Man takes Tesla for WeBuyAnyCar valuation after one year - and price is brutal
Harley Perkins, who shares advice on cars and vans, was left stunned after taking his pride and joy for a valuation - and the price was a lot lower than he was expecting
A motorist was left gobsmacked when he took his one year old Tesla for a valuation, despite having owned the car for only 12 months.
As most drivers are aware, cars depreciate in value as soon as they roll off the showroom floor. Except for rare future classics, many of us face steep depreciation after just a few years.
But how severe is this drop?
One content creator decided to put his Tesla to the test.
YouTuber Harley Perkins, who posts videos about cars, vans and bikes - often offering advice to new drivers on UK roads - decided to see what his Tesla Model Y would fetch at WeBuyAnyCar, reports the Express.
He documented the entire process in a short video that has since gone viral on social media.
Harley explained that after shelling out £52,000 for the electric SUV a year earlier - and clocking less than 15,000 miles - he was intrigued to see what price the car-buying service would offer.
He noted that similar Teslas were listed for around £36,000-£37,000 on AutoTrader before revealing the surprising offer.
In the video, the WeBuyAnyCar inspector told him the car was valued at just £27,132 - nearly half the original price of the American-built EV.
When asked to justify the valuation, the employee explained the Tesla was graded as a 'Grade 2' car. This means it had a few chips or blemishes, as only a 'Grade 1' vehicle is considered to be in perfect showroom condition.
Commenters were left stunned by the valuation so soon after purchase.
WeBuyAnyCar was contacted for a response.
A spectator commented: "Over 2k a month loss, great way to lose money," while another added their two pence with: "F**k mate, that's horrendous."
Doubts were raised by some viewers over the valuation software utilised by the purchasers, and suggestions flew that this significant dip in value might also be linked to the motor being electric.
So there you have it, depreciation sure does bite – reckon your ride might face the same fate?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Labour is losing its mind
Labour is attempting to govern in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. In terms of the geopolitical order, demographics, class relations and technologies this is a period of revolutionary change and political reaction which is sweeping away the old political settlement and its established ideological forms. There is widespread economic insecurity and disaffection. The country's criminal justice system, welfare system, water industry, universities, housing market and armed forces are either impoverished, broken or dysfunctional. Over-regulation stifles initiative and our ability to build. Governance and administration are hamstrung by a state bureaucracy mired in HR regulations, complacency and risk-aversion. Local authorities are bankrupt. Yields on 30-year government bonds are rising as markets lose trust in indebted Western capitalist economies, foremost being the US, Japan and the UK. 'Nothing works' is a common refrain. The political corollary of 'nothing works' is what in France is called dégagisme: clear them out. Confronted with these systemic crises, Labour faces a populist revolt that is gathering energy and confidence. The party's difficulty in understanding populism risks echoing the American army in Vietnam. Its generals were fighting a previous war, incapable of adaptation, intellectual curiosity or revolutionary organisational change. Labour won on an anti-Tory majority not on a pro-Labour coalition, and so it lacks popular consent to govern. It has a large majority but is politically insecure, already u-turning less than a year into office. And because it has no diagnosis of the crises assailing the country it has no political narrative or strategy to guide it in office. What are the obstacles relating to Labour's own politics that stop it taking the country into a new political settlement and how should it overcome them? The obstacles Since the 1990s, the professional and managerial class has surpassed organised labour as the dominant political force within the party. This change has happened in tandem with Labour's loss of the working class vote which in turn has been caused by the disintegration of the industrial working class and organised labour, a process first recognised by Eric Hobsbawm in Marxism Today in September 1978. The dominance of this class and its culture – higher educated, socially liberal, based in the cities and regions of prosperity – replaced the old Labour collectivism with a liberal progressive politics. This enabled New Labour to build a majority coalition in 1997 around aspiration, globalisation, and individual consumer choice. Regional and class inequalities were offset by redistribution via a steadily growing economy. However the party failed to recognise that it was starting to sow the seeds of a populist revolt with its class-based cultural values, its support for high levels of immigration, and failure to recognise the early years of wage stagnation. In 2016, this class along with Labour suffered a profound political defeat when the Remain vote lost in the EU Referendum. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Labour currently lacks a feasible alternative to the class ideology of progressivism and its cultural politics. The party membership is dominated by what the campaigning organisation More in Common describe as 'Progressive Activists', who form under 10 percent of the population. Like the Conservatives, dominated by an aging rentier class, Labour is no longer broadly representative of the voters it seeks to attract, nor is it able to intuit the populist mood of our times, and so forge a winning national cross-class coalition for 2029. The economy and society have profoundly changed since the New Labour years. Progressivism as an ideology and worldview is incapable of responding. And yet Labour has made no radical reassessment of its politics or its political economy, nor has it sought ignited energy but could never lift itself out of the politics of the 1980s. This failure is spread over its 14 years in opposition. The party lacks a diagnosis of the systemic crise and so it has no strategy to match Reform in breaking the political inertia. Instead it has fallen back on a pragmatism of 'what works' and technocratic solutions to systemic crises. These have proved grossly inadequate to the challenges of government. Over this same period, the party did not give thought to renewing the media, intellectual, and policy making infrastructure necessary for its political renewal. Much of it has now disappeared or become ineffective. Successful attempts at fashioning new political and economic settlements, such as in 1979 or, to a lesser degree, in 1997, have all leant on such an infrastructure, yet Labour has allowed it to ossify. Both the government and the PLP find themselves isolated from pluralist cultures of intellectual curiosity, thinking and ideas. How to respond? There is a great deal at stake in resolving Labour's historical predicament. A divided right opens up the prospect of an unloved Labour limping over the line again as part of a progressive coalition. This would only cement the class, cultural and regional divisions in the country. More likely, though, failure in government will mean either Reform or a right-wing coalition wins the next election. And what comes with the failure of a Reform or right-wing government? The stakes are high in a country where disaffection is so great. Farage understands this. But does Labour? There is both deep threat and historic opportunity. Labour is unprepared for either. Some may reject this analysis as too negative, pointing out that Labour has four years to turn things around. But four years to do what? Labour possesses one highly significant advantage which is state power. To use this power with the necessary force requires a strategy and a powerful executive leadership able to overcome the obstacles facing Labour. A political strategy would be based on a two-fold political purpose with different timelines. One part would be geared towards the short-term, building a Labour coalition for the next election. The other part would be longer term, defining a programme for a decade of national reconstruction and social renewal. Each would give definition to the other. Broadly speaking this means restoring Britain's broken social contract between government and citizens and developing an economic analysis and political economy that unites the national interest with the labour interest. This coordinated work must go on inside the government machine, outside in a community of thinking and analysis, and within the PLP. Political choices and policy priorities must directly contribute to this governing narrative. The aim is to build popular consent for a Labour government. The basic elements of a governing narrative already exist. The idea of a social contract has been a constant if irregular expression of Labour's politics both in opposition and in government. It offers the government a potentially powerful story about its national purpose, and provides a catalyst for building a new coalition across class, region, and nation for the 2029 election. However to date the idea has remained unexplained and undeveloped. It has been used to suggest both a liberal social contract and the more radical idea of covenant. Keir Starmer first used the idea of a contract with the country in a speech in Birmingham in 2022, when he called for a contract with the British people, defined by 'security, prosperity and respect'. It was soon dropped. It reappeared in a more covenantal form two years later in January 2024, when he spoke to the Labour and Civil Society summit. Starmer called for a 'social contract' with 'a new focus on those who build the bonds that connect us, the communities that nurture us, and the institutions that support us.' In January 2025, and now Prime Minister, his statement on the murders of the three small girls in Southport acknowledged the loss of a social contract, recognising the growing sense that the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another, the unwritten rules that hold a nation together, 'have in recent years, been ripped apart'. 