Why motorists are facing waits of a year or more for crucial car repairs
'You can see, just for a windscreen replacement, the complexity goes up, and the number of parts required and the skill that's required, all of that. Do that for headlights, do that for radars and the amount of parts that logistics companies have to carry goes up massively.'
On top of this, suggested Townsend, car makers are no longer stocking a large surplus of spare parts, due to various factors affecting their finances.
'The biggest pain point for the incumbent vehicle manufacturers is cash flow,' he said. 'Because of the challenges coming from the likes of China and with [import] tariffs in America, Dieselgate, electrification and all of this, they simply don't have the cash flow to have millions of pounds sitting in stock.
'They're having to reduce their stock holdings across Europe that would traditionally have supplied the market, because they simply can't afford to have millions of pounds sitting in a warehouse not doing anything.'
This point is particularly pertinent at a time when the market is demanding broader choice, explained Townsend, because with each type of powertrain comes a different assortment of parts, dramatically increasing the cost of keeping a healthy supply of spares.
He said: 'If we were all buying electric vehicles, the problem would go away, because they would just move from one [powertrain type] to another. But the market isn't quite ready, so manufacturers have to serve the market by producing plug-in hybrids, normal hybrids, electric variants etc. So it's hugely complex at a time when manufacturers are cash-constrained.'
The wait times also put pressure on insurers to declare crashed cars a total loss when they have suffered only minor damage, explained Townsend. This is because the cost of a courtesy car may outweigh the value of a repair if the part will take weeks or months to arrive.
He said: 'We had an incident with an EV in the middle of 2023. Somebody bought an EV brand new in July for £35,000. Then it suffered a third-party hit. The door and the wing mirror were damaged. The vehicle manufacturer couldn't provide a lead time [for a replacement mirror], so that car was written off for a wing mirror.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
White House threatens to pull billions of dollars from California's high-speed rail project
California's years-long effort to construct a high-speed rail faces yet another hurdle as the Trump administration said the project has no 'viable path' to move ahead and threatened to pull billions of dollars in federal funding. Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, released a compliance review report that said the project is in default of the terms of its federal grant awards, and said it has been beset by mismanagement, waste and ever-growing costs. 'Here's the cold, hard truth – there's no viable path to complete the rail project on time or on budget. California is on notice,' Duffy said, adding that 'it could soon be time' for funds to move to other projects. High-speed rail, long available in Japan and Europe, has been a dream for decades in California with supporters hopeful it could reduce the environmental impact in a state known for its rampant car use, connect the state and drive economic development with the creation of thousands of jobs. In 2008, California voters approved $10bn in funding for the bullet train, which was supposed to bring passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in less than three hours and be completed by 2020 at a total cost of $33bn. Seventeen years on, the project's estimated cost is expected to exceed $100bn. The state has now focused not on the original route designed to connect California's metropolitan areas, but on a 171-mile stretch in the Central valley, which is expected to be completed by 2033 at a cost of more than $35bn. The entirety of the line received environmental clearance for construction in 2024 and the project finally began laying down track this year. Frustrations over the delays and growing costs have mounted. In 2019, Donald Trump cancelled almost $1bn in funding for the project. The Biden administration, however, restored that funding and later allocated another $3.3bn toward the project. But California is still expected to come up with most of the budget, and it has so far. The state has supplied 82% of the $14bn already spent on the project. 'No state in America is closer to launching high-speed rail than California,' Gavin Newsom, the state's governor, said earlier this year. 'We're moving into the track-laying phase, completing structures for key segments and laying the groundwork for a high-speed rail network.' But in the report published on Wednesday, Drew Feeley, the acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said the state has 'no viable plan to deliver even that partial segment on time'. 'What started as a proposed 800-mile system was first reduced to 500 miles, then became a 171-mile segment, and is now very likely ended as a 119-mile track to nowhere,' Feeley wrote. His letter said the review 'revealed patterns of unattainable proposals and unrealistic assumptions on a wide range of issues' as well as 'countless change orders for almost every contract', and cited a February 2025 report from the rail authority's inspector general that found the agency has 'no credible plan' to close the $7bn funding gap on the Central valley segment. The California high-speed rail authority has 30 days to provide documentation to show its compliance. The authority said in a statement on Wednesday that it strongly disagrees with the FRA's 'misguided' conclusions, and pointed to the governor's latest budget proposal, which includes at least $1bn a year for the project for the next 20 years. 'We remain firmly committed to completing the nation's first true high-speed rail system connecting the major population centers in the state.'
