£2,400,000, £2.4m, two million four hundred thousand … however you write it, it’s not an insignificant number, and yet that’s how much profit is being made each day through parking charges. Note the word profit, not revenue.

And despite that, some motorists are facing increases of up to 230% to park their vehicles from next month. The RAC Foundation are predicting that profits will clear £1bn for the year 2019/20.

That’s before we get to the whole ‘parking at work’ issue, and heaven help you if you happen to drive a diesel that’s a few years old. ‘Persecuted’ comes to mind, as does ‘cash cow’ and ‘stealth tax’.

Record profit, part II

Back in November 2018, we wrote an article about councils making record profits from parking, fines and charges for motorists daring to enter a city centre, we also noted that one in ten shops were empty, footfall in city centres fell by around 1.6% and out of town shopping was on the increase by a similar amount.

With that said, there was an element of at least a vague attempt by councils to assuage the concerns of the pro-motoring groups by keeping evening & Sunday rates lower; they couldn’t claim congestion was a problem, nor was there a need to limit church-goers from entering the city en masse. But come April, all pretence of ‘fairness’ ends.

Across the country, a number of councils are already planning on millions of pounds worth of extra revenue generation for the coming year and beyond, Edmund King, president of the AA says: “Some councils are already budgeting to make millions of pounds more from motorists, on top of the millions they already get, by increasing parking charges, extending restricted parking zones, enforcing new bus lanes and looking for new opportunities to catch drivers”.

Councillors are insisting that higher fees are necessary because of major budget cuts from central government, as well as “the need to tackle congestion”. Perhaps that’s the definitive proof that the motorist is seen as the answer to any budgetary shortfalls.

Transportation spending

Analysis from a money comparison site has shown that revenues from parking charges have increased by around £170m in the last five years, currently sitting around £867m per year, and yet the same analysis tells us that councils are spending approximately £400m less on road improvements than they were five years ago.
So where is that money going?

Some councils are on the verge of bankruptcy; in the early part of 2018, Northamptonshire County Council effectively went bankrupt, and a survey by the Local Government Information Unit thinktank found that typically, 8 out of 10 councils were gravely concerned by their finances.

On a completely unrelated note, Northampton council are trebling evening car parking charges, but it isn’t all bad news, Councillor Martin Tett, transport spokesman for the Local Government Association says that councils are on the side of the motorist and shoppers.

Residential parking

Perhaps the most significant blow to motorists is an upsurge in paying for their right to park at home, and some councils are looking to maximise what they feel is acceptable; Hampshire, Reading, Cambridge, Brighton and Exeter are all looking to raise residential parking prices, with Hampshire being the most … optimistic … with up to a 230% increase.

Residents of Camden should feel grateful that they’re only looking at a 70% increase in permit fees, and that in itself tells you that something is seriously wrong. When motorists are feeling relieved that a 70% increase in what amounts to an absurd stealth tax is the better option, you have to wonder just what happens next?

Indeed, residents in Romsey paying £50 per year to park at home doesn’t sound like the ending of the world, but an increase from £15 is significant, and once residents get used to £50, will that rise again by the same percentage? £50 becomes closer to £170.

The need for a car has never been greater; high parking costs have pushed traffic away from city centres, city stores raise their prices in a bid to survive lower footfall, shoppers can’t afford to spend more than necessary on their weekly shopping so drive out of town to their nearest supermarket where prices are cheaper. The statistics bear that out; there is no need to manipulate facts to give a pro-car viewpoint.

Yes, there are a number of people who agree that cars should be made to pay for air pollution, for damaging their environment, for bringing pestilence to the world, but a world without motorised personal transportation or the ability to deliver goods to the far corners of East Sussex or the wilds of the Highlands doesn’t make sense either. All we need is a balance.

Do you think this is just another shot at the motorist? Another stealth tax dressed up in green legislation? Or is it genuinely a good thing? Let us know in the comments.

With more and more cars getting high tech sound systems, hearing loud music while driving has become a daily occurrence for most people. One council is fighting back and has introduced a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) which gives officers the ability to fine people £100 for anti-social vehicle use.

This could include loud noise, shouting or being sexually suggestive. The measure was introduced after two-thirds of Bradford said they felt unsafe on the roads and said that nuisance drivers were a problem.

PSPO in place

A PSPO is already in place in certain areas of Bradford for antisocial behaviour and between March 2017 and June 2018, alcohol in various forms was confiscated 497 times. Bradford residents seem to be in favour of further PSPOs.

