Tag Archives: Aviva

Women drivers face increased bills if annual MOTs scrapped

FOXY Lady Drivers Club supports today’s research findings that the cost to the UK of scrapping the annual MOT could be as much as £1.5 billion.

Government claims that reducing MOT frequency will also reduce the financial burden on motorists are challenged today in a report which shows the opposite – that proposals to scrap annual testing will hit both motorists and the UK economy hard.

The report by Pro-MOTe is titled “A cost too far” and includes research that the average female motorist would be more than £57 worse off under a less frequent MOT system than she is today.

It also shows that the overall cost to the UK in increased costs of road deaths, injuries and damage, as well as 40,000 lost jobs and reduced tax revenues, will be some £1.44bn.

The research compares costs of the existing 3-1-1 MOT system (where cars over three years are tested every year) with the 4-2-2 system more commonly used elsewhere in Europe (where cars over four years old are tested every two years).  It estimates that under 4-2-2, the average motorist would incur annual SAVINGS of £24.44 a year made up of:
– £20 a year in saved MOT fees
– £3.30 a year in saved personal time
– £1.14 a year in saved fuel costs as a result of fewer visits to a MOT station

But the average motorist would incur annual INCREASES of £81.81 under 4-2-2 from:
– £30.59 in additional repair costs
– £46.05 in additional insurance premiums
– £5.17 in additional fuel costs of £5.17

The research was carried out using data from the DfT and the Treasury, and motor industry sources.  Pro-MOTe is supported by the RAC, AA, road safety campaigners, industry groups and insurance companies to campaign against plans to reduce MOT frequency.

Commenting on the report, Pro-MOTe co-ordinator, Bill Duffy, said:

“This research shows that scrapping annual MOT testing would not only be dangerous but prove very expensive too, to both drivers and taxpayers alike. The Government has suggested that reducing the number of safety tests would reduce the financial burden on motorists.  Yet the truth is exactly the opposite.  Moving to two-yearly tests would mean extra repair costs, extra insurance premiums and extra fuel costs for already hard-pressed motorists. And the cost to the UK economy in lost jobs and higher costs arising from the additional accidents that we would see due to less frequent testing would be significant.”

Hear hear Bill. This is a poorly considered proposition and it’s time it was scrapped. This is also costing road safety, consumer organisations like ours and directly affected motor industry businesses a lot of unnecessary time and money attempting to do this research for our Government.

An interesting and possibly previously ignored dimension here seems to be that insurance companies plan to respond to the scenario of an increased number of unroadworthy cars by raising premiums for us all.   Then motorists would surely hold the Government responsible for another rise in the cost of motoring…

So it’s time to shut the UK’s back door to this proposal now. Heaven knows we all have more productive things to be getting on to benefit not threaten the UK economy and its motor industry.

FOXY

For further information go to the Pro-MOTe website or contact Ed Owen at EdO@pro-mote.org.uk or on 07774 759653. Pro-MOTe was launched in October 2011 to press the Government to drop plans to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The launch report “Dangerous, expensive and unwanted” is available at http://www.pro-mote.org.uk/assets/download/PRO-MOTE_launch_report.pdf

Supporters of the Pro-MOTe campaign include AA, Andrew Page, Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel, Autoglass, Aviva, Brake, British Cycling, Confused.com, Driver’s Edge UK, Euro Car Parts, FOXY Lady Drivers Club, Garage Equipment Association, GEM Motoring Assist, Halfords Autocentres, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation, Kwik Fit, MOTEST, MOT Trade Forum, MOT Club, National Tyre Distributors Association, Parts Alliance, RAC, The Retail Motor Industry Federation, Road Safety Analysis, Road Safety GB, The Scottish Motor Trade Association, Tyre Industry Federation, UNITE.

Dear Justine…

Dear Justine Greening…

We know you have a lot on your plate and you probably didn’t expect to get the transport job in such a hurry but, on behalf of  motoring mums and daughters across the UK, can you please reassure us VERY SOON that the UK will be maintaining its MOT status quo in favour of safer roads in future.

This means saying NO to the EU; opting for the UK’s 3-1-1 MOT model and not the EU’s 4-2-2 version in the face of previous government figures showing that this will cost us lives and ‘000s of jobs.

