012, a study by German engineers finding almost every keyless system can be hacked, and police recording under half of all stolen cars being recovered. Carmakers have recently started to roll out fixes to the keyless conundrum, however, with Ford introducing a new keyless key with a motion sensor that puts the fob to sleep when it is not moving.

 

Commenting on the news, Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said the automotive industry “takes vehicle crime extremely seriously”, while the latest models “feature sophisticated immobilisers, tracking devices and encrypted key codes which prevent cloning.” Hawes also called for the government to ban the relay boxes that facilitate keyless theft. By Graham Hill

Over the last few years, we have seen more company car drivers opt for car allowances rather than replace their current company car with another. For many companies, this is a nightmare. Because whilst an employee is using his own car for business it becomes part of what is known as a grey fleet.

 

This means that at the time the employee is driving on company business it is the responsibility of the company to ensure that the car is safe and legal along with the driver (health and safety at work). This makes life difficult for businesses who have to ensure that cars are serviced properly and on time. That they are legal with legal tyres and current MOT if applicable. The car must be properly insured for business use and for the carrying of company tools, stock or equipment.

 

Companies also have a problem with car selection as employees are more likely to use their car allowance for a used executive or maybe a sports car than a car selected by the company that often equates to the status of the employee or the use for which the car is to be used. Some employees would be happy to drive an old car allowing them to take some of their allowance and use it to pay for holidays. This may not portray the correct company image.

 

The company, therefore, has to decide whether the payment of a car allowance should come with conditions such as type, make, age, safety levels etc of the car selected by the employee. It can become an administration nightmare.

 

Company responsibilities apply even if an employee drops off post each evening and receives a mileage allowance. From the Government’s point of view, whilst they collect income tax against car allowance payments they are currently losing fortunes as drivers opt for used cars. The vast majority of company cars are new cars which means that the Government can collect VAT, first registration tax, from employees Benefit In Kind Tax and from employers NI.

 

This ridiculous situation has come about because of the greed of the Government when setting BIK tax levels. In 2018/19 if you drove an electric or hydrogen-powered car emitting no CO2 whatsoever you would still have a BIK bill of 13% of the list price of the car. In the current year 2019/2020 that actually increases to 16% with most petrol cars falling within a band of 19% – 21%. In 2020/2021 we finally see zero-emission cars drop to 2% but petrol cars will increase to 21% – 25%.

 

Worst of all is the fact that the Government hasn’t released rates for 2021/2022 so if you were to take a company car now on a 3-year lease you wouldn’t have a clue as to what you would be paying in that tax year.

 

The whole thing is a disaster for both the Treasury and for companies that run company cars. It’s about time the Government got its focus back on the day to day running of the country than Brexit and electing a leader. By Graham Hill

I have been very vocal about many of our disgraceful recording systems that affect peoples lives. Take the Credit Reference Agencies. Virtually every penny of the £1.6 trillion of consumer debt was approved after consulting one, two or all three credit reference agencies.

 

And yet did you know that there is no legal obligation on any lender to record your transactions on any of the credit reference agency platforms? It’s ridiculous and amateurish! There is also no obligation on car finance providers to record their transactions on HPI and Experian platforms.

 

That’s right they don’t have to record if your car is on finance – it’s purely voluntary. In law as long as you ask the seller of a car if the car is on finance and as long as he says no, if it is on HP, PCP or conditional sale you are an innocent buyer and you own the vehicle. The finance company cannot get the car off you.

 

So when you read about a driver who has been confronted by a finance company who shows them that the car they bought privately was on finance with the finance company and that the person they bought the car from had no right to sell the car, therefore they own the car – it’s nonsense. They may even ask the driver if he checked the car on HPI. And when drivers have said no the finance company has said they must hand the keys over – supported by the motor magazine.

 

The problem is that if you hand over the keys you have no further rights to the car unless you were bullied. The point here is that because there is no legal obligation to record finance details on HPI (or Experian) there is no legal obligation on you to check before you buy.

 

So much for all the hype around HPI and the need to check HPI to see if the car is on finance. But even worse Auto Express (AE) and the BBC have revealed that even though new rules have been introduced covering written off cars and the need for insurance write-offs to be recorded on the platforms – they aren’t and as a result write off cars have found their way back onto the road.

