logo
Uproar over end of bargain deals for car industry staff

Uproar over end of bargain deals for car industry staff

Yahoo19-03-2025

ECOS requires owners to sell a car back after six months or 6000 miles
The government's plan to end what it has called 'contrived car ownership schemes' has rattled the UK's automotive industry, which forecasts devastating consequences for itself and its workers if this becomes law.
The Employee Car Ownership Scheme (ECOS), which the government intends to end from 6 April 2026, differs from traditional salary sacrifice schemes in that the car is owned by the employee, not the employer.
Operated mainly by car makers and their dealers, ECOS enables an employee to buy a brand new car at a hugely discounted price. Monthly repayment bills are very low, with little or no interest charged.
Under the terms of the arrangement, the employee is required to sell the car back, typically after six months or 6000 miles. It's then replaced by another.
Because the car is owned by the employee and so not deemed a company asset, the employee is not required to pay benefit-in-kind (BIK) tax or national insurance contributions.
As such, the government believes this arrangement is neither legitimate nor fair, despite ECOS users being subject to heavy limitations.
In her Autumn Budget, chancellor Rachel Reeves outlined measures to 'level the playing field' because 'this arrangement means those benefiting don't pay company car tax which other employees pay'.
Speaking to Autocar, manufacturers said they had been given few details on the proposed changes and were still considering the government's plans.
A spokesperson for Stellantis said the group was 'speaking directly to the UK government on the impacts and to understand further details and timings'.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) said the chancellor's announcement had come as a 'complete surprise' after decades of the industry operating ECOS unchallenged.
The SMMT questioned Treasury estimates that taxing ECOS cars as employee benefits would raise £275 million in the 2026-27 tax year and a further £590m over the following three years, because it believes this income would come at the expense of VAT and VED (road tax) on new cars no longer being sold.
Urging the government to reconsider its plans, SMMT CEO Mike Hawes said: 'These schemes are an integral part of the remuneration packages that attract people into the industry and allow employees affordable access to the products they make. They are an important part of the new car market and provide a key source of nearly new vehicles to the used market.
'Removing these schemes would challenge manufacturers' business models, restrict their ability to retain and recruit staff and constrain efforts to decarbonise road transport.
'These [ECOS cars] are new models, reflecting the latest technologies and, as such, are increasingly electric, so to cut off this new and used vehicle supply at exactly the time the industry must drive up EV adoption would be a perverse step.
'Not only would this undermine industry and government net-zero ambitions, it would also be counterproductive to economic growth, actually decreasing government revenues from lost VAT and VED, and hurt working people and their families financially.
'We would urge government to think again about this proposal and support the industry and its workforce at this critical time.'
The SMMT claims that each year, ECOS generates around 150,000 cars for the 'nearly new' market and are a valuable mix of popular vehicles and those, such as EVs, that customers would be wary of buying new.
However, used car valuation experts have disputed the magnitude of the impact that ending ECOS would have on used market supply.
A spokesperson for Cap HPI said: 'It won't have an impact on nearly new volumes. The numbers involved are tiny compared to daily rental. The [ECOS] vehicles are often on very strict mileage and there are strict rules on how long they can be kept.'
Meanwhile, Ed Steele, MD of leading automotive recruitment specialist Steele-Dixon, has predicted that employee recruitment won't be so badly affected by the banning of ECOS.
'Banning the schemes will hamper recruitment, but then if everyone is suffering, I suspect the impact will not be so great,' he said. 'At the moment, the prospect is a worry but not yet a problem, and I'm sure the accountants and lawyers will come up with a solution.
'If they don't, a ban might be a good thing, since 99% of the people I deal with haven't a clue what it costs to pay for your own car. They should know what it's like for those people who do.'
The prospect of a new car every six months on terms significantly better than anyone outside the car industry can enjoy sounds great, doesn't it? Not according to one manufacturer employee in receipt of the benefit.
The employee, who asked not to be identified, has a 1.0-litre hatchback on his firm's ECOS that costs him just £85 per month. He pays no benefit-in-kind tax or national insurance contributions on it and it's replaced every six months.
However, he says there are strict limits as to which model he can order and with which options, and even then, his order can be overruled by the factory and a different specification from the one he requested supplied. He must pay an excess mileage charge if he does more than 6000 miles in the car and any damage it suffers must be repaired by a manufacturer-approved garage whose prices, he says, tend to be higher than elsewhere.
If he puts the car through a car wash, any swirl marks must be polished out at a cost of £80, and a chipped windscreen must be replaced, not repaired.
'The scheme is great in the sense that the car is cheap, and unless I damage the car, I don't have to budget for new tyres or servicing,' the employee said.
'The downsides are that it's quite inflexible and the higher refurbishment and repair costs put many employees with families off the scheme, because of the damage their kids might do to the car's interior.
]]>

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy

Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio

Fact check: 2025 spending review claims
Fact check: 2025 spending review claims

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Fact check: 2025 spending review claims

