A414 Ongar Road near Writtle is closed after collision
Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
Cornwall mum 'could be alive' if older driver rules changed
Claire Eady believes that if the rules for older drivers were different her mum would still be here summer 79-year-old Geraldine Gibson died after pulling out into oncoming traffic near her home in Cornwall."I never thought I would have to say the words 'my mum's been killed in a car crash'," said Mrs Eady, who said regulations for drivers over the age of 70 were "unsafe and inadequate" and needed an the moment there is no upper age limit for driving in the UK, with around 500 licence holders aged between 100 and government said it was committed to improving road safety. Mrs Gibson was trying to cross the A30 at Plusha near Launceston to meet a friend when she pulled into the path of another inquest heard there was nothing the other driver, who suffered minor injuries, could have done to avoid Highways told the hearing the junction had since been altered after other accidents but Mrs Eady, from West Sussex, said older age was "absolutely a factor" in her mother's learned her mother was struggling to manoeuvre beforehand and had a separate Eady said she believed arthritis and an earlier stroke may also have affected her mum's driving."I don't think my mum ever would have thought she needed to stop driving because there were too many things that depended on her being out in a car," she have a legal responsibility to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) of conditions affecting their fitness to drive, but Mrs Eady said this felt insufficient."You can't really rely on the individual to do that... especially if it's their only way of getting out," she said she would like medical professionals to be legally required to notify authorities and for there to be mandatory testing for those over 70. What are the current rules regarding older drivers?Drivers must renew their licence aged 70 and every three years thereafterThere is no upper age limit for driving in the UK, with about 500 licence holders aged between 100 and 108Drivers have a legal responsibility to self-declare medical conditions that could affect driving to the DVLAGuidance by the DVLA states health professionals should inform the agency if a patient cannot or will not, but it is not a legal requirement As the UK population ages, the number of older drivers is also increasing, with licence holders aged 70 and over going up by about 200,000 a year, according to the of Transport statistics show older drivers make up about 14% of all licence holders but account for a quarter of those killed on the roads, and that people aged over 75 and under 25 are at highest risk of being killed or seriously hurt in a Heard from the Older Drivers Forum, which supports motorists to continue driving safely for longer, said the "vast majority of older drivers have a wealth of experience, confidence and tolerance".But he added: "As we age, our relative frailty means that older drivers are often over represented in serious injury collisions, particularly for the age group of 80 and above." Mr Heard said elderly drivers were more likely to crash due to illness or errors in judgement, while accidents involving younger drivers were more likely through speed or taking said he supported mandatory referrals of medical conditions by health professionals and advised concerned family members to encourage mature driver BBC has had exclusive access to a report, which said many people were "unaware" of their legal obligation to inform the DVLA of certain medical conditions and health professionals were "reluctant to" do research, prepared for a coroner in April, showed less than 10% of DVLA notifications were made by medical professionals and other third parties. The report's author, Dr Carol Hawley, research fellow at the University of Warwick, said the system "does need to change".She said her research suggested there was underreporting of visual and medical conditions "because there are not that many notifications compared to the number of driving licence holders and the number of people that have those conditions".Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the college would welcome a more formalised approach "to ensure that any necessary breaches of doctor-patient confidentiality are protected in law and avoid undermining patient trust".The Association of Optometrists and The College of Optometrists said they "strongly support" the introduction of regular mandatory vision checks for all drivers and said the current system was "not fit for purpose". Elsewhere in Cornwall, Hilary Nias said she "feels very strongly" that change is needed, following her sister-in-law's fatal accident."It was a tragic end to a really interesting life," she said, adding family had repeatedly warned her that her driving was Nias, 90, pulled out onto the A39 at Devoran and crashed onto a roundabout when she mistook the accelerator pedal for the died from her injuries five months later. Mrs Nias said her sister-in-law could "only just" see over the dashboard and was having problems with spatial awareness. "That needed testing and assessing... it could possibly have avoided my sister-in-law's ghastly accident - and many others," she Nias applied for her driving licence to be renewed within the three years before her accident and no medical conditions were her inquest Emma Hillson, assistant coroner for Cornwall, wrote to the Department of Transport and the DVLA, highlighting the lack of any "requirement for there to be any form of medical check or assessment to confirm fitness to drive".Mrs Nias said she was "frankly depressed" by the response, which did not suggest any changes to the current system. There is a higher proportion of elderly people in the South West of England than the national average, and some here see driving as a Bodmin, 130 older people meet weekly at the town hall at an Age Concern social group. Some drive to get Reg Harris, 85, said giving up driving would "absolutely crucify" his Trevenna, 88, added: "I wouldn't be able to get anywhere, do anything... I'd just as well sit in the armchair and wait to die."Drivers can refer themselves for an older driving assessment by Driving Mobility at a cost, but referrals from the DVLA, police or NHS are free. The charity said more than 10,000 people aged over 70 in England underwent one in 2024 - 0.2% of drivers of that age. The local road safety partnership Vision Zero South West wants more public awareness as well as tighter said 176 drivers aged over 60 were killed or seriously injured on Cornwall and Devon's road network in Alison Hernandez said: "We want to protect people's lives because it is absolutely devastating when this happens to people and their families."Asked what could be done to support older drivers who felt they had no choice but to carry on because public transport often was not good enough in rural areas, Hernandez said her office was planning to run a campaign "to educate older drivers on how they can be at their best behind the wheel". The government told the BBC the DVLA was analysing findings from recent inquests, and from a 2023 call for evidence on the legislative framework governing driver licensing for people with medical said the DVLA would continue to engage with healthcare professionals and their regulatory bodies to understand if there may be circumstances where they "could be encouraged or supported in notifying DVLA of a patient's medical condition".A Department for Transport spokesperson added: "The NHS recommends adults should have their eyes tested every two years and drivers are legally required to inform the DVLA if they have a condition which affects their ability to drive. "We are committed to improving road safety and continue to explore ways to achieve this."Additional reporting by Lauren Woodhead, England Data Unit