In a consultation of Bradford residents on the roads, 70% of those surveyed said they felt unsafe on the roads and 76% supported a PSPO to help reduce the anti-social behaviour in roads.

How will a PSPO help?

The PSPO is an order that protects the natural environment of an area and keeps residents safe in the area. Certain council enforcement officers are authorised to act upon a PSPO for the purpose of keeping the peace. Police officers are also able to enforce PSPOs.

In this instance, the PSPO can be used to stop anti-social driving. Whether this is wheel spinning excessively, blasting loud music, shouting from windows or being overtly sexual from a car, the PSPO can be used with correct judgement to help with the issue of anti-social driving in the area.

Mr Burns-Williamson, West Yorkshire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “I support the step that Bradford Council have approved in the use of Public Space Protection Orders, a move which I believe will help to tackle a number of anti-social behaviour and road safety related issues.”

“Road safety is clearly a significant area of interest in Bradford and for many communities across the county and remains a key focus in my Police and Crime Plan. The PSPO will complement the significant work already undertaken by West Yorkshire Police, the Council and other partners in the District such as Operation Steerside which targets wider road safety offences and behaviour.”

Draconian or desired?

Some have come against the PSPO suggestion, labelling it “a bit draconian” and questioning how personal this could become.

Local councillor in Bradford, Simon Cooke, said of the PSPO “Is there the justification of making criminal what wasn’t criminal before? What we seem to have is a bit of virtue signalling, so we are seen to be doing something about the problem. But it doesn’t really address the problem to any great extent.”

He also raised a valid point of determining what anti-social behaviour in a vehicle was bad enough to warrant a fine or order. One person’s attitude could be completely different from someone else’s on what constitutes anti-social behaviour. “When it comes to music being played too loud is there not a risk that personal music preference may decide if music being played is ‘good or bad’?” he added, showing the potentially highly personal nature of the issue at hand. How can one person decide that someone’s driving is anti-social when it may be a personal prejudice? While strict training and regulations will no doubt be given, both having evidence of the act and being able to justify the reasons for the fine could easily be swayed through personal judgement.

Will the days of people driving around blasting music slowly be going out of fashion or is it overly restricting peoples behaviour? In recent months there has been a lot of talk of driving becoming very big brother like, with cars able to limit top speed depending on the road area soon and next-generation speed cameras that can pick up multiple fineable offences.

Anti-social driving

There are not many people who would openly admit to cutting people up in traffic, blasting loud music or sitting around in a car park drinking. However, the people who use their vehicles for things that aren’t illegal but aren’t seen as proper use could soon be feeling the sharp end of a £100 fine.

One can see both sides of the argument, they aren’t doing anything technically illegal, but people don’t want to be surrounded by anti-social driving. On the other hand, the small minority that does use their vehicles for anti-social purposes are more at risk of breaking the law, such as speeding or distracted driving.

People in Bradford have said bad driving is an issue, but in many large towns and cities across the country, this will no doubt be a very prevalent issue as well. You only need to watch Police Interceptors on Channel 4 to see the amount of dangerous driving that takes place come nightfall. Protecting our roads from dangerous drivers is essential but is this taking it one step too far or is this the next best thing to happen to residential areas?

What do you think of the PSPO? Would you like to see one in your local area? Let us know below

A shocking investigation by a British watchdog has discovered that car dealers are manipulating customers’ interest payments to earn larger commission totalling an ‘unacceptable’ £300 million each year.

The report comes almost two years after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) declared they would carry out mystery shopping trials of the industry and analyse millions of credit files.

On a mission for commission

In 2018, UK motorists borrowed a staggering £37billion on car finance to buy new and used vehicles. The popularity of loans such as Hire Purchase (HP) and Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) enable motorists to buy their car by paying instalments and mean big business for both car dealerships and lenders. In fact, Brits buy about nine out of ten new cars this way.

Yet, a recent investigation by the FCA found that lenders aren’t satisfactorily controlling the ‘conflicts of interest’ that are occurring from the extensive use of commission models that enable car dealers to make more in commission by deciding the interest rate.

Under certain commission models, the regulator estimates motorists can pay around £1,100 extra in interest charges over a four-year period for a typical car finance agreement on a £10,000 vehicle.

About 560,000 drivers have signed contracts where the loan price has a link to the level of commission received by the dealer, yet the watchdog discovered the bulk of dealers neglected to tell their customers they would receive a commission for setting up the loan.

