Tag Archives: RAC

What do motorists get from the RAC Approved Buysure dealer scheme?

Would you expect a RAC Approved Buysure dealer to sell a £9000 car with significant safety failings?

caroline_mini_1When Caroline bought a £9000 car from a RAC Approved Buysure dealer in 2014 she didn’t expect things to go wrong.

When they did, almost straight away, involving deficient tyres and brakes, she expected the dealer, the RAC or their 6 month warranty scheme to take care of her.

When none of them did, over time, she was understandably angry.

After joining us she asked us to check this scheme out and tell her story so women drivers like her might learn from her expensive experience.

We needed to be cautious here of course. Knowing that Citizens Advice receive more than 80,000 complaints a year about used cars and the RAC is a big business that trades on its reputation for trust, surely their scheme must be one of the best there is?

Maybe Caroline’s experience was a one off? But could there be flaws to the RAC Approved Buysure vehicle preparation standard where unscrupulous car dealers are concerned?

We decided to take on Caroline’s case and find out how the RAC goes about its Buysure approved used car dealer business.

We started by putting her lengthy story to the RAC for our own peace of mind, giving them time to look at this again and see what they could do for us.

Their brief reply (below & inaccurate about the finances and brakes) made their lack of customer concern clear and contained a sentence that worried us. Their Head of Media Relations told me that…

“…the Buysure scheme does not replace the buyer’s obligation to ensure the car is bought as advertised and they are satisfied about its condition at the time of sale.”

This, in a nutshell remains the essence of Caroline’s predicament. If an RAC Approved Buysure dealer doesn’t have to check that a car is sold as advertised and is satisfied with its condition at the time of sale, how does the RAC police the quality standards it promotes to motorists otherwise?

Put another way, perhaps motorists might be better off paying for a used car check to verify the financial and mechanical state of the car in question? And saving the equivalent of any warranty payment to go towards the cost of repairing any future failings themselves?

In Caroline’s case, she bought her dream £9000 car via the Auto Trader website because it was advertised by a RAC Approved Buysure dealer who confirmed the car had a MOT and had been serviced. On the strength of this she travelled 90 miles there and back to complete a big, important and complicated car transaction on her own (she’s a single Mum). This included Barclays car finance and the part exchange of her much loved 02 Mini before returning to collect her daughter from school. She clearly placed a lot of trust in this dealer and the RAC scheme.

Very soon after she became concerned about the car’s handling and got the Buysure papers out. These included the car’s latest MOT (see below). She then read the service handbook to see the dealer had added the cheapest possible service, simply an oil and filter change. In fact the car hadn’t had a proper service during its life – a fact which the garage in question would have known when they bought this car, cheaply for sure.

So how could any RAC Approved Buysure garage have ticked the 82 point checklist without drawing Caroline’s attention to serious safety deficiencies?

Or better still, without addressing these and having the car re-MOT tested pre-sale?

If Caroline (or any other innocent motorist) had known the £9000 car had these failings and hadn’t been regularly serviced she (and any warranty company surely) would realise that expensive bills lurked around the corner. And go elsewhere.

The RAC Approved Buysure dealer website

The RAC website says

“The RAC Approved Dealer Network has been developed to give motorists confidence and peace of mind.”

“You can purchase your next car with confidence and peace of mind”

But nowhere does the RAC accept responsibility for approved car dealer failings? Which seems odd in an unregulated industry where the actions of a few bad dealers can affect the good reputation of the many?

We then looked at the Buysure Vehicle Preparation standard which seems to a non techie like me to be as thorough as one could be.

Other than the fact this it does not have to list any MOT advisories or that a car has been regularly serviced.

But anyone can write a car check list and badge it accordingly – surely the important thing is that it is policed in some way?

How does the RAC approve their Buysure Dealer network?

We wanted to know how the RAC vet and then police their RAC Approved Buysure dealers, especially the smaller ones. This is what they say.

‘We visit our Approved Dealers at least 6 times a year to check their vehicles are prepared to our standard’

This leaves a lot of room for leeway it seems to me. Some 350 days a year, which is worrying if you are an unscrupulous car dealer using the RAC Approved Buysure scheme as a sign of quality, to lure in unsuspecting motorists like Caroline?

