Latest news with #SuzukiSwift
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Automotive
- Otago Daily Times
End of the road for fuel tax
The road is running out for using petrol taxes as the primary way to fund New Zealand's roads. Fuel tax may be simple to administer and penalise gas guzzlers more than granny cars, but change is inevitable. Last year, the government introduced road user charges (RUCs) for the growing fleet of electric vehicles. According to Transport and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, fuel-efficient petrol hybrid vehicles have accelerated from 12,000 in 2015 to more than 350,000 today. Modern petrol cars are also more fuel-efficient than older vehicles. As Mr Bishop said: "It isn't fair to have Kiwis who drive less and who can't afford a fuel-efficient car paying more than people who can afford one and drive more often." In his announcement on Wednesday, Mr Bishop wisely avoided setting firm dates for this "once-in-a-generation change". While legislation could be passed next year, implementing nationwide technology changes will be much more challenging. Nevertheless, the government has signalled 2027 as the target for the system to be "open for business", with third-party providers offering payment services through a consistent approval process. Given the repeated delays in launching a national bus ticketing system and other costly tech failures and setbacks, the 2027 timeline is ambitious. Naturally, concerns have been raised about the administration costs, already a problem with the "clunky" current paper-based RUC system. The government will have to ensure private providers do not embed excessive profits for years to come. Present road user charges for light vehicles are $76 per 1000km, plus a $12 or $13 administration fee. Petrol taxes a litre are about 70c for the National Land Transport Fund (the roads), 6c for ACC, 14c for the Emissions Trading Scheme levy and GST on top. The envisioned system would allow motorists to pay online, like any other bill. Time-of-day or toll-based charges could also be included. Many new vehicles already have the necessary onboard technology. Older cars would likely require added sensors to measure distance and possibly weight. About half of heavy trucks already use electronic devices to calculate location, mileage and RUCs. If the present RUC rates were applied uniformly, they would unfairly penalise small car owners. The "light vehicle" category includes anything under 3500kg, from the top-selling Ford Ranger to the popular compact Suzuki Swift. A Toyota Corolla weighs about 1820kg. Yet, the Ranger takes up more space and causes significantly more road wear. At present, it pays more per kilometre because of higher fuel consumption. Introducing weight-based tiers within the "light vehicle" category would create complexity and anomalies at the margins. Still, the current definition is far too broad. Overhauling any system creates winners and losers, fuelling opposition. Expect robust debate as the details are worked through. Urban drivers stuck in congestion and with low-speed, stop-start driving would benefit, as they travel shorter distances for similar fuel use. Those in hilly areas could also come out ahead. Owners of older, less efficient vehicles may see their overall bills drop. Potential digital surveillance and tracking raise legitimate privacy concerns. It is easy to say that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear. However, the brick-by-brick erosion of civil liberties and democracy in the United States is a cautionary tale about what could happen anywhere. Enforcement will be another challenge. At present, odometer readings at warrants of fitness help ensure a reasonable level of compliance, but some will likely find ways to cheat the new system. Avoiding petrol tax is harder by comparison. The announcement is no surprise. RUCs were floated before the election and included in the National-Act New Zealand coalition agreement. The AA supports the change in principle, acknowledging both its logic and its challenges. These issues must be tackled fairly and effectively along New Zealand's bumpy road to a new way of funding its roads.
The Guardian
04-08-2025
- Automotive
- The Guardian
‘It's a bit strange': the UK factory worker who beat the car lenders in court
Marcus Johnson never expected he would be rushing to a car park during a family holiday in Minehead to discuss a ruling by the highest court in the UK. But the 35-year-old factory worker from Cwmbran in south Wales also had little idea that a loan he took out in 2017 to buy a second-hand Suzuki Swift would place him at the heart of a David v Goliath battle. His case would go on to expose egregious commission practices in the car finance market and lead to a compensation scheme that could cost some of the UK's largest banks and specialist lenders up to £18bn. 'I thought it would be like when you did those PPI claim forms: you were just going to get a few pounds in the bank in a month or two. That's what I expected this to be,' Johnson said. 'I had no idea it would turn into what it has today; I had no idea the impact it would have.' What started as interest in a Facebook advert about potential misselling of car loans led to a three-and-a-half year legal battle escalating to the UK supreme court. On Friday, Johnson's case was the sole one of three consumer complaints left standing, with supreme court judges concerned about his 'unfair' treatment by car lenders. That was due in part to the size of the commission that the lender paid to the car dealer – a quarter of the Suzuki's near-£6,500 price tag – as well as a failure to disclose that a single lender, in this case South Africa's FirstRand, was given first dibs on the contract, rather than it being taken to a panel of lenders to secure the best deal. Johnson admitted he did not read all the documents that the Cardiff dealership gave him about the blue hatchback. But the supreme court questioned whether it was reasonable to expect 'commercially unsophisticated' borrowers to read and understand the terms of the commission buried in reams of fine print. 'It was a very rushed process where they gave me a big box full of paperwork and expected me then to comb through hundreds of pages,' Johnson recalls. 'I felt like they were telling me what I needed to know. I had no idea that they were leaving things out.' Once lawyers explained the terms of his loan, Johnson was floored. 