On Wednesday Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves delivered the Labour Government's first spending review, outlining its spending plans for the next few years. We've taken a look at some of the key claims. How much is spending increasing by? At the start of her speech Ms Reeves announced that 'total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3% a year in real terms'. That headline figure doesn't tell the full story, however. Firstly, 2.3% is the average annual real-terms growth in total departmental budgets between 2023/24 and 2028/29. That means it includes spending changes that have already been implemented, for both the current (2025/26) and previous (2024/25) financial years. The average annual increase between this year and 2028/29 is 1.5%. Therefore, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said, 'most departments will have larger real-terms budgets at the end of the Parliament than the beginning, but in many cases much of that extra cash will have arrived by April'. Secondly, it's worth noting that the 2.3% figure includes both day-to-day (Resource DEL) and investment (Capital DEL) spending. Capital spending (which funds things like infrastructure projects) is increasing by 3.6% a year on average in real terms between 2023/24 and 2029/30, and by 1.8% between 2025/26 and 2029/30. Day-to-day departmental budgets meanwhile are seeing a smaller average annual real-terms increase – of 1.7% between 2023/24 and 2028/29 and 1.2% between 2025/26 and 2028/29. Which departments are the winners and losers? Ms Reeves touted substantial spending increases in some areas (for example, the 3% rise in day-to-day NHS spending in England), but unsurprisingly her statement did not focus on areas where spending will decrease. Changes to Government spending are not uniform across all departments, and alongside increases in spending on things like the NHS, defence and the justice system, a number of Government departments will see their budgets decrease in real terms. Departments facing real-terms reductions in overall and day-to-day spending include the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (this factors in reductions in aid spending announced earlier this year to offset increased defence spending), the Home Office (although the Government says the Home Office's budget grows in real terms if a planned reduction in asylum spending is excluded) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Did the Conservatives leave a '£22 billion black hole'? Ms Reeves made a claim we've heard a number of times since it first surfaced in July 2024 – that the previous Conservative government left a '£22 billion black hole in the public finances'. That figure comes from a Treasury audit that forecast a £22 billion overspend in departmental day-to-day spending in 2024/25, but the extent to which it was unexpected or inherited is disputed. The IFS said last year that some of the pressures the Government claimed contributed to this so-called 'black hole' could have been anticipated, but others did 'indeed seem to be greater than could be discerned from the outside'. An Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) review of its March 2024 forecast found an estimated £9.5 billion of additional spending pressures were known to the Treasury at that point in time, but were not known to the OBR as it prepared its forecast. It's true that this review didn't confirm the £22 billion figure, but it also did not necessarily prove that it was incorrect, because Labour's figure included pressures which were identified after the OBR prepared its forecast and so were beyond the scope of the OBR's review. We've written more about how the Government reached the figure of £22 billion in our explainer on this topic. How big is the increase in NHS appointments? Ms Reeves took the opportunity to congratulate Health Secretary Wes Streeting for delivering 'three-and-a-half million extra' hospital appointments in England. The Government has previously celebrated this as a 'massive increase', particularly in light of its manifesto pledge to deliver an extra two million appointments a year. Ms Reeves' claim was broadly accurate – data published last month shows there were 3.6 million additional appointments between July 2024 and February 2025 compared to the previous year. But importantly that increase is actually smaller than the 4.2 million rise that happened in the equivalent period the year before, under the Conservative government – as data obtained by Full Fact under the Freedom of Information Act and published last month revealed. What do announcements on asylum hotels, policing, nurseries and more mean for the Government's pledges? Ms Reeves made a number of announcements that appear to directly impact the delivery of several pre-existing Labour pledges, many of which we're already monitoring in our Government Tracker. (We'll be updating the tracker to reflect these announcements in due course, and reviewing how we rate progress on pledges as necessary). The Chancellor announced an average increase in 'police spending power' of 2.3% a year in real terms over the course of the review period, which she said was the equivalent of an additional £2 billion. However, as police budgets comprise a mix of central Government funding and local council tax receipts, some of this extra spending is expected to be funded by increases in council tax precepts. Ms Reeves said this funding would help the Government achieve its commitment of 'putting 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables into neighbourhood policing roles in England and Wales', a pledge we're monitoring here. The spending review also includes funding of 'almost £370 million across the next four years to support the Government's commitment to deliver school-based nurseries across England', which Ms Reeves said would help the Government deliver its pledge to have 'a record number of children being school-ready'. The Chancellor also committed to ending the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this Parliament, with an additional £200 million announced to 'accelerate the transformation of the asylum system'. When we looked last month at progress on the Government's pledge to 'end asylum hotels' we said it appeared off track, as figures showed the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was higher at the end of March 2025 than it was when Labour came into Government.

Maserati May Already Be Planning the MC20's Successor
Maserati May Already Be Planning the MC20's Successor

Motor 1

timean hour ago

  • Motor 1

Maserati May Already Be Planning the MC20's Successor

It's wild to think that the Maserati MC20 is already five years old. The car made its official debut in September 2020, and the automaker might already be readying the supercar's successor. Maserati has recently filed a new trademark that sounds like a natural progression of the company's current naming scheme for its supercars. The Italian-based automaker filed a trademark application for " MC25 " to be used on cars and scale model vehicles with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. That seems like the perfect moniker for a new car that would debut this year. However, there's no public indication Maserati is preparing an MC20 successor as the company faces a chaotic industry. Maserati's Difficult Future Sales for the brand were down 57 percent last year , declining from 26,600 cars in 2023 to just 11,300 units in 2024. The brand has also culled its lineup in recent years, discontinuing best-sellers like the Levante and Ghibli, with replacements still a few years away. The company also had to fend off rumors last year that alleged Stellantis was preparing to sell the struggling brand. Stellantis then reiterated its commitment to Maserati in April, confirming that the brand was not for sale . It might not have the resources for a completely new car, but Maserati could easily make some significant upgrades to the MC20 for a new iteration. The automaker previewed what could be possible with the powertrain back in 2023 with the MCXtrema , a track-only super making 730 horsepower from the Nettuno twin-turbocharged 3.0-liter V-6 engine. A new iteration of the car featuring revamped styling, a new name, and other performance upgrades might be in the works. However, we'll have to wait for something official from the company. It has a lot to sort out as it navigates the ever-changing auto industry. Read More Maserati News: You Can Get a Stupid Cheap Maserati From Hertz Maserati Sales Aren't Doing Great Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . Source: US Patent and Trademark Office via CarBuzz Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store