 

An undercover BBC investigation found that written-off cars are being repaired and sold to unsuspecting motorists after passing their history checks

 

A BBC investigation has found that cars previously sold as write-offs at salvage auction are passing their vehicle history checks, and being sold at major second-hand car dealerships to unsuspecting buyers.

 

The undercover research, shown on BBC1’s Rip Off Britain, echoes the investigation AE published in March, which found cars that have been deemed insurance write-offs following serious accidents are passing vehicle history checks with a clean bill of health.

 

Vehicle history checks are relied on by countless buyers every year to reveal whether a car is subject to outstanding finance, has mileage irregularities, has been stolen, has previously been scrapped or has been deemed an insurance write-off.

 

While Auto Express’s research focussed on the loopholes that allow these written-off cars to pass their history checks, and highlighted examples of these cars being sold via online classified sites, the BBC sent undercover reporters to the UK’s largest used car retailer, Evans Halshaw, and two other big-name dealership chains, Arnold Clark and Car Store.

 

The researchers found cars that had previously been sold at salvage auction as write-offs had passed their background checks, and their true history had not been uncovered by the retailers. Forensic car expert John Dabek told the BBC he was surprised the dealers hadn’t spotted the cars had been repaired following serious accident damage.

 

The retailers involved either blamed the data systems they relied on for history checks or said they had carried out all the checks they could.

 

Prior to the BBC’s investigation, Auto Express uncovered a number of cars, that were sold at a salvage auction having been classified as ‘Cat S’. This means they were written off after sustaining serious, structural accident damage, and were only allowed back on the road after having been properly repaired.

 

Despite this, all of these models passed the vehicle history checks offered by both HPI and Experian AutoCheck, and were being marketed to consumers as never having been written off.

 

AE found 10 cars that had been sold at a salvage auction as declared Cat S write-offs, making a note of the VIN plates displayed in the salvage listings. They paid for HPI and Experian AutoCheck history checks, cross-referencing VINs and registration plates with the reports. Some of the cars generated alerts for outstanding finance or mileage discrepancies, but not one check from either HPI or Experian flagged any of these cars as an insurance write-off.

 

Auto Express was alerted to this issue by a reader who uncovered inconsistencies with history-checking companies after buying a used car he discovered had previously been sold via a salvage auction. As well as a conventional history check, the reader used a company called www.vcheck.uk, which crosschecks a car’s write-off status against salvage auction records.

 

After AE learned of this problem, they contacted vcheck and were provided with a number of cars that had raised similar concerns.

 

How do vehicle history checks work?

 

Experian AutoCheck and HPI – the two biggest players in the business – told AE that they exclusively rely on the Motor Insurance Anti Fraud & Theft Register, or MIAFTR, to determine if a car has been written off.

 

MIAFTR is a nationwide database run by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB), and 97 per cent of insurance companies subscribe to it. When an insurer writes off a vehicle, those subscribing to MIAFTR place it on the Register as a write-off. Some history-check businesses outsource to these two companies. The AA relies on HPI data, for example, while the RAC uses Experian.

 

1. MIAFTR is non-mandatory, and not all insurers use it

It is a legal requirement for insurers to inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when a car is written off, but it is not a requirement for them to use MIAFTR to do so – MIAFTR acts as an electronic funnel, automatically informing the DVLA of write-offs, assuming these are uploaded to MIAFTR.

 

The MIB told AE that “97 per cent of the motor insurance market currently subscribe to the MIAFTR database to load the details of their written-off vehicles”. There are 203 UK motor insurance companies authorised by the Bank of England, meaning six do not use MIAFTR; it therefore follows that cars written off by these six insurers are unlikely to be detected by history checks.

 

2. Third-party-only insurance

 

The MIB suggested that a car may not be detected as a write-off “if the vehicle is not comprehensively insured”. Because third-party insurance does not pay out for damage sustained to the insured vehicle itself, such cars will not have been declared a total loss by the insurer, so may not be on MIAFTR.

 

3. Delays in updating MIAFTR

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau told us some insurance firms “load manually or in batches” when placing cars on MIAFTR, creating potential delays. Some of the cars AE analysed were auctioned as write-offs more than a year ago and were still not detected by the history checks they ran, though.

 

Furthermore, data obtained via a Freedom of Information request shows the DVLA was informed of 7,676 Cat D and Cat C cars in the 2018 calendar year – even though Cat D and Cat C write-off classifications were replaced by Cat S and Cat N in October 2017.