'More and more people retreating into parallel lives, whether through failures of integration or just a country slowly turning away from itself'. He went on to say, 'We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses, and the British people to play a bigger part; use this to renew the social contract of our nation, the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another.' Economic security is national security but both will require 'a whole society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people'. On February 25th in the House of Commons, responding in a way to this earlier speech, the PM defined the political future of the country as a form of national covenant. He committed the government to stand behind the people of Ukraine. It will require, he said, extremely difficult and painful choices through which the country must find social unity. In March, in a speech on the reform of the state, he accused politicians of 'hiding behind a vast array of quangos, arms-length bodies and regulators' – a 'cottage industry of blockers and checkers'. The state demanded more and more from people as it failed to deliver on its core purpose. And then in May, his statement on immigration reaffirmed this emerging narrative. The PM redefined Labour's view of immigration by describing the Conservatives 'one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that had voted for control'. A country depended upon fair rules and responsibilities, 'the obligations that we owe to one another.' The current system of immigration was threatening to pull the country apart and lead to an 'island of strangers'. To settle in this country, 'is a privilege that is earned, not a right, easier if you make a contribution, if you work, pay in, and help rebuild our country'. A new social contract Instead of shying away from this language Labour needs to explain its social contract and identify the causes of social disintegration and political disaffection which have led to social anomie and the collapse in trust in the government. They extend beyond immigration and include crime and social disorder (including the perception of the contrast between the militant policing of 'online hate crimes' vs burglaries, anti-social behaviour and theft); restoring the visibly decaying public realm; the shortage of decent homes; the porous border of which the boats are a daily reminder; and the perception of asymmetric multiculturalism and 'two-tier justice' in which the elites, associated with identity politics, are perceived to favour minority cultures over the majority culture. The first and essential task is to restore a social contract in order to secure democracy and start to win popular consent for a Labour government. In the longer term, reducing social disaffection and restoring popular trust in our democratic institutions depends on national social and economic developmental growth and the reconstruction of the national economy across the UK. In opposition, Labour defined its economic approach in a series of shifting abstractions and half-formed ideas – the Everyday Economy, Levelling Up, National Missions, Industrial Strategy, Green Prosperity Plan, Plan for Change, Securonomics, then Growth. These culminated in Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves' 2024 Mais Lecture, in which she argued that her economic policies represent a break with the liberal market order and the beginning of a new economic settlement. They herald a 'decade of national renewal' that will shape the institutional architecture of the British economy with the central mission to restore economic growth. Reeves declared that globalisation 'as we know it' has ended. Where things are made and who owns them matters. The economy is rooted in the places people live, and industrial policy should focus on the Everyday Economy that sustains daily life. Entrepreneurial risk taking and workers capacity to move jobs to better their circumstances require economic stability, safety and security. Reeves called her thinking, Securonomics. The development of the national economy is linked to geopolitical strategy, social stability and national security, in order to reconstitute the government's social contract with the people. By the time Labour took office it was trailing behind it a series of priorities, plans and commitments but no clear agreement about its economic thinking. The Everyday Economy quietly disappeared having never been properly developed. Levelling Up was left behind when Lisa Nandy was moved from her brief. The Green Prosperity Plan, stripped of its annual £28bn funding became a vehicle for wishful thinking. No-one spoke about Securonomics. Instead the new government had one answer to Britain's social and economic dilapidation: growth. The 2024 Green Paper Invest 2035 the UKs modern industrial strategy is emphatic: 'growth is the number one mission of this government.' In addition to driving growth nationally, the government will support regional growth, net zero and the UK's economic security and resilience. It identifies eight growth-driving sectors. But as the economist, Andy Haldane has pointed out, in many regions these sectors do not cover 80-90 percent of the workforce, 'especially the poorest areas'. There