Just to remind us all, this is what the MOT industry experts are saying to encourage motorists and motor industry colleagues alike to sign the Pro-MOTe petition

Edmund King, AA President
“All too often you spot cars driving with a headlight, tail light or brake light out. The only time many of these drivers do anything about it is when the car goes for an MOT test or if traffic police pull them over. The Government’s idea to extend the MOT test intervals may be portrayed as an olive branch to drivers by reducing the burden on them, but the AA and three-fifths of our members believe it is a false saving which could lead to more expensive repairs later, and that’s before the safety argument. The Government should state that they will not change the frequency of MOTs.”

Jonathan Fox, of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel
“At a time when we have the lowest rate of road deaths in any equivalent developed country, conversely our MOT failure rate has increased by 12% over the last five years. Moving away from our current annual examination to an MOT every two years is misguided and this can only result in even more defective vehicles on our roads than at present. The only conclusion that can be extracted from these poorly thought out proposals is that we see an increase of injuries and deaths on our roads at a time when they have never been safer.”

Nigel Bartram, Senior Motor Underwriting Manager at Aviva
“We believe MOT timings should remain unchanged. The MOT is the only time some vehicles receive any safety checks and maintenance – this applies particularly to older cars which are often driven by younger drivers – and to reduce the frequency of this check could cost lives.”

Julie Townsend, Deputy Chief Executive at Brake, the road safety charity
“As a charity supporting families whose lives are devastated by road death and injury, we are aghast that the Government is proposing such an appalling backwards step. We should be doing everything we can to stop people being killed and injured on roads, to prevent families suffering so terribly, and to reduce the economic burden of these casualties. That means having a robust system to ensure vehicles are roadworthy. Downgrading the system so MOTs are only required every two years is a nonsensical and inhumane policy that would mean many more needless tragedies.”

Martin Gibbs, Policy and Legal Affairs Director, British Cycling
“We would be concerned at any changes to the MOT system that is likely to increase the number of unsafe vehicles on the road. Cyclists, perhaps more than any other road users, rely on the Government to create a safe environment on the road and the MOT system is a key part of that.”

Gareth Kloet, Head of Car Insurance at Confused.com
“Driving is one of the most dangerous things people do on a daily basis. It’s vital that all drivers are doing regular maintenance checks of their vehicle to ensure our roads are kept as safe as possible. Currently, more than a third of the vehicles presented for their first MOT fail the test. Confused.com is passionate about road safety as shockingly, five people are killed and a further 65 are seriously injured on UK roads every day. For us, a yearly MOT is a must. Many may argue that cars are more reliable now than when the test was first introduced in 1960 and as a result, yearly checks are not needed but why take the risk? No amount of car safety or reliability features will make the roads 100% safe and the importance of regular car checks should not be underestimated.”

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Chairman & Managing Director, Euro Car Parts Ltd
“If this crazy proposal is adopted, many millions of motorists will abandon preventative maintenance and drive for up to 2 years with dangerous tyres, brakes, lights etc. The cost to the nation in death, injury, car accidents, breakdowns and increased emissions will be truly massive … all for a measly £15 to £20 annual ‘saving’ per car.”

Steph Savill, Founder of FOXY Lady Drivers Club
“Many women rely on the garage industry alone to keep their cars safe. Not just the ones we own but also the vehicles that other motorists drive. We know from experience that many motorists (male and female) are scrimping on car servicing to save money today so an annual MOT might be the only time a garage professional can spot a potentially dangerous car. On behalf of all motoring mums and daughters we want to be reassured that our cars will be MORE, not less, SAFE on UK roads in future. We are supporting PROMOTE and the UK 3-1-1 MOT model because the 4-2-2 EU MOT version could cost us lives and motor industry jobs.”

Dave Garrett, Chief executive, Garage Equipment Association
“The GEA has an interest in retaining the integrity, quality and consistency of the MOT. Although motor vehicle technology has improved over the years, MOT failure rates remain high, with many vehicles failing their first test because of inefficient brakes and worn tyres. Therefore in order to meet the European object of reducing road deaths by 50% by 2020, the MOT frequency for cars must remain the same at 3-1-1. It may also be advisable to reduce the MOT frequency for Vans to 1-1-1, as many so called “white vans” have covered over 250,000 miles before their first MOT.”