We then looked at the vehicle preparation checklist and documentation. Maybe this was computerised so the RAC could look out for any comments/exceptions that might raise concern? No, these are handwritten forms and we doubt that the RAC sees all of them.

Perhaps it should put a simple system in place to identify exceptions?

Perhaps they should adopt a name and shame policy – or ask us to help here?

Presumably they monitor motorist feedback too? Strangely this didn’t happen re Caroline?

Caroline’s experience of the RAC Approved Buysure scheme

Here is Caroline’s story.

In April 2014 Caroline, a mum with two daughters and living in Norwich, found her dream Mini automatic convertible when car shopping at the Auto Trader website. The car was being sold by RAC Approved Dealer (no longer on their network), Whinbush Garage in Letchworth Garden City.

Caroline was happy because an RAC Approved Dealer was reputable and the car was part of the RAC BuySure scheme including a six month warranty, presumably based on the 82 point vehicle preparation checklist? She raised the car finance she needed from Barclays to complete the £9000 purchase price for her new and shiny silver Mini Convertible automatic.

The salesman had confirmed the car had a recent MOT and had been serviced by them so she felt sufficiently confident about things.

caroline_MOTJust two weeks later she was unhappy about the Mini’s tyre grip in a local car park. At that stage she dug out the paperwork Whinbush had supplied. This contained the scanned MOT certificate stating sdvisories on it. All tyres were clearly in a poor condition and were close to the legal limit. One had a nail in it. (The BuySure Checklist said ‘normal wear’).

She then saw for the first time that Whinbush had indeed ‘serviced’ the car but this was the cheapest variety, namely an oil and filter change. Looking through the service handbook she saw the car had not had a full service at any stage of its history. Undoubtedly Whinbush knew this but failed to tell her.

Caroline got the car checked locally in Norwich to be told the tyres were no longer legal/safe. She bought a complete set of new like-for-like Pirelli runflats for £662. There was no longer any sign of the stated nail. Had the tyre been repaired?

The car was also ‘juddering’ and this was finally identified as the brakes yet Whinbush had ticked ‘Particular attention to the operation of clutch, transmission, steering, suspension and brakes including ABS’ on the Buysure checklist? This bill came to £190.36.

When asked about all this, Whinbush offered to replace the tyres at Caroline’s cost with a cheap Wanly brand she had never heard of. They dismissed the brakes invoice as wear and tear (as did the warranty company) but shouldn’t the RAC Buysure Scheme require safety items to be rectified and re-MOT’d pre sale?

All this time the car had been within a 6 month RAC Warranty, presumably secured because of the RAC certificate confirming the car had been prepared to the RAC 82-point approved preparation standard. We believe Caroline would have been within her reasonable rights to challenge the dealer within the Sale Of Goods Act if only to rectify the safety shortcomings and get a new MOT.

But she didn’t know of this, she was on her own and she trusted and expected the RAC to do the honourable thing by her.

To cut a long story short, Caroline involved as many parties as possible to help her get the car restored to the condition she expected it to be in, for the price she paid.

She wanted the RAC to inspect it, service it and pay for the tyres and brake repair.

The RAC accepted no responsibility despite their Buysure vehicle preparation scheme being a contributory factor here. They simply referred her to their Warranty scheme (operated by The Warranty Group) for the brakes claim knowing this would be dismissed due to their wear and tear terms.

Caroline was able to negotiate a goodwill gesture of £150 from Barclays which they deducted from Whinbush. She also received an ex gratia payment of £150 from a sympathetic lady at The Warranty Group who confirmed they were removing Whinbush from their warranty scheme.

Persevering with the RAC’s unsympathetic Head of Customer Care she was eventually offered a further £362 ‘in full and final settlement’ of any future claim against them. She would then have had the tyres paid for.

But she wanted the RAC to inspect and service her car instead, to give her the peace of mind she expected when she bought the car in the first place. They refused to do this, she felt a nuisance in her dealings with them and this matter is still unresolved.

The costs

Caroline has incurred costs of more than £10300 for the Mini that continues to let her down.

She received a total of £300 in compensation (from Barclays and The Warranty Group) but did not accept the £362 the RAC offered her because she still wants them to inspect and fully service her car instead.