is no obvious underlying methodology behind choosing so many sectors. Should the government focus effort and resources on areas of comparative advantage or on areas of deprivation? There is no clear answer. Events have overtaken the Green Paper and it is being rewritten. But without undertaking the necessary work, much of this approach will remain in place. The lack of theoretical depth and practical substance to Labour's attempts to reshape its political economy leaves it reliant on the liberal market model which cannot resolve the economic problems the country faces. Compounding this is Labour's commitment to fiscal rules designed to reassure the bond market, and the widely held perception that Labour expends its political energy not on ordinary working people as a whole but on small politically charged subgroups – migrants, benefits claimants, etc. Who then does Labour stand for and who should growth be for? Growth is a precondition for national reconstruction but there are political choices involved in how and where it is generated. The answer must be those who, 10 years ago, Theresa May called 'the just about managing class'. Without their support Labour has little chance of winning in 2029 and therefore limited ability to pursue its agenda. Today the living standards of many in this class are precarious. Working hard does not translate into being better off, and yet they are the workhorse of the economy. Aged around 35-60, their households have the highest proportion of people in jobs and the highest proportion of children. They are a mix of middle and working class (mostly B, C1, C2 and D) who work mostly in the private sector. They are a generation beyond their parents'traditional lower middle and working class ways of life. They feel the loss of these cultures, but they want a better world for their children. Labour should be their natural home but they no longer see a party cast in their image or one which holds their values. They have diminishing confidence in any political party turning the country around. They would give Reform a go without much confidence. To win the support of this large demographic, Labour needs to develop a political economy that will shift the economic balance from wealth extraction to creation and from asset wealth to production, increasing working people's share of national income. It means focusing a new industrial strategy around their economic interests, as well as intervening on their side against those who threaten their economic interests. National economic reconstruction needs to build up the necessary productive power for place-based reindustrialisation, utilising new technologies and AI, investing in our armament production, national defences and so raising per capita GDP across the regions. Regional, social and economic development should prioritise work, skills, and the local places people live. The crucial factors for a thriving national economy are strong local economies and communities. When community subsides, so too does the economy. Government needs to recover its unfinished work in opposition to develop a new approach to political economy. The only viable programme for national reconstruction is a levelling up to radically reduce regional inequality on a similar scale to Germany's rebuilding of East Germany. It will require a radical reform of statecraft asserting national sovereignty, backing our AI and technological innovation, establishing the political primacy of No.10 over the Treasury, and institutionalising a national developmental approach to economic policy under the authority of the PM, and restoring parliamentary democratic power over unaccountable quangos. A Left infrastructure needs rebuilding to provide intellectual thinking, analysis and critical support to help reconnect the governing class to the people, and win the commanding heights of national intellectual life. A Labour narrative about the country must be hopeful and patriotic. It must be covenantal in its political economy, and it must be authentic and heartfelt. The current system is condemning Labour to political failure. The task of political leadership requires an insurgent, radical politics that integrates the theoretical, political and organisational, using concentrated state power to drive forward a national popular politics toward a new political settlement, in a way quite foreign to Labour's recent history. Is it possible? Without it the future will be dark. Related
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Adults being back in the Blue Room is exciting for Rangers