How many car dealerships disclosed they would receive a commission on the sale?

Franchised car dealers: One in 37
Independent car dealers: Four in 60
Car supermarkets: Two in 14
Online brokers: Four in 11

‘Not good enough’

After uncovering serious concerns about car finance agreements from 20 lenders, making up about 60% of the market, the FCA has contacted car finance companies and says it’ll get tougher on the rules of car finance commission deals.

FCA Executive Director of Supervision – Retail and Authorisations, Jonathan Davidson, said:

“We also have concerns that firms may be failing to meet their existing obligations in relation to pre-contract disclosure and explanations and affordability assessments.”

The FCA found a few dealers were only concerned whether their customer was a credit risk.

“This is simply not good enough and we expect firms to review their operations to address our concerns,” added Mr Davidson.

The watchdog is considering strengthening existing FCA rules, limiting the discretion that brokers have to set interest rates, and banning certain commission models.

For those firms identified as failing customers, the FCA will pursue them and take any necessary action.

Although this sounds like earlier mis-selling scandals such as Payment Protection Insurance (PPI), the FCA isn’t intending to make finance companies pay compensation to those customers who paid more than they should have, nor does it plan to do anything about any existing loans.

The motor finance trade body, the Financial Leasing Association (FLA), criticised the FCA’s report.

Adrian Dally, Head of Motor Finance for the FLA, said:

“Regarding the FCA’s concerns about commission structures, their survey work is based largely on out-of-date information and therefore does not reflect the very considerable progress the market has already made in moving away from such structures.

“We look forward to working with the FCA as it modernises its regulations in line with market best practice.”

Navigating the options

If you’re planning on getting a new car, shop around using reputable retailers, compare finance deals, check the total amount you’ll need to pay back, and ask how much the broker or dealer will receive in commission.

If you can’t afford to pay for your next vehicle outright, the next cheapest option is to make a one-off payment using an unsecured personal loan but, unless you’ve got a great credit score, it’s doubtful that you’ll get approved and, by purchasing a vehicle this way instead of taking the finance offered by the finance arm of the manufacturer, you won’t get any money towards the car.

Personal car loans are both easy to understand and set up and you might also get the dealer to reduce the price due to being a cash buyer. Once you’ve paid the dealer, you own the car outright, although that also means you’re responsible for all the repairs!

HP and PCP deals work out more expensive and you don’t own the vehicle until you make the last— often large —payment.

If you buy a car using HP or PCP, try to pay off at least part of the balance with a credit card so you have the extra protection offered under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, which states that the credit card company has joint responsibility with the retailer—useful if you make a future complaint.

What do you think of the FCA’s findings? Are drivers being ripped-off or pressured into finance they don’t understand and can’t afford? Tell us your views in the comments.

A study using data from the RAC’s Vehicle History Check service, covering more than 32,000 vehicles has shown that over half (52%) of the vehicles checked had a history that could be a potential problem for any purchaser.

Some of these issues could be minor – like a registration change for example, but others were more serious – stolen, scrapped and outstanding finance were just some of the other problems found. Understanding what you’re buying has never been more relevant.

Caveat emptor

Whether you’re looking to find your dream car, a classic from a bygone era, or something more practical, finding the right car can be time-consuming, and if there’s some emotional attachment to it, you’re much more likely to overlook the odd blemish, running fault or bald tyre.

You may even view a vehicle history check as money for old rope; providing you know what you’re looking for, then it’s plain sailing, but not every problem is that obvious … 17.6% of the vehicles were still in the process of being paid off, so technically they weren’t the ‘owners’ vehicle to sell, a small percentage (0.1%) had been officially scrapped, some were even listed as stolen.

By far the largest discrepancy was a change of registration – 27.5% of vehicles weren’t on the original registration, but for the main part, that doesn’t ring alarm bells – cherished registrations are commonplace now, so providing it has been correctly documented, then there shouldn’t be a problem.

Potential problems

In theory, purchasing a car with hire-purchase, or PCP already registered against it is possible, some potential purchasers may even it see it as the finance company’s problem if their customer is selling the vehicle on, but the reality is that should they default on payment, the finance company could look to repossess the vehicle, regardless of whether it was purchased ‘in good faith’.

Another expensive mistake could be purchasing a car that has been written-off by an insurance company, as 14.2% of the vehicle checks showed. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, providing you’re aware of the situation, but some unscrupulous sellers don’t declare it, and they may not have had to prove the roadworthiness or quality of the repair afterward. This could mean that you’re paying over the odds, for an un-roadworthy or potentially dangerous car.