These costs are
+ £9000 for a car that did not meet RAC BuySure vehicle preparation standards.
+ £662 for safety related new runflat tyres
+ £190 for safety-related brake repairs
+ a growing 50 hours of her (and our) time

Caroline has involved Citizens Advice, Trading Standards, the ASA, the Used Car Guy and finally FOXY Lady Drivers Club.

The RAC’s Buysure reply

“The RAC’s BuySure scheme aims to give buyers greater confidence in purchasing cars from RAC approved dealers as vehicles are prepared to the BuySure 82-point standard and come with at least three months’ RAC breakdown and RAC Warranty cover.

As the independent dealer Caroline bought her car from failed to meet its obligations under the BuySure scheme and then did not resolve her issues despite our requests, the RAC terminated its relationship.

However, it is important to understand that the BuySure scheme does not replace the buyer’s obligation to ensure the car is bought as advertised and they are satisfied about its condition at the time of sale.

The law in this kind of situation is clear that a buyer’s recourse is with the dealer who sold the car. Despite this the RAC made a £662 gesture of goodwill over and above its responsibilities to cover the cost of the new tyres. We are therefore very confident that we have done everything that could be reasonably expected of us to help Caroline.

As this still appears to have fallen short of her expectations the remaining options are to engage the government-backed Motor Codes organisation as an independent arbiter or to take action directly against the dealer. In the latter instance, the RAC would be happy to provide supportive evidence to help Caroline’s case.

The brake issue highlighted was declined as an RAC Warranty claim due to the fact it related to wear and tear of brake pads and discs, which are not covered under the terms of the product as they are classed as consumables. This was noticed six months after purchase meaning the wear and tear may have occurred in that time and not been evident to the dealer at the time of sale.

Simon Williams
Media Relations Manager

Our thoughts about the RAC Buysure scheme

1/ As things stand, even if the car is sold by a RAC Approved Buysure dealer, clearly the motorist is expected to check

+ the latest MOT for any serious/safety-related advisories
+ has a service history

If any used car doesn’t have a service history (and we’re talking about a £9000 car here remember) our advice is to WALK AWAY. It doesn’t matter how nice and shiny it is, it will let you down in time and any warranty company will claim a legitimate ‘wear and tear amendment.

The failing in this system is surely that a used car dealer who buys cars without service histories is able to sell them cheap without any innocent motorist realising what this means.

2/ I feel sorry for the many good RAC Approved Buysure dealers who use this marketing scheme in good faith.

If the RAC only audits Approved Dealers c6 times a year they are placing a tremendous trust on their fast growing network of used car dealers to do the right thing by their Buysure scheme during the remaining 350 days a year.

Presumably this is why Simon says ‘a buyer’s recourse is with the dealer who sold the car’ not the RAC?

This is a disappointing caveat emptor attitude for motorists to hear ie when things go wrong, you’re on your own.

In this case the dealer knew the car hadn’t been regularly serviced and failed to draw this to Caroline’s attention. She didn’t know she couldn’t rely on the Buysure scheme here.

Motorists should be able to buy a dream Mini for £9000 and expect reasonable value for money. Let’s remember, that’s all Caroline expected.

3/ Whinbush garage was clearly at fault. They didn’t just infringe the RAC Buysure standards but probably the Sale of Goods Act too.

4/ Warranty companies know that a poorly serviced car equals mechanical claims it will reject under cover of ‘wear and tear’. Maybe regular servicing should be a minimum standard for the cars they underwrite?

5/ Clearly the RAC MUST look at their Buysure scheme again to make sure other motorists don’t fall between the scheme’s cracks like Caroline.

I’d like to think they’d look at their invitation to inspect and service her car again.

Why wouldn’t they do this to give her the ‘confidence and peace of mind’ she expected, as promised, from a RAC Approved Buysure dealer?

And so I could add this as a happy ending to this sad story?


In addition to this post we have since introduced and handed out Red Cards to both Whinbush Garage and the RAC Buysure scheme via our YouTube channel. After sharing this story with James Foxall at Telegraph Cars this was also featured in his column in June which we appreciate.

PS: If you’d like to comment here, please email info@foxyladydrivers.com.

PPS: Simon William’s statement that the RAC made a £662 gesture isn’t accurate. £150 came from Whinbush via Barclays and £150 came from The Warranty Group. Caroline did not accept the £362 from the RAC because she wanted them to inspect and service her car as she’d expected them to have done at the time of handover. And even if she had accepted £662 that merely pays for the tyres she needed to replace the illegal ones. Nor is his statement about Whinbush not knowing the condition of the brakes at sale time – that’s clearly not the case if he’d checked the MOT advisories here.