Little wonder then that new Rangers chairman Andrew Cavenagh and vice-chairman Paraag Marathe struck a note of humility rather than hubris as they addressed the media and their public for the first time since their arrival in Glasgow. While some fans may have understandably been eager for the new American owners at Ibrox to proclaim they are here to 'Make Rangers Great Again', the lack of outlandish claims or Trumpian bloviating over the immediate success they can bring to the club may well have been the most interesting aspect of the club's EGM on Monday. Tubthumping may get headlines and get supporters excited, but the Rangers support have been burned before by those who talk a good game with very little to back it up. Rather, the more measured approach of Cavenagh and Marathe actually did more to suggest there is substance behind this regime than the more bullish claims of many which preceded it. The intent to topple Celtic was clear. Cavenagh said as much, but both men couched their ambitions in cautious language and made plain that turning Rangers into a consistently credible competitor for the league title may be a case of gradual evolution, rather than instant American revolution. (Image: Andrew Milligan - PA) And that may well be the most important aspect in which this takeover has somewhat levelled the playing field in the city. Celtic still have the spending power, and a cash reserve to meet anything that Rangers throw at the transfer market. But now, Rangers have the same ability to say no to offers for their assets (it helps now that they actually have assets, too, like Nicolas Raskin and Hamza Igamane) until their asking price is met. To take their time over signings, rather than throwing the proverbial at the wall and hoping something sticks. And to finally, and properly, implement the same sort of trading model that Celtic have made a killing from over the last decade or more. Read more: When this takeover first hit the headlines, the feeling was that it may spark an arms race the likes of which hasn't been seen in Scottish football since those heady, reckless days of the late 90s and early 2000s. Instead, though, what we may be about to witness is a slow-burning battle of wills, with the victor being the club that best executes what should now be a similar model. And it should be said that as Celtic have been doing it with great success for such a long period, they will fancy themselves to be able to stay at least a step or two ahead of their great rivals, making the upcoming season a tantalising prospect. A mischievous Brendan Rodgers had a little fun last term by drawing attention to the number of Rangers managers that he has counted in and counted out during his two spells in charge of Celtic, and he will believe he can add Russell Martin's name to that list of Ibrox infamy. Martin was far from a popular appointment with the Rangers support, but even if things don't start well for the former Scotland defender, it seems vital then that the fans get behind him. Or at the very least, avoid a clamour for his dismissal early on if there are setbacks. Cavenagh and Marathe have, I think, increased the chances of Martin being afforded that patience by dint of their impressive performance on Monday. If the fans weren't readily buying into Martin under his own steam, they have bought into their new board and their judgement, and this will probably aid CEO Patrick Stewart's cause too. The one note of concern from these initial briefings may well have been when Cavenagh made clear that Stewart, who has not found favour among the Rangers support base with some of his early actions, is being solely charged with the day-to-day running of the club. (Image: Andrew Milligan - PA) But I think now, for the first time in a long time, this is a Rangers fanbase willing to at least extend the benefit of any doubt, and if the Cavenagh and Marathe are placing their faith in Martin and Stewart, then the fans may well be minded to do the same. A disciplined, strategic approach is after all the only way to, as Marathe put it, 'build the right foundation and set the club up for sustained success', rather than just giving Celtic the odd bloody nose and nicking the odd trophy. Ironically, the more serious, understated tone struck by Cavanagh and Marathe has probably served to excite the Rangers support all the more about what may lie ahead. These are not only men with a demonstrable track record, but who also give the impression that the adults are back in the Blue Room. Whether that will in fact translate to sustained success and allow Rangers to climb onto the perch Celtic have occupied for so long now remains to be seen. You can bet Celtic will have something to say about that, so in-keeping with the approach favoured by Cavenagh and Marathe, it would be best not to get too carried away. What we can say though is that while it may not be as catchy a slogan as 'Make Rangers Great Again', the initial impressions of both men suggest they may at least be able to make Rangers a serious proposition again, rather than the butt of opposition punchlines. AND ANOTHER THING… How sad it was to hear of the death of John Clark, legendary Lisbon Lion and a man who was in with the bricks at Celtic. Many tributes have been written by those who knew him better as a person and who had seen him play in the flesh, so all I will add is that it has been heartening to see the genuine outpouring of sadness and warm words from fans across the Scottish game, and even from across Glasgow, at the news of his passing. That speaks volumes for Clark as a character and reminds us of a time not so long ago where the fierceness of that rivalry didn't dim the respect that was routinely shown between men who were giants of both clubs. And Clark, despite his humility, was a giant.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is shrinking. What's been cut?