 

This means that vehicles placed on the DVLA’s database as Cat C and Cat D in 2018 must have been assessed as write-offs the previous year under the old classifications, with a delay of at least three months.

 

4. Weak legislation

 

Legally, insurers must inform the DVLA when a car is written off, but the MIB says “there is no mandated timeframe for supplying write-off data to the DVLA”, creating potential delays even in the official database. The closure of the Vehicle identity Check (VIC) scheme in October 2015 could also have a part to play.

 

The VIC scheme saw a ‘marker’ placed against Cat C cars (now Cat S) on the DVLA database. These cars had to pass a VIC test, where an inspector would assess them before the DVLA would remove the marker and issue a new V5C logbook. The VIC test didn’t assess the quality of repairs, but if inspectors noticed a “serious defect which would make the car dangerous”, they would issue a prohibition notice, and the car could not be driven. Cat S write-offs now only need to pass an MoT test before being put on the road.

 

5. Paper-based write-offs

 

Further DVLA data obtained via a Freedom of Information request reveals that 4,870 vehicles were written off via paper notifications over the past five calendar years. These cars bypassed MIAFTR when being placed on the DVLA’s database, so would be unlikely to show up in checks.

 

6. History checks relying solely on MIAFTR to check for write-offs

 

MIAFTR is non-mandatory, subject to delays and may not hold records for written-off cars that only had third-party insurance. So for history-checking firms to rely solely on its data to determine a car’s write-off status is problematic.

 

How widespread is the problem?

 

Write-off category	No. vehicles on MIAFTR	No. vehicles on DVLA database	Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA	No. vehicles on MIAFTR	No. vehicles on DVLA database	Difference between MIAFTR & DVLA
	2016/17	2016/17	2016/17	2017/18	2017/18	2017/18
Cat A	8,926	8,851	75	9,502	9,370	132
Cat B	105,805	115,325	-9,520	109,417	119,559	-10,142
Cat C	325,324	367,093	-41,769	152,084	177,089	-25,005
Cat D	166,718	211,100	-44,382	83,783	110,407	-26,624
Cat S	343	0	343	101,798	123,579	-21,781
Cat N	432	0	432	140,694	148,431	-7,737
Total	607,548	702,369	-94,821	597,278	688,435	-91,156

 

Auto Express obtained data from the DVLA showing how many write-off ‘transactions’ the agency processed during financial years 2016/17, and 2017/18. The MIB provided AE with the number of write-offs it held records for over the same periods. Data from both organisations is for vehicles, so includes trucks, vans and motorbikes, as well as cars.

 

There is a significant difference between the two organisations’ databases, with nearly 100,000 fewer written-off vehicles a year appearing on MIAFTR compared with DVLA records. Even after removing from the equation Cat A and B vehicles – which must be scrapped and can never be driven again – these numbers give a clear idea of the discrepancies between MIAFTR and the DVLA’s database.

 

What do the organisations involved say?

 AE sent HPI and Experian details of three sample cars that were previously written off but passed their history checks. HPI consumer director Fernando Garcia told us: “Where third- party data is found to be inaccurate or factually incorrect, HPI will work with these partners to ensure that consumer safety remains the main priority and is not compromised in any way.”

 

Stressing that HPI “constantly monitors the quality of the data it generates and receives”, Garcia said: “If the consumer conducts an HPI Check and it did not show the Vehicle Condition Alert Register information, they would be covered by our guarantee if they adhere to our terms and conditions.”

 

An Experian spokesperson said the company understands “the cause for concern with the three vehicles highlighted”. Experian explained that it uses MIAFTR “to check whether a vehicle has been marked as ‘written off’ by an insurer”, but that “as none of the three vehicles were recorded as a total loss, they did not show as ‘written off’ on the vehicles’ provenance reports. We will continue to work with our data and insurance industry partners to establish the circumstances behind these three vehicles”.

 

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau, the organisation that runs MIAFTR, added that “Cat S write-offs will receive a V5C document from DVLA… [that] should alert keepers to the status of the vehicle”. The MIB also stressed that “CAT S and N vehicles can be repaired and legally driven again”.

 

The DVLA simply said: “Insurance companies are required to notify DVLA of all accident-damaged vehicles.”

 

What are the potential consequences for car buyers?

