Tanak handed five minute penalty and suspended points deduction
Stewards reported that the Estonian stopped for tyre checking as directed at the end of Friday's stage seven but then accelerated abruptly before being given the signal to depart.
The car's front bumper struck a scrutineer, who suffered minor injuries.
Tanak was ruled to be in breach of the International Automobile Federation's sporting code regarding unsafe conduct, failure to follow scrutineer instructions, and misconduct.
The time penalty dropped the driver to 29th overall in Finland, with the rally finishing on Sunday.
The www.wrc.com, opens new tab website reported that Tanak had apologised and told a hearing on Friday evening that his car had cooling problems after he hit a tree on the seventh stage and he had wanted to keep the car moving to avoid overheating.
Tanak is one point clear of Toyota's Elfyn Evans in the championship.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Tesla whistleblower and the cost of taking on Elon Musk
In November 2022, a whistleblower contacted investigative journalist Sönke Iwersen. He could not give his name, he said, but he had access to huge amounts of data about Tesla, his former employer: private phone numbers, social security information, bank statements, documents stamped 'top secret', and much, much more. It could not be real, Iwersen thought – his editor at the German newspaper Handelsblatt agreed. Still, he tells Helen Pidd, they kept digging. It was the start of a years-long investigation into Tesla, and a years-long relationship with the whistleblower, too. Here, he shares what he learned – not only exposing serious safety concerns about Tesla's famed autopilot, but giving a glimpse into the company culture under the leadership of Elon Musk, the world's richest man. 'Narcissism', says Iwersen. His book detailing it all, The Tesla Files, written with fellow journalist Michael Verfürden, is out now.
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
Martin Lewis reveals who is due for car finance compensation - and how much they'll get
Martin Lewis says motorists who were mis-sold car finance are likely to receive "hundreds, not thousands of pounds" - with regulators launching a consultation on a new compensation scheme. The founder of believes it is "very likely" that about 40% of Britons who entered personal contact purchase or hire purchase agreements between 2007 and 2021 will be eligible for payouts. "Discretionary commission arrangements" saw brokers and dealers charge higher levels of interest so they could receive more commission, without telling consumers. Speaking to Sky News Radio's Faye Rowlands, Lewis said: "Very rarely will it be thousands of pounds unless you have more than one car finance deal. "So up to about a maximum of £950 per car finance deal where you are due compensation." Lewis explained that consumers who believe they may have been affected should check whether they had a discretionary commission arrangement by writing to their car finance company. However, the personal finance guru warned against using a claims firm. "They're hardly going to do anything for you and you might get the money paid to you automatically anyway, in which case you're giving them 30% for nothing," he added. 1:13 Yesterday, the Financial Conduct Authority said its review of the past use of motor finance "has shown that many firms were not complying with the law or our disclosure rules that were in force when they sold loans to consumers". The FCA's statement added that those affected "should be appropriately compensated in an orderly, consistent and efficient way". Lewis told Sky News that the consultation will launch in October - and will take six weeks. "We expect payouts to come in 2026, assuming this will happen and it's very likely to happen," he said. "As for exactly how will work, it hasn't decided yet. Firms will have to contact people, although there is an issue about them having destroyed some of the data for older claims." He believes claims will either be paid automatically - or affected consumers will need to opt in and apply to get compensation back. What motorists should do next The FCA says you may be affected if you bought a car under a finance scheme, including hire purchase agreements, before 28 January 2021. Anyone who has already complained does not need to do anything. The authority added: "Consumers concerned that they were not told about commission, and who think they may have paid too much for the finance, should complain now". Its website advises drivers to complain to their finance provider first. If you're unhappy with the response, you can then contact the Financial Ombudsman. Any compensation scheme will be easy to participate in, without drivers needing to use a claims management company or law firm. The FCA has warned motorists that doing so could end up costing you 30% of any compensation in fees. The FCA estimates the cost of any scheme - including compensation and administrative costs - to be no lower than £9bn. But in a video on X, Lewis said that millions of people are likely to be due a share of up to £18bn.