The importance of such vehicle checks cannot be overlooked; there have been numerous cases where a stolen vehicle was sold on to an unsuspecting or innocent third-party, and it’s only when they go to sell it on again does the identity of the vehicle and its history become apparent. In a case like that, the new owner would most likely lose the vehicle and any monies paid for it.

Protect yourself

If you’re looking to purchase a used vehicle, there are a number of ‘good practice’ measures that you can use to help identify any potential issues. With that said, these aren’t infallible, and for the checking services that offer a guarantee against such issues, you need to adhere to strict guidelines if you stand a chance of winning any money back.

Turning detective will only get you so far – a good rummage through the accompanying documentation such as service history and MOT certificates can paint a pretty clear picture, as can a full mechanical inspection, but unless you truly know what you’re looking for, it may be worth having the inspection done by a professional.

Check that the VIN number looks to be original and matches the documentation; factory numbers don’t get ‘mis-stamped’, are at an even depth and spacing and are located in places that any ‘accidental’ damage is difficult to explain.

Check for unusually high wear patterns across the steering wheel, pedal rubbers and switches – pedal rubbers are easily replaced, steering wheels can be covered but switches are more difficult to disguise or replace.

Look for abnormal wear patterns across all four tyres – this could be an indication of poor misalignment or a geometry problem.

Remove the oil filler cap and look for white sludge – this could indicate a water/oil problem, although be aware that lots of short trips could also cause this.

Look to see if the panel gaps are consistent – a misaligned panel may be an indicator to body work replacement or damage.

If it’s a significant purchase, you may want to think about contacting the previous owner to see if they can add to the history, likewise, any dealer involved in the servicing of the vehicle will have full records of what was done and when (service history books can be faked very easily).

While these measures may not give you a definitive answer, they help to build up a bigger picture of the seller, their attitude toward the car, and how well it’s been looked after. This can be used in conjunction with your own judgement to help you decide if the car is ‘right’.

Have you ever been caught out with a bad car purchase? Do you have any other buying tips to share? Let us know in the comments.

On Monday (4th March,) Volvo announced plans to limit all cars manufactured from 2020 onwards to a max speed of 112mph. This is part of their plans to bring the number of people who die in a Volvo car to zero over the next coming years.

In a press release by the company they teased the launch of Vision 2020, “one of the most ambitious safety visions in the automotive industry.”

How will this work?

Most other manufacturers are using an Intelligent Speed Assistant (ISA), which earlier this year was revealed as near finalised that it would be mandatory for all new cars on the road from 2021. The European Transport Safety Council proposed the changes which were approved by a key group of MEPs and is hoped to come into force for all cars with the 21 plate and higher.

ISA will limit the speed of the car depending on the area the car is. It uses GPS and traffic sign recognition to limit and adjust the max speed. Drivers are able to override the max speed limit by pushing hard on the throttle, in case of overtaking cars or need to move out of the way sharply.

However, Volvo has gone a step further and will electronically limit the car from going no faster than 112 mph, or 180kph. For the Volvo XC90, the flagship SUV, this will reduce the top speed by 20mph, and many of the other new cars will have their top speeds chopped by 18mph.

Zero deaths by 2020?

Volvo’s Vision 2020 is a definite jump in the car safety world. To suddenly go from quite basic systems not even under ten years ago to there now being plans to stop deaths in Volvo cars completely seems a huge leap. Volvo has often been a leader in the safety industry with its calls for a universal safety standard in autonomous vehicles.

However, nearly 1.25 million people a year die in a motor vehicle. Can this ambitious strategy really come to fruition? Volvo has admitted that on technology alone they cannot bring the number of deaths to zero. In light of this, they want to work to change user behaviour as well as improving their technological capabilities.

“Volvo is a leader in safety: we always have been, and we always will be,” said Håkan Samuelsson, president and chief executive of Volvo. “Because of our research, we know where the problem areas are when it comes to ending serious injuries and fatalities in our cars. And while a speed limitation is not a cure-all, it’s worth doing if we can even save one life.”

“We want to start a conversation about whether car makers have the right or maybe even an obligation to install technology in cars that changes their driver´s behaviour, to tackle things like speeding, intoxication or distraction,” said Mr Samuelsson. “We don’t have a firm answer to this question, but believe we should take leadership in the discussion and be a pioneer.”