Bill Duffy, Chief Executive of Halfords Autocentres
“Halfords is a friend of the Motorist and we want to help them reduce costs and to travel as safely as possible. We believe that extending the MOT frequency would be bad news for drivers and bad news for road safety and the environment. We know, from the tests at our own garages, that without an annual safety check up millions more cars would be driving in an unroadworthy condition. We also see the financial consequences for drivers who don’t get repair work fixed in a timely manner. It always leads to higher bills later and that isn’t what we want for our customers. There’s no doubt that the MOT test is an affordable and basic component of road safety, protecting road users and pedestrians. It saves lives, keeps people safe and it saves motorists money. We welcome a review of the MOT system to make improvements to help the motorist. But reducing MOT test frequency is a bad move for motorists and society as a whole.”

Brian Spratt, Chief Executive, Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation
“The Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (IAAF), representing manufacturers, importers and wholesale distributors of vehicle components, and independent garages, service centres and MOT stations, welcomes the PRO-MOTE campaign to reject government proposals to reduce the frequency of MOT testing. The IAAF is certain that these proposals will have a serious adverse effect on road safety, the environment, and employment in the independent motor trade, and we can see no merit in the proposals. The IAAF is committed to ensure the effectiveness of the MOT system and its benefit to road users, and will continue to lobby the appropriate authorities and work with other organisations to achieve that end.”

David White, Customer Services Director at Kwik Fit
“A reduction in MOT testing is going to hit many businesses hard, particularly local small and medium-sized companies. The industry as a whole takes on about 10,000 new apprentices every year and it seems inevitable that this will be significantly scaled back if MOT frequency is reduced.”

John Ashton, Director of the MOT Club
“If 4-2-2 is adopted who will check the one million vehicles that hit the market after a three year lease contract, many of which have extremely high mileage?”

Jim Punter Chairman of the MOT Trade Forum
“On average, every day, MOT Testers inspect over 72,000 vehicles to make sure they are safe to drive on the road, and are fully roadworthy. Of these, over 2,200 vehicles are found to have defects, which, Testers consider, render them dangerous to drive. These vehicles are either repaired or scrapped by motorists which ensures that significant numbers of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are avoided every day. Any action on the Government’s part to reduce MOT Test frequency would leave these vehicles uninspected and still in use on the roads despite their dangerous condition. I would urge the Government to seriously re-consider, and abandon this dangerous, unwanted, expensive and irresponsible policy.”

Richard Edy, Director, National Tyre Distribution Association
“The NTDA is proud to support the PRO-MOTE campaign to maintain the current frequency of MOTs. Tyres are safety critical items which constantly wear. It is imperative that they are regularly inspected and properly maintained. Many motorists rely on their annual MOT for the inspection of their tyres, any extension or lengthening of the MOT frequency is likely to have a major impact on road safety and contribute to increased deaths and major injuries on our roads.”

David Bizley, Technical Director, RAC
“The current MOT testing regime has stood the UK in good stead and ensures that there are relatively few accidents directly attributable to unroadworthy vehicles. RAC therefore supports the retention of the current arrangements and is an enthusiastic supporter of PRO-MOTE.”

Richard Owen, Finance & Operations Director of Road safety Analysis
“In our work with the road safety profession we regularly carry out detailed analysis of collision records. It is clear through the statistics that vehicle defects cause a tiny percentage of all crashes with fewer than 2,000 crashes in 2010 attributed to defective vehicles. With less frequent vehicle checks we would undoubtedly see large increases in these types of collisions.”

James Gibson, spokesperson for Road Safety GB
“Road Safety GB is keen to support the PRO-MOTE campaign – the evidence shows that changing the testing regime will reduce safety on our roads. The MOT test has been in place for over forty years, we all know that vehicles have become more reliable in this time but many components still require regular safety checks. An annual check for vehicles over three years old isn’t excessive, especially when we think of drivers who fail to carry out even basic safety checks like checking tyres or lights from one MOT to the next!”

John Ball, RMI MOT Chairman
“Our members’ garages constantly see the worsening state of cars and vans as motorists are cutting back on maintenance. Three-year-old vehicles at first test are also a concern, despite their improved design, with high failure rates on safety critical items like tyres, brakes and lights. What’s more, reducing MOT frequency will add to the financial burden on motorists and undermine thousands of small and medium-sized businesses putting at risk thousands of jobs, including many apprenticeships.”