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Rip up the benefits system and start again
As a fan of Jeremy Clarkson's writing I asked ChatGPT to compose, 'in the style of Jeremy Clarkson', some thoughts on a monstrosity reported often enough in this newspaper: the state-funded Motability scheme. AI's Clarkson impersonation began. 'Disabled? Have a BMW on me.' Sharp and amusing; but not what I want to say. You cannot (I maintain) get to grips with where state assistance has ended up without getting to grips with where it started. My column takes the Motability scheme as an illustration of this wider argument. Let me set out how we got to a situation in which one fifth of all new car sales in Britain are Motability cars, and disabled claimants whose conditions range from acne to neurodiversity may indeed get all or part of the cost of a new car that is replaceable every three years. Outrageous? Well, I think so. But we got here by a series of 'if — then' judgments, each of which has seemed fair and rational at the time. Read on, and tell me which was a misstep … • Just 900 people on top-level benefits joined work coach scheme in June We start just after the end of the Second World War, from which many servicemen returned disabled. The Labour government hit upon what became known as the Invacar (older readers may remember those weird little one-person, pale blue three-wheelers) for those war-wounded who could neither walk easily nor afford a conventional private car. Fair enough, don't you think? Invacar production continued for decades as governments of both parties introduced disability benefits for those who struggled to get about; and whether a disability stemmed from war service or some other cause seemed irrelevant. A system of disability benefits evolved which entitled all seriously mobility-impaired claimants access to an Invacar. Fair enough, don't you think? But the Invacar was dangerously unstable, underpowered and could take no passengers. What if a disabled mum wanted to take her toddler with her? The mobility allowance that was introduced in 1976 started at £5 per week (more than £40 at today's prices) and has crept up to the present rate for 'enhanced' impairment to mobility: £77.05. Naturally, many claimants entitled to these regular extra benefits have wanted to use the money to get a proper car. Fair enough, don't you think? • Artist misled NHS about disability when seeking £3m payout So the government arranged for a company to be set up. Motability Operations Ltd deploys claimants' benefits to lease cars for them. Using economies of scale and financed by the individual's benefits, it gets a better deal with a simpler process than a claimant could manage individually. It oils the wheels and costs the taxpayer nothing. If the whole Motability scheme were abolished tomorrow, there would be no saving for the taxpayer. The mobility-impaired would still get the same benefits, but if they wanted a car they would have to make their own arrangements, probably on worse terms than the company can get them. Fair enough, don't you think? So here we are today. The company operates the largest fleet in Europe, spending almost £3 billion of taxpayers' money last year on car leases, insurance and breakdown cover. TikTok influencers boast about how you can get a new car virtually free; online critics mock a scheme to benefit 'bed-wetting boy-racers'; the benefit is available for acquiring even BMWs and Ford Mustangs; complaints abound about Motability cars' use for purposes beyond transporting the disabled; and The Times reports that the 'scheme now has vast eligibility, allowing people with anxiety, dyslexia, severe acne and Munchausen syndrome to claim. Hundreds of thousands of people receive the enhanced mobility award on Pip (personal independence payment) for mental health conditions, learning difficulties and skin conditions to get around.' Few across the whole political spectrum would fail to be disturbed. We on the right speak of 'the bloated state'. We talk about trimming, snipping, pruning, reforming, cutting back. But how? Reduce the benefits? That hits even the most appallingly impaired claimants. Stop the misuse of Motability cars for purposes unrelated to disability? How? Fitting vehicles with transponders would be impossible. Oblige owners to have the Motability logo painted in large letters on the side of their cars? Invite neighbours to squeal, or make DWP swoops? Cries of 'shaming' or 'Stalinist' would fill the air. So how about removing mental problems as a qualifying disability? But the most common, from autism to anxiety to depression may in severe cases be genuinely confining without a car. • Pensions sector seeks Gen Z talent amid recruitment challenges I've zeroed in on Motability only as a parable for the expanding reach and ballooning cost of benefits right across our welfare state. I read, for instance, that the Welsh government is introducing a prepaid subsidy card for those whose food intolerances add to their food costs. Things are spinning out of control. Indignant at manifest abuse, we call for a 'crackdown on scroungers'. We argue that the welfare state should 'sharpen its focus' so that it can 'address genuine need' and exclude 'the undeserving'. Yes, the undeserving predictably muscle in, and whenever the government gives there will be scroungers among those who take. But the core problem is not the undeserving but the deserving. The weight of their numbers and the burden of meeting their entitlements is in danger of toppling the whole economy supporting them. Kemi Badenoch was right to say last month that it's 'not about cutting bits of the state' or 'top slicing' spending. 'It's about looking at what the state does; why it does it.' I take my triple-locked state pension and concessionary travel pass, though I could easily manage without. But even as every such snipping around the edges dies in the Commons voting lobbies or falls victim to second thoughts at No 10, we still shrink from the alternative: abandoning the pruning shears and pulling things up by the roots. The scandal is that there is no scandal. Though cheating, gaming the system and over-claiming do exist, they're not the root of the problem. The root is that the state has taken on responsibilities it should not bear. Governments have tried to level the ups and downs with which time and fate may curse or bless any human being, but we cannot level that landscape; and even if we could, we wouldn't like the result. We cannot entitle everyone to compensation for their difficulties. Entitlement has crept, step by understandable step, too far. Hearts must harden. But I'm convinced that our fellow citizens are not yet ready for this. Your choice and mine, therefore, is between joining the bandwagon as it careers towards the abyss or adding our voices to a small chorus doomed to be drowned out until after the crash.