People simply do not recognise the danger involved in speed, says Jan Ivarsson following on from Mr Samuelsson’s statement, one of Volvo Cars’ leading safety experts.

“As humans, we all understand the dangers with snakes, spiders and heights. With speeds, not so much,” said Mr Ivarsson. “People often drive too fast in a given traffic situation and have poor speed adaption in relation to that traffic situation and their own capabilities as a driver. We need to support better behaviour and help people realise and understand that speeding is dangerous.”

Other safety issues

In the research that Volvo did, they found that there were three gaps in their safety procedures. One being speeding, the other two intoxication and distracted driving. Both of these relate highly to user behaviour over the car, but at a special safety event on March 20th, they plan to reveal solutions for combating these two issues.

With these safety issues also comes the question of intrusiveness. As said earlier do carmakers “have the right or maybe even an obligation to install technology in cars that change their driver’s behaviour?” Is this something that we as people, want to have controlling our lives?

Is Big Brother kicking in or is it ok to have advanced safety features that can change our driving behaviour? The question here must be posed of if we all had perfect driving, these safety features wouldn’t be needed, and we would be able to drive without autonomy taking over.

However, unless a drastic change happens anytime soon, it seems unlikely that people will stop speeding anytime soon. In 2017, 203 people died in a road traffic collision as a direct result of exceeding the speed limit. Every year since 2013, over 200 people have died because of exceeding the speed limit. This anti-speeding advert from New Zealand shows the truly devastating consequences speeding has, we’d recommend watching it, but we will place a warning as it is quite triggering for those who may have been involved in such an incident before.

What do you think about Volvo’s plans? Where does technology stop being able to protect us? Let us know below

Last May, PetrolPrices wrote about how clean air campaigners wanted to ban the car-based school run. With figures showing that a quarter of all cars are on our roads during school drop-off and collection times, a new plan to reduce air pollution—and defend children against poisonous vehicle-related fumes—will now fine parents who drive their children to school.

Hundreds of head teachers are piloting schemes to stop drivers pulling up to the school gates, with £50 fines and even penalties leading to points on their licences for those who snub the ban.

Public health emergency

Schools in Hackney, East London and in Southampton, banned parents from parking at their school entrances just before Christmas, and thousands of other schools are preparing to join the pilot. While the scheme is voluntary at present, campaigners are calling for the ban to become mandatory at all schools and nurseries—something that the almost 2,000 schools and nurseries in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution will welcome.

To help transition parents and children from car to foot, various initiatives are taking place, such as, ‘park and stride’ schemes and the temporary closing of roads.

Some schools are going further to deliver their message, with schoolchildren handing out fake tickets to parents who arrive in cars and others even taking part in ‘playing dead’ protests. Police officers in Solihull, West Midlands are helping the cause by issuing fines to motorists who don’t follow the ban.

While the changes to the school run may anger many time-challenged parents, one cannot dispute the evidence showing the detrimental effect traffic pollution has on our health.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has described air pollution as a ‘public health emergency’ and their latest figures attribute 4.2 million deaths worldwide every year to ambient air pollution with around 40,000 premature deaths in the UK each year.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) Executive Director Hans Bruyninckx described air pollution as ‘an invisible killer’ and explained that road transport emissions are often more dangerous than those from other sources, as they occur at ground level and in cities, near people. Experts say children are more at risk from pollution because toxins stay inside their bodies longer, and that a ban on parents sitting in their cars at the school gates would have a significant effect on reducing children’s exposure to pollution.

Tragic consequences

Experts know the level of air pollution to be a major risk factor for childhood asthma. In 2017, 1,320 people died of asthma in England and Wales—a 25% rise in one decade.

Alison Cook, Director of Policy and Communications for the British Lung Foundation, said:

“Toxic air is linked to asthma and chronic chest problems, and damage to the lungs in early age is irreversible.

“That’s why illegal levels of pollution around schools is hugely worrying.

“Banning cars from school gates will help reduce pollution in classrooms, but this is just a drop in the ocean. Action on [a] local and national level is needed to help people move to cleaner forms of transport such as walking, cycling and public transport.”

In February 2013, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s nine-year-old daughter Ella died from an asthma attack.

Ms Kissi-Debrah says the high levels of air pollution where they lived and where Ella went to school, were to blame. The family lived next to one of London’s busiest roads 25 metres from the South Circular Road in Lewisham, South East London.