'As all the evidence and all the information was presented, I almost found it unbelievable.' His case, which has dragged through Britain's legal system since November 2022, exposed the complex and symbiotic relationship between lenders, manufacturers and car dealers in the UK's multi-billion pound motor finance industry. Between 80% and 90% of new cars in the UK are now bought using borrowed money, with dealers paying commission to lenders. Had the two other cases bundled with Johnson's claim been upheld, the industry could have faced a massive compensation bill fit to rival the £50bn PPI scandal. Johnson, speaking during a trip to Butlins with his six-year-old daughter, said the entire saga had been stressful at times and pushed him out of his comfort zone. He even gets recognised on the street, thanks to doing TV interviews. 'I'm not shy, but I kind of keep myself to myself, so it's just a bit strange for me.' However, he feels it is a small price to pay to hold lenders to account. He said one car finance company reached out to him in recent months to ask how they could be more transparent with buyers. Johnson is hoping those changes last and that the regulator's new compensation scheme will give money back to consumers who were unknowingly overcharged. 'Hopefully it opens up a way for people in my position to be able to get what they should back. I would definitely do it all again.' Even Andrew Wrench, 61, who lost his case in the same court ruling on Friday, said it was worth the battle. Judges rejected Wrench's case, alongside another filed by nurse Amy Hopcraft, which argued commissions paid to car dealers amounted to bribes, and that dealers should be acting in customers' best financial interests. While it proved a disappointing end to his 26-month court battle, Wrench said family and friends were proud of his work. 'My nephew Billy said 'look, you've highlighted it. You've done the right thing. A lot of people respect you for that, and be proud of what you've achieved, because there are going to be some compensatory packages for consumers.'' While Wrench will not get a payout on that single claim, he acknowledged there could have been sweeping repercussions if his case was upheld. Car lenders have warned that a big compensation bill could push some firms into failure, while others would offer fewer, or more expensive loans, to claw back their losses. That could restrict options for people who relied on credit. Spooked by the warning, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, subsequently launched a failed bid to intervene in the supreme court ruling, and warned judges to avoid handing a 'windfall' to consumers. Reeves later considered overruling the supreme court with retrospective legislation, in order to curb a potential £44bn bill. 'I didn't want anybody to lose jobs. I don't want the economy to be affected. And the Treasury is already in a mess anyway,' Wrench said. 'I wasn't in it for that and I wasn't in it for compensation at all. I was in, from the get-go, [to expose lenders] that were deceitful, dishonest and otherwise.' But Wrench's work is not over. He has one more car finance claim to pursue, and has two other unrelated cases – on mortgage terms and diesel emissions claims – making their way through the courts. In the meantime, he is keeping inspirational figures, such as the underdog lawyer and environmental campaigner Erin Brockovich, in mind. 'She risked everything to take on the big boys.'
Int'l Business Times
04-08-2025
- Automotive
- Int'l Business Times
UK Lenders Face $12 Bn Plus Compensation Bill Despite Court Ruling: Watchdog
British finance firms behind high interest car loans could have to pay out more than nine billion pounds ($12 billion) in compensation despite the country's highest court ruling that most of the controversial deals were lawful, a financial watchdog said Sunday. The Supreme Court on Friday partially overturned judgments that the loans were unlawful, giving relief to banks which had been bracing for compensation claims from millions of car-buyers. It did, however, uphold one of the three cases, which allows the claimant to seek compensation. And in a similar but separate probe, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said that the cost of any redress scheme relating to discretionary commission arrangements for car loans would likely be higher than GBP9 billion. "While there are plausible scenarios which underpin estimates of a total cost as high as GBP18 billion, we do not consider those scenarios to be the most likely and analyst estimates in the midpoint of this range are more plausible," the FCA said in a statement. The FCA estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than GBP950 in compensation. The court ruling had given the FCA "clarity... because we have been looking at what is unfair and, prior to this judgment, there were different interpretations of the law coming from different courts," it said. "It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated," said Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA. The Supreme Court decision mostly overturned Court of Appeal rulings last year that it was unlawful for car dealers to receive a commission on loans without sufficiently informing borrowers. In some cases, the loans -- available from 2007 -- allowed car dealers to offer higher interest rates in return for a bigger commission from banks. The ruling means that dealers have some leeway when arranging loans, without requiring explicit consent from borrowers for terms that may benefit lenders. The case that was upheld involved Marcus Johnson, who in 2017 bought a Suzuki Swift from a car dealer in Cardiff for GBP6,500 including loan costs -- unaware that interest on the loan amount would fund a commission of more than GBP1,600. When the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Johnson, ordering FirstRand Bank, a South African based lender, to refund the commission plus interest, it sparked panic across the finance sector. That ruling was upheld by the top court due to the high level of commission Johnson was charged and the complexity of the contract setting out the fee, which limits the scope of other compensation claims. HSBC bank analysts had suggested before the trial that the total cost to the banking sector could have reached GBP44 billion.