Douglas Robertson, Chief executive, Scottish Motor Trade Association
“At the SMTA Annual Dinner in November 2010, Scotland’s First Minister, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MSP, publicly supported the SMTA’s opposition to any reduction in the frequency of MOT Testing that may be proposed by the UK government. In welcoming this support the SMTA acknowledged that much work to garner all party support within Scotland and the United Kingdom was still required and that would take place once the UK government’s review proposals were formally made public. Rather than opposing a reduction in testing frequency, the SMTA will be proposing an increase in frequency following confirmation by VOSA that failure rates have increased since the last UK Government Report on MOT Testing in 2008. The SMTA with over 800 members is the leading trade association for the retail motor industry in Scotland.”

David Seward, Chairman, Tyre Industry Federation
“25% of MOT test failures are for tyre-related causes. Putting two years between MOT tests will greatly increase the number of vehicles being driven on unsafe and illegal tyres.”
______________________

Granted the UK MOT industry can do a better job in future but that’s what we should all be concentrating on – making our garage industry a better place for motorists by highlighting all evidence of measurable quality and outing the bad apples that continue to let the good garages down. And not having to spend all our time attempting to fend off a crazy EU proposal that should have been dismissed as such ages ago.

We are sure you understand and appreciate our concerns Justine…

FOXY

Keep the UK MOT and save lives

British women say no to the EU MOT planOn behalf of all women drivers… FOXY Lady Drivers Club is supporting the PRO-MOTE campaign to keep the safer British MOT model in the face of a real EU threat.

The UK MOT industry is seriously threatened by a lesser EU alternative. Despite one in three cars failing their first MOT after just 3 years on our roads and most of us too busy to maintain our cars in between annual tests thereafter, the EU is attempting to impose a regime that tests our cars every other year, starting once they are 4 years old.

Instead of what is known as the UK 3-1-1 model the EU is attempting to sell us their 4-2-2 version yet their roads aren’t as safe as ours. That’s madness.

Which will mean many more unsafe cars on our roads, an increase in accidents as a result (there are illustrative statistics to prove this) and ‘000s of jobs lost in the UK’s motor industry.

After banging on the drum and getting nowhere with protests made by FOXY Lady Drivers Club to our Sussex MP Nick Herbert (and tweets to Philip Hammond who was in charge but just about to change platforms) we now have a new Transport Secretary, Justine Greening. I don’t envy her having to get to grips with this and red herring issues thrown into the mix, like increasing the speed limit on motorways. Whilst VOSA is changing the existing UK MOT model to include other items…

This is the perfect scenario for this BAD CHANGE to come in through the UK’s back door whilst no-one is standing guard, so to speak. In which case, mark my words, the cost of this apathy will be lost British lives on our roads and MOT industry jobs.

Which is why FOXY Lady Drivers Club is supporting the new PRO-MOTE campaign alongside other road safety groups, motoring organisations and industry bodies.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION to show your support and pass it on as a priority.

Please don’t think that others will do the right thing for you. You have to do it for yourself. If not, and the EU MOT model is introduced, the cost could be a life or the job of somebody you know. Because nobody bothered to do the right thing. That includes YOU…

Go on, sign the petition now please!

FOXY

By all means see what I wrote about this earlier when I was canvassing support about the UK MOT model in my blog at confused.com. And see why women need their own motoring club to add their voice here…

Supporting organisations include FOXY Lady Drivers Club, the RAC, the AA, Brake, Aviva, Halfords, Kwik Fit and the Retail Motor Industry Federation.

 

Shopping for car insurance in 2010

This foxy feedback about shopping for car insurance is from Graham Street who runs website design, hosting and consultancy services Streets Ahead in Rustington, West Sussex. His wife Liz is a member of FOXY Lady Drivers Club but as he can use many of our services too, it’s Graham who has done the shopping legwork for his BMW this time.

This is how the story unfolded…

8 October

We’re trawling the car insurance quotes at the moment. For no obvious reason, Swiftcover have increased my BMW insurance by around 20% this year, so we’re looking around. We contacted Adrian Flux and got a cheaper quote but there’s too many things thrown in that we don’t need (courtesy car and ‘rescue everything including Europe’ that we can’t remove) but the Aviva quote was good and bought the cost back a bit.