Gone are GOP-led efforts to curb environmental regulations, attempts to restrict federal judges' powers, plans to bulk up immigration enforcement and to cut funding from the federal agency launched to protect American consumers after the 2008 financial crisis. MacDonough determined each item was in violation of a critical Senate rule that prohibit extraneous measures in bills like the one Trump wants on his desk for signature by July 4. What to know: Trump's tax bill has a big week ahead in Washington The loss of these and other items complicates the already difficult endeavor for Republicans who are trying to secure Trump a big second-term win on Capitol Hill. Trump has given Congress the artificial Independence Day deadline to get the legislation passed. But with less than two weeks left until the country's 249th birthday, leadership in both chambers have a near-Herculean task before them if they're going to meet the Republican president's demands. "To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK," Trump wrote in a June 24 Truth Social post. "Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT'S DONE." Environment-related provisions get struck Multiple measures seeking to ease environmental regulations were atop the list of items struck from the bill. MacDonough, the Senate's lead procedural expert since 2012, ruled they were outside the purview of the at-issue legislation because the language doesn't directly affect the federal budget. Provisions that would deem offshore oil and gas projects automatically compliant with the National Environmental Policy Act were among those cut, along with an effort to repeal recent U.S. EPA emission limits for vehicles. The parliamentarian also ruled against forcing the U.S. Postal Service to scrap thousands of electric vehicles and charging equipment. Winners and losers: Who benefits (and who doesn't) in Trump's 'big beautiful' tax bill Trump's critics are urging MacDonough to keep making cuts to the bill. "Democrats continue to show up and fight every provision of this Big, Beautiful Betrayal of a bill, because this bill is an attack on workers and families everywhere," Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. "Democrats will not stand idly by while Republicans attempt to circumvent the rules Immigration enforcement changes a no-go MacDonough also has carved a category of immigration-related provisions out of the Senate Republicans' bill, including a restriction on grant funds for "sanctuary" cities. Also tossed on this front: Increased immigration enforcement powers for state and local authorities, and repeals to Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for non-citizens. What else did the parliamentarian strike? The parliamentarian ruled against the proposed elimination of funds for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created during the Obama administration after the Great Recession to protect "consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices." Republican Senators had kept a House-approved provision restricting federal judges' ability to block government policies, but that effort was dashed during MacDonough's review as well. Democrats are pushing for the removal of a measure that would soften regulations on gun silencers, eliminating the need to register and pay a $200 fee on the equipment. "This change ... would be catastrophic to public safety and greatly impede law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe," a group of House Democrats wrote in a letter to Senate Republicans. States to shoulder some SNAP costs after all Republicans' House-passed bill had included a measure that would shift some food aid costs onto states. MacDonough had ruled initially that the changes to the SNAP program - long known as "Food Stamps" - did not comply with Senate rules. But she gave Republicans the green light on June 24 after they some tweaking to the language that included giving states additional buffers before they have to start paying into the program. The reversal is great news for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, who is working to corral colleagues concerned about too much federal government spending. The SNAP reform is expected to save billions and help offset revenue lost from an extension of Trump's first-term tax cuts. "I am confident we will get this bill across the finish line," Thune wrote in a June 23 opinion piece. Tough news for Trump's agenda Legislation typically requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Otherwise, the minority party can mount a filibuster and sink the bill. An exception to the rule: Reconciliation. Under this complicated process, the Senate majority can avoid filibuster threats with a simple 51-vote majority, in exchange for meeting strict criteria that prohibits anything not directly related to the federal budget. Under these conditions, MacDonough, the Senate's first female nonpartisan rule keeper, has found multiple provisions within the massive tax bill in violation. Results of the fat-trimming process, known as the "Byrd Bath" in Senate lingo in honor of the late-Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, means Trump and Republicans will have to find another way to achieve several of the president's legislative priorities. That could mean negotiating with Democrats, a tricky task in the hyper-partisan legislature. In the meantime, Thune must find a way to get the majority of his members behind Trump's slimmer megabill. Contributing: Zac Anderson, USA TODAY; Reuters