 

Safety

 

It is impossible to tell from photos how well these cars were repaired after their accidents, but buyers of Cat S and Cat N vehicles are typically advised to commission an independent mechanical inspection before making a purchase – a course of action far less likely with a car believed not to be a write-off.

 

Financial loss

 

Cars that have been written off are worth significantly less than their non-write-off counterparts. Anyone who bought a car at standard market value and subsequently finds out it was declared Cat S or Cat N stands to make a substantial loss when they sell it on, assuming its true history is subsequently detected in history checks, or the owner finds out it was written off. It is an offence to knowingly sell a written-off car without declaring its write-off status.

 

How can buyers protect themselves?

 

The majority of written-off cars are loaded onto MIAFTR and picked up by history-checking companies, but AE’s investigation will undoubtedly raise concerns among second-hand car buyers. Consumers seeking additional reassurances could consider paying for a mechanical inspection, which should determine whether a car was repaired following a serious accident.

 

Buyers are also offered some protection by a history-check guarantee. Both HPI and Experian AutoCheck will pay up to £30,000 to ensure buyers do not suffer financial losses as a result of their checks – although terms and conditions apply to these guarantees.

 

A third option is to make use of www.vcheck.uk, where you can get a basic check against salvage records for free.

 

Of course the fourth option would be to only take new cars supplied by GHA Finance! By Graham Hill

Having just posted huge losses of £3.6 billion and with Land Rover languishing at the bottom of the reliability charts and Jaguar not far behind they are now into more expense as they issue a major recall of 44,000 cars that may be emitting more Carbon Dioxide than was recorded in Official certification.

 

The recall covers versions of the Jaguar XF, XE, E-Pace, F-Pace and F-Type as well as the Land Rover Discovery, Discovery Sport and Range Rover Sport, Evoque andVelar, made between 2016 and 2019 with petrol and diesel engines.

 

JLR will contact owners to book their cars into their local dealer for repairs to be carried out free of charge. The recall came just weeks after the Land Rover Discovery TD6outperformed a number of other cars in independent real-world pollution tests thanks to the impressively low levels of nitrogen oxide emissions it produced. By Graham Hill

 

Incorrect emissions tests could attract some massive EU fines, hopefully, this action will avoid the possibility of the added pain of fines. By Graham Hill

I read with interest the case of Alexia Ohene as reported in What Car. Alexia bought a used  car but sadly 14 days after taking delivery the car developed a problem with its clutch. The garage agreed to take the car back to repair but couldn’t take it for 5 days due to a backlog in the workshops. However, they offered Alexia a loan car but he would have to collect the car which he couldn’t.

 

He, therefore, decided to reject the car as he had the car less than 30 days, something he is fully entitled to do under the Consumer Rights Act. When he mentioned this to the dealer he was met with a shower of abuse and threats to take him to court. They insisted that he keep the car saying that it would be stupid to reject it and they would deduct a mileage charge for the miles he covered and the cost of fitting some bumper protectors that the customer had requested.

 

The car had undergone a new MOT, service and inspection prior to collection so the clutch problem should have been identified and this failure of a major component was certainly grounds for rejection. What Car suggested, and I agree, that Alexia, shouldn’t get into an argument but simply send a formal letter to the dealer, by recorded delivery, simply stating that he wishes to reject the car as a result of suffering the failure of a major component within the first 30 days of ownership, quoting the Consumer Rights Act.

 

The dealer had no right to charge for mileage use and if the bumper protectors could be removed without damage there should be no charge for removing them. They then go on to say that if the customer still has problems that he should contact Trading Standards – again I agree but you now have to contact trading standards through the Citizen’s Advice Bureau, not a major issue but it takes longer.

 

They then suggested that the customer contact the Motor Ombudsman, something I don’t recommend as dispute resolution. You can only have your complaint listened to if the dealer is signed up to the Motor Ombudsman which is paid for by the very companies that are signed up. Think you’ll get a favourable solution? In my opinion a complete waste of time.

 

What he should have done in the circumstances is pay a deposit of say £100 on a credit card. This means that under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act you can now get the credit card company to take back the car as under Section 75 they are jointly and severally liable for the quality of the car. And if you don’t get a result from the credit card company you can take it up with the much fairer Financial Ombudsman.