After Professor Stephen Holgate found spikes in air pollution corresponded with Ella’s 27 asthma-induced hospitalisations episodes, Rosamund campaigned hard and now has approval for a second inquest into her daughter’s death. If conclusive, Ms Kissi-Debrah wants air pollution added to the death certificate. If this happens, it will be the first time air pollution has appeared on a death certificate.

Last year we wrote about the Mayor of London’s plan to reduce vehicle emissions across the capital, by introducing a 24-hour Central London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) this April.

Earlier this month, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan spoke about his new green fund to help schools fight toxic air with ‘pollution barriers’ in the playground.

Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said:

“It is unacceptable that our filthy air is affecting the lung growth and respiratory health of our young children, especially those who go to school by busy, polluted roads.

“My funding will help create much needed new spaces for communities to enjoy and help reduce toxic pollution with green barriers in and around schools to protect our children from polluted air.”

‘Just get out and walk’

Many are worried that banning the school run as we know it will only shift the problem elsewhere, but as Jenny Wiles from the walking charity Living Streets said last summer; an awful lot of families live close enough to school to walk the whole way and so where possible they encourage people to ‘just get out and walk and solve the problem completely’.

Some parents might even consider applying for their pre-school children to go to their most local school, negating the need for a car to get there. For those children who live too far from their schools to walk or those in rural areas, free transport is often available.

One thing looks certain; if parents and caregivers don’t make changes to lessen the traffic pollution around schools, somebody else will and the consequences for not complying with the rules could get expensive.

What do you think about the ban on driving children to the school gates? Is it necessary? Are parents time-pressed or lazy? Tell us your views in the comments.

New DVLA stats released earlier in the week show that over 460,000 vehicles in 11 cities nationwide are clamped or fined yearly for failing to tax their cars.

The new advertising campaign targets 11 areas nationwide where the highest number of untaxed vehicles were found. It aims to raise awareness about what not taxing your vehicles will lead to, whether that is a fine, penalty or it being clamped and potentially towed.

Worst areas for clamping

The 11 areas chosen to be targeted for this advert are based on the numbers for enforcement actions taken in 2018, whether that is a penalty, fine or clamping.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, London was the worst for untaxed vehicles across the UK. Whether this is down to higher numbers of CCTV cameras, a higher proportion of people packed into the area, or merely because there simply are more people not taxing their cars in London it is very unknown.

However, the high contrast between London and the rest of the UK, over 50,000 more than anywhere else, shows the drastic need to crack down on untaxed motorists.

Removal of paper discs

Back in 2014, the DVLA removed paper tax discs, saying that an online database was a more cost-effective way forward, saving the Treasury around £10 million a year.

The lost revenue from the higher number of people not taxing their cars is predicted to be over £100 million, which is going to be a quarter of a million a year lost on average. Since 2014, experts approximate that the number of people not taxing their vehicles has increased by 28%.

Every two years the DVLA publish a report into Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) evasion statistics. The last report published in 2017 showed a drastic increase in vehicle stats compared to 2015, with a statistically significant increase of over 1%. Administrative factors such as the removal of paper tax discs were attributed along with the removal of automatic tax transfer when you the vehicle changes hands.

However, an increase from 0.6% untaxed in traffic figure in 2013 to 1.4% in 2015 and then 1.8% in 2017 shows that all the factors combined have not been as successful as perhaps thought. While these figures may seem small, 1.8% of the market equals around 755,000 vehicles on our roads.

Hence the reason for the new DVLA campaign. They’re hoping that by showing the stark consequences of not taxing your vehicle and reminding people how easy it is, they may be able to lower this figure.

Used under Open Government Licence v3.0 for editorial purposes only.

DVLA Head of Enforcement Tim Burton said: “This campaign has a clear message for anyone who flouts the law in this way – tax it or lose it. It’s never been easier to tax your car, so there really is no excuse. We would rather not have to clamp or remove vehicles, but this campaign highlights the consequences of not taxing a vehicle. Having your vehicle clamped is expensive and inconvenient – and you could end up losing your car.”

Tax changes recently

In April 2017, the DVLA changed tax figures by introducing higher rates for newly registered vehicles and in last years budget, they secretly announced that it would increase in line with RPI.

It was also announced that VED would be ringfenced for the Strategic Road Network, essentially building more smart motorways and major roads. This comes into effect on April 2019 and is the third year in a row that VED has increased.

What do you think of the findings? Do you think that less people have taxed their cars since the removal of tax discs? Will this new campaign help? Let us know what you think