Yahoo
02-08-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
UK top court to rule on multi-billion pound car loan scandal
Britain's highest court will Friday determine whether controversial car loans were unlawful, which could pave the way for millions of motorists to claim billions of pounds in compensation from banks. The loans, made available for 14 years from 2007, incentivised car dealers to offer higher interest rates in return for a bigger commission from banks. The Supreme Court will determine whether to uphold a judgment by the Court of Appeal last year that ruled it was unlawful for car dealers to receive a commission on loans without sufficiently informing borrowers. It is estimated that millions of drivers would be eligible for compensation should the Supreme Court side with borrowers, following its three-day hearing in April. One case involves Marcus Johnson -- who in 2017 bought a Suzuki Swift from a car dealer in Cardiff for £6,500 ($8,560 today) including loan costs -- unaware that interest paid on the loan amount would fund commission of more than £1,600. When the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Johnson, ordering South African lender FirstRand Bank to refund the commission plus interest, it sparked panic across the finance sector. British banks have set aside considerable sums in preparation for the ruling, including Lloyds, which has earmarked nearly £1.2 billion. The total estimated cost for banks varies, but HSBC bank analysts suggested before the trial that it could come to £44 billion. Since then, analysts have revised down the potential exposure of banks, British media reports suggesting a figure of around £11 billion. In the three cases being judged by the Supreme Court, consumers are also facing off against British bank Close Brothers. The Financial Conduct Authority, which banned undisclosed commissions in 2021, could mandate a collective automatic compensation programme should the court sides with borrowers. Analysts said that Britain's Labour government may be concerned about the impact on banks' willingness to provide credit amid economic uncertainty caused by US tariffs and geopolitical unrest. Finance minister Rachel Reeves is reportedly considering changes to the law to limit the banks' exposure. ode-ajb/bcp/jj Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'
A ruling by the UK's most senior judges later has closed down an opportunity for millions of motorists to claim compensation for motor finance mis-selling. The Supreme Court decided not to uphold an earlier ruling which found that hidden commission payments to car dealers were unlawful. However, the ruling left open the possibility of claims for compensation for large commissions that were unfair. The BBC talked to two of the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court, plus a person who is planning to make a claim. 'A really big bag of salt' Marcus Johnson from Cwmbran, Torfaen, was one of the claimants in the landmark case. He described the the outcome as "a bitter pill to swallow", although was awarded just over £1,650 on the grounds that his relationship with the lender was unfair. Marcus said he was "pleased for myself, but not for the hundreds of others" who will now miss out. "It's weird," he said. "It's a win, but it's a really big bag of salt to go with it". He was 27 when he bought a blue Suzuki Swift in 2017, and did not know that the commission had been paid, although the lender said he had signed a document. Soon after passing his driving test in June of that year he walked into a car dealership, and within an hour was driving away in a car he liked, "very excited". It wasn't until threes years later, when he had paid off the finance on the car, that he realised he still had almost the cash price of the car left to pay. It was then he decided to contact lawyers. Had the three claimants won their test cases, it could have opened up lenders to compensation claims totalling about £30bn. As it stands, that bill could shrink to between £5bn and £13bn, according to accountancy and advice firm BDO. 'There's still meat on the bone' Andrew Wrench has been described as "a postman with a penchant for fast cars". He says that description "made me chuckle". The 61-year-old is ex-forces, and also held other positions before becoming a postman, but he is proud to have been described as "the Erin Brockovich of Stoke-on-Trent". He says he is pleased that Marcus was awarded compensation, and that there will be further claims arising from that judgement. "There's still meat on the bone," he says, adding that he is glad he helped throw light on the subject, even though his own case was not successful. "I just want people to be accountable, and I don't want them getting away with being deceitful and dishonest," he adds. "It all comes down to: honesty is the best policy." Andrew's lawyer, Kavon Hussain of Consumer Rights Solicitors, says that the judgement was "a mixed bag", but showed that the Supreme Court expected car dealers to "always be acting in their own interests" and people should not expect a good deal. 'I'm going to chase my claim' Although it has been a mixed result for the claimants in the case, some people are determined to pursue compensation. Some dealers were paid a bigger commission if they sold a higher interest rate on the loan. These were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and were banned by regulators in 2021. Jemma Caffrey, from Blackburn, bought a car in 2009 after maternity leave. Her son was born with certain medical needs, and she wanted a car to get to work and multiple doctor appointments. "I'm going to pursue my claim, but I do feel for the people it's put a stop to," she says. "They won't be compensated and I find that quite sad." Jemma feels she was "taken advantage of as a vulnerable new mum". She trusted the car dealership to give her the best deal it could, and paid a high interest rate for her blue Corsa, which she named "Colin". It was not until years later, having read about car finance in the local press, that she went to a law firm to bring a claim. She now intends to pursue it. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