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Western democracies have a duty to resist growing Russian aggression
SIR – Beyond the finances not adding up, which appears to be a feature of all Labour policy, the other thing that struck me about the Strategic Defence Review (report, June 4) was its leisurely response to what it acknowledged to be a present and growing threat. Surely the best answer to Russian aggression towards Europe is to increase support to Ukraine now, giving it everything we can without restrictions on use, while properly ramping up full sanctions and other deterrent actions against Russia. Russia is now weaker than it has been for some time, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Ukraine. We in Western Europe have a moral obligation to defend Ukraine and other nations from repeated Russian aggression. Hopefully, at the same time, we may ultimately help Russia towards a better future, and deter China from resorting to conflict. Colonel Ronnie Bradford (retd) Vienna, Austria SIR – Your Leading Article (June 4) draws attention to the fact that the Prime Minister declined to set a firm date for when the defence budget would increase to 3 per cent of GDP. This gives rise to two concerns. Will 3 per cent be enough, when Nato is poised to set a new target for members to spend 5 per cent? And, given the obvious urgency of the matter, why will this happen only in the next parliament? Brigadier Rod Brummitt (retd) Bournemouth, Dorset SIR – I read your Leading Article (June 4) with incredulity. You write that 'Sir Keir dismissed calls to set specific spending targets as 'performative fantasy politics' '. When I served during the Cold War period, we mustered four armoured divisions – each of three brigades – in Germany, as well as substantial UK Land Forces and a Territorial Army of several thousand. Now, as Lewis Page has written (Comment, June 1), the Army's sole war-fighting division, which is supposed to have three brigades, is actually a two-brigade force with enough equipment for just one. As you say, 'If the deployments needed for the next two or three decades are to be met, then commitments have to be made now.' As it is, what threat does the Government believe we can deter? Lt Col Jeremy Moger (retd) Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset SIR – John Healey, the Defence Secretary, talks about a 10-year plan to get Britain ready for war (report, June 2), in the face of 'growing Russian aggression'. Does he really think that Vladimir Putin is going to wait that long? He added that the Strategic Defence Review would send a 'message to Moscow'. Mr Healey publicises his plans, while Putin hides his. It isn't hard to see who is likely to be the winner. Mick Ferrie Mawnan Smith, Cornwall
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
French brandy and liqueur-maker Remy Cointreau axes sales targets as Trump tariffs bite
The maker of Remy Martin cognac and Cointreau liqueur has become the latest global drinks company to abandon its sales targets in the face of the trade war declared by US president Donald Trump. Paris-listed Remy Cointreau, which has teamed up with The White Lotus actress Aubrey Plaza to promote one of its brands, said that the 2030 goals that it had set out in 2020 were no longer realistic. It blamed tariffs as well as persistently slow US sales. However, the company's shares climbed 4 per cent as it said the worst has passed in terms of sluggish sales. 'We believe this difficult phase is now behind us,' said chief executive Eric Vallat. Its rivals, including Diageo and Pernod Ricard, have also withdrawn their sales targets as the sector endures a sharp slowdown from previous boom years for pricey liquors. But Remy, which makes 70 per cent of its sales from cognac, mostly in the US and China, has suffered more than peers as drinkers in both nations ditch the brandy and both governments have levied tariffs.