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court to rule on motor finance compensation row
The Supreme Court is to rule on Friday on whether millions of motorists could be entitled to compensation on their hire-purchase agreements. In October last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that 'secret' commission payments to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The court found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, had not been told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them, and should receive compensation. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, took the row to the Supreme Court, telling a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error'. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also intervened in the case, telling the UK's highest court that the Court of Appeal ruling 'goes too far', while the three motorists oppose the challenge. Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen are due to hand down their ruling at 4.35pm on Friday. The outcome of the ruling could have major consequences for the industry, with the FCA telling the Supreme Court last year that almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled that the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission, as there was 'no disclosure' of the commission payments in Ms Hopcraft's case, and 'insufficient disclosure' in the case of Mr Wrench. In Mr Johnson's case, the judges found that he had received 'insufficient disclosure' about the commission to give 'fully informed consent' to the payment. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice' as enough to properly inform a motorist about the commission. If justices dismiss the challenge, it is unclear how many people could be entitled to compensation. If they side with the lenders, then it is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. The FCA has said it will confirm within six weeks of the judgment whether it is planning to launch a redress scheme.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Car finance: What is the court case about and what does it mean for me?
The UK's Supreme Court will give a long-waited judgment in relation to the car finance commission saga on Friday. It is set to bring clarity over how the law should be applied to motor finance arrangements following a Court of Appeal decision last October. The ruling will have much wider ramifications for the industry, and the financial services sector, and could mean millions of motorists are due compensation as a result. Here, the PA news agency looks at the potential impact of the decision on consumers, lenders, and the wider car finance market. – What is the background to the court case? The Supreme Court – the UK's highest court – is considering an appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling made in October last year, relating to three claimants who had each bought cars on credit. In each case, the car dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them – which the three claimants argued they did not know about. The Court of Appeal found that 'secret' commission payments, as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, are challenging that decision. – Why is this court case so important? Wayne Gibbard, who leads the automotive finance practice at law firm Shoosmiths, said Friday's Supreme Court decision will be 'absolutely fundamental to what happens next' for the sector. He said it will inform the scale of potential compensation for customers, which will be overseen by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA previously said that, if it thinks there was widespread harm to consumers as a result of commission payments, then it could set up an industry-wide redress scheme. It said it will confirm within six weeks of the Supreme Court judgment whether it is planning to launch such a scheme. Mr Gibbard stressed that this response will be particularly important going forward. He said: ' People can make an informed decision – the query is around their harm, have they been mis-sold something? 'And I think that's been absent in the conversation.' – What does it mean for consumers? If Supreme Court judges side with the claimants then it could mean that many people who took out a car loan before 2021 may be due a payout, although it is difficult to say at this point how many. If it sides with the lenders, then it is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. However, the FCA is still looking at compensation for potential mis-selling of some types of motor finance arrangements – known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) – so this could go ahead regardless. – Does it mean I am entitled to compensation? If the FCA decides to proceed with a redress scheme, it is likely to clarify what type of motor finance arrangements it applies to – and potentially include all deals where people were not told clearly enough, or at all, that the car dealer was receiving commission. A scheme is intended to be simpler for consumers than making a direct complaint to providers. The watchdog said it would expect 'fewer consumers to rely on a claims management company, meaning they would keep all of any compensation they receive' and would be 'more orderly and efficient for firms than a complaint-led approach'. Mahesh Vara, a legal director for Shoosmiths, said a decision that secret commission payments were unlawful would 'naturally be a boon to claimants firms and consumers'. 'I think this is one of the first large-scale consumer mis-selling 'scandals' of the social media digital age,' he said. 'It's now leading to a greater expectation of there being almost a guaranteed payment. That is what the FCA will have to consider.' Adverts from claims management companies have sprung up significantly in the lead up to the court decision – but some regulators have been warning against using them as people may be charged for a service they ultimately do not need. – What could it mean for the wider industry? About 80% of new cars are bought using motor finance in the UK – so the decision could have major consequences for this industry. Mr Gibbard said: 'The FCA has got to make sure the market is stabilised – this is the second biggest credit market outside of mortgages. 'This is more than provision of credit – this is people getting to work, taking somebody to hospital, taking the kids to the playground – so this is a real facilitator for the economy. 'I think there is a risk, but everybody is so acutely aware of that risk so hopefully it won't have that disruptive effect.' Mr Gibbard also said a decision could have 'far-reaching consequences' with other parts of the financial services sector also potentially coming under pressure for commission payments on loans.