So far, ‘confused.com’ has the best quote – from Hastings Direct, around 5% cheaper than last year’s Swiftcover. A saving of around £80 on this year’s Swiftcover’s renewal, and that includes a courtesy car. I’ve just emailed Swiftcover asking if they want to negotiate! 🙂

9 October

I’ve been with SwiftCover since 2007 (and Liz since 2008). Maybe they are now clawing back discounts after 3 years. Generally the premiums have remained very similar year on year, until now.

They’ve now replied to me. Their message reads …Unfortunately, we are unable to price match, however we do endeavour to offer the best premiums possible. As a valued customer we would like to take this opportunity to attempt to offer you a more competitive quote. For us to do this, we would need you to provide us with all of the below information selected from our competitors quote.
… so, I’ll now supply that info and we’ll see what happens next.

I was planning to try all the comparison sites, and started with ‘confused’. However, the huge volume of possible companies that came back made me despair and wonder if I could be bothered with the others! Especially since I then had to go in and start adding/subtracting things like legal cover, courtesy cars, and breakdown schemes from each company/policy to try to get a level playing field and do a true compare. I might try the others if I get bored one evening before the renewal date!

10 October

As you know Swiftcover came back to me. I provided the details they required but they have since told me …
‘I have checked the details you have provided against your renewal quote and unfortunately, we are unable to price match, however we do endeavour to offer the best premiums possible. If our price is higher for your vehicle, you can reduce the premium by raising your voluntary excess.’

I tried logging into Swiftcover with another browser (ie not logged onto my account) to see if a straight quote produced the same results as a renewal. It was around £10 more.

I tried ‘comparethemarket’ (I love those ads!) and the results list was very similar to ‘confused’, with Hastings Direct in the top three again (and eSure too) with the price looking very similar to the ‘confused’ list. I used my quote reference and logged into the HD website, to make some more detailed adjustments to the details. Basically it was getting the number of years NCD and the occupations correct. The price dropped another £25-£30. I set a zero voluntary excess (as £50/£100/£150 made little difference), and I get a free courtesy car that I didn’t have before. I still have the legal cover, protected NCD and breakdown options I had previously. The result was I was able to undercut Swiftcover by £100 . So, I’ve gone with Hastings Direct.

Thank you Graham for this feedback and well done for saving £100. That’s well worth the effort – enough to convince me to do a good shop around when the time is right in 2011. It also confirms what I had suspected that in a drive to chase the lowest price motorists are all too keen to drop important cover items without realising what they’ve lost when they make a claim. Such as increasing the excess limit (but not saving much) so that they, not the insurer, end up underwriting their own risk whilst paying a premium for cover that they may not be able to claim the basics under.

You certainly need to be a foxy driver to outfox the many competing insurance quotes out there…

FOXY

Will Aviva do better than Norwich Union?

I just typed ‘how much did the Aviva rebrand cost’ into Google to find that others have been there before me…

The answer is an estimated £12.5 million I am told (sounds too cheap to me…) – that and the cost of laying off some 10k workers which will be blamed on the recession of course.

What a shame that we can’t keep and be proud of a UK brand like Norwich Union rather than feel the need to develop a global brand like so many faceless others.

Perhaps we are getting to a stage where the likes of women drivers are buying the car insurance brand of the many search comparison websites – I do hope not.

Let’s hope Aviva won’t become another ‘gone tomorrow’ brand like Consignia or Arthur Andersen – where a company with a recognised identity and perceived values chucks it all away to get a ‘me-too’ name that doesn’t do the business.

Especially if Aviva then gets muddled with a bus company named Arriva…

Shame really because the name Aviva has an upbeat message! I bet this cost their agency loads to come up with, to include all the strategic values and similar marketing rebranding messages.

I wonder if the £12.5m MarComms campaign will be paid by by future policy holders or out of shareholder dividends?

I wonder if the shareholders were consulted about this – of course not! The reality is that the amount is far too small to worry about on a global stage and the business can presumably demonstrate other economies of scale post recession.

And let’s face it, if the policy price is right, including car insurance for women drivers, we’ll still buy it even if we get the name wrong on occasion.

FOXY

PS: Prior to introducing Aviva, Product Recall Research had shown that when asked to name an insurer, 50% of people asked said Norwich Union, and no one said Aviva. After being prompted, 10% said they recognised the name Aviva, whilst 90% had heard of Norwich Union.

Undaunted, the Company introduced TV ads featuring Bruce Willis, Elle McPherson and Ringo Starr.  Presumably the 10% is rising slowly. More money needed I feel sure…