 

It’s a shame that the motor magazines don’t go quite far enough or have enough knowledge when coming up with solutions. By Graham Hill

Whilst the three biggest problems preventing drivers from making the switch, i.e. price of cars, range and charging infrastructure a new challenge has emerged. If an electric or plug-in hybrid car breaks down or is involved in an accident it needs specialist recovery. Fleet News has investigated the implications.

 

The two main issues are battery complications and the fact that electric vehicles (EV’s) cannot be towed or moved unless the car can be switched on to enable the car to be put into neutral, freeing up the wheels that will be locked in gear.

 

To reduce the risk of battery fires or electrocution, most EVs use circuit breakers that disconnect the high-voltage system if an impact is detected.

 

The emergency services will also seek to disconnect any high-voltage components on electric vehicles if they are required to attend. These added complications  mean recovery firms can have a tougher job of collecting these often heavy vehicles.

 

When a BMW i3 operated by Speedy Services was involved in a collision, it took 15 hours for the vehicle to be recovered by the company’s appointed recovery agent, the AA.

 

“When the first AA man turned up, he said he didn’t know anything about electric vehicles,” said Gareth Jones, transport compliance manager at Speedy Services.

 

“A second man arrived later. He was concerned that the battery was damaged and there could be a health and safety issue around transporting hazardous materials.”

 

The i3 was immobile because there was no power to it.  Jones said they couldn’t disengage the handbrake and the electric motor was locked, so the wheels wouldn’t turn.

 

A third AA vehicle – a flatbed truck with a winch – was able to recover the car. But the operator first had to work out the weight of the car and the angle it would need to be pulled at, to see if the winch was powerful enough.

 

“The operator had to literally drag the car up onto a flatbed truck. It was the most annoying day,” said Jones. Speedy Services has been operating three BMW i3s, which have been converted into vans, for the past two years. This incident was the first the fleet encountered.

 

“We were flabbergasted that companies like the AA seemed unaware of how to deal with it,” said Jones.

 

“I don’t think the UK is geared up to recover vehicles of this type yet. It hasn’t put us off EVs though. We’ve all got to move forwards and embracing new technology is a core part of our business. What we have to do is look at how we are going to stop it happening again.”

 

In a statement, the AA said all its patrols are trained to work safely on EVs. However, it did point out that where EVs suffer damage in the event of an accident, there could
be additional health and safety considerations before recovering the vehicle. This may require further risk assessments or equipment. In order to make the scene safe, it may also include specialist support for road traffic collisions.

 

The Institute of Vehicle Recovery (IVR) delivers specialist training to enable recovery firms to handle electrified vehicles correctly. It has seen a lot of demand for its EV course.

 

Mark Hartell, vice-chairman of the IVR, said: “It is vital that all technicians, and those responsible for sending them out, appreciate the hazards and specialist knowledge required to recover this type of vehicle.”

 

Jones advises fleet operators to ensure that recovery firms are aware they are being called to deal with an electric vehicle, whether directly or through an accident management provider.

 

Pete Williams, RAC road safety spokesman, said: “Our approach to EVs and hybrids is consistent with how we deal with conventional petrol and diesel vehicles. In the event of an accident, if requested to recover an EV vehicle by the fleet manager, we would send a flatbed lorry.

 

“EVs present a particular challenge as most cannot be towed normally and should be transported with all wheels off the ground. It is a similar situation with many other modern vehicles, including crossovers, SUVs, 4x4s, pick-ups, vans and automatics.

 

“In response, we have developed our new All-Wheels-Up equipment that effectively brings flatbed recovery capability to our standard long-wheel based orange patrol vans. To date, 600 have been equipped with this new kit. So a single van can recover an EV – saving the driver valuable time.”

 

The total number of fully electric cars registered in the UK rose by 59% last year, accounting for about 1% of total sales. Plug-in hybrids are more popular, making up 2.8% of sales.

 

A recent survey by Kia found that 87% of fleet managers have encountered increased demand for electrified vehicles, but the majority feel that the cars won’t be suitable for another two to five years.

 

Kia’s Fleet Green Perspectives Report found that 65% of fleets operate plug-in vehicles, an increase of 27% in the past year.

 

It seems that we need to go much further if we are to convince drivers to embrace EV’s and move across from petrol and diesel cars. We only seem to be scratching the surface and paying lip service to those who want to live in a cleaner environment. By Graham Hill