PPPS: We have since discovered that the RAC Warranty and RAC Dealer network are both run by The Warranty Group (TWG) Isle of Man Ltd. This suggests that dealers are appointed on the basis of their warranty sales potential and as such we do not consider this vested interest to be in the best interest of motorists who, like Caroline, trust a RAC named dealer to carry out rigorous and ethical pre-sales car checks. Knowing now that TWG only check dealers approx 6 times a year, we are not convinced that RAC Approved dealers are necessarily as conscientious or honourable as the RAC name might suggest. Just imagine, when a dealer is not as thorough as they should be, and a warranty claim is denied on the basis of wear and tear, as per Caroline’s experience, who is TWG more likely to support in the circumstances?

If the RAC (who has licensed TWG to provide this motoring service under their name) wishes to address our PPPS concern and/or put us straight here, we’ll publish their response for your information.

Why you must compare used car warranties

car_warrantyWhen you read that the average price of a used car is £9000 you’d probably expect it to be in good condition for that much money.

Surely it’s only when buying cars that are much cheaper ie c£1000 or less that the customer runs the risk of buying a lemon; especially if they don’t do their mechanical homework in advance?

Not necessarily it seems, according to the thousands of used car complaints referred to Citizens Advice every year.

Clearly something isn’t quite right in terms of minimum industry standards or quality control processes when it comes to used car shopping?

Advice re buying a used car

There are ways we can minimise the risk of buying a used car lemon.

1/ We should make sure that used cars are HPI-checked so we know they are financially sound, haven’t been stolen or written off and haven’t been involved in a bodged accident repair. Where in doubt, we should pay for that check ourselves…

2/ We can now check the car’s last MOT online to see what work needs doing, even when the car has passed its MOT.

3/ We should check the car handbook to see when the last car servicing was done and what this entailed. Cars should be serviced once a year as a minimum. If mileage is very low (under 5000m pa) this probably means nothing more expensive than an oil and filter change.

4/ We should always check the condition of tyres on a used car. Tyre tread should be no less than 1.6mm ie the depth of a 20p coin rim. If less than 3mm they need changing and good tyres are expensive to replace.

But when you pay c£9000 or more for a used car it’s surely reasonable to expect a long check list to have been carried out by the dealer before putting a car on sale? Adding a used car warranty to give us peace of mind?

A warranty that reflected the rigour of the dealer’s checklist I’d have thought.

Used car warranty standards

The used car industry standard seems to be a minimum three month warranty in the UK but some dealers do a lot better.

For example, a Ford Approved used car comes with a 12-24 month warranty.

And an Approved BMW comes with a 12 month warranty.

And when it comes to independent used car dealers Safe and Sound ones include a minimum 6 month warranty.

Yet if you buy a used car from RAC Cars, including a ‘used car guarantee’, you may only get a one month warranty?

So obviously you must always compare used car warranties in terms of their length and cover; even when buying from a motoring brand we think we know well, like the RAC.

What happens if the warranty doesn’t cover your claim?

Few motorists know that there is a new Trading Standards Code of Practice for Vehicle Warranty Products, run by Motor Codes. This means that, assuming the warranty provider/product subscribes to this scheme, you can then use Motor Codes’ free conciliation service to check your options if you are unhappy with a decision to turn down a seemingly reasonable claim.

Other information about car warranties…

a/ The Sale of Goods Act is valid for six months after car purchase and may provide cover should you need this, in addition to any shorter dealer warranty.

b/ You have few rights (other than transferable warranties in some cases) when buying from an individual seller rather than a known car dealer.

c/ If you choose a FOXY Lady Approved ie female friendly car dealer you can be sure of a minimum three month warranty. Some offer more.

d/ You could offer to pay extra to upgrade to a 6 or 12 month warranty depending on the value of the car. If the dealer won’t quote reasonable terms to do this, be suspicious!

Clearly no car dealer is going to include a longer warranty than he needs to, but to sell a used car with as little as a one month warranty suggests that the dealer has little faith in the longer term viability of that vehicle!

And where that may be the case, can I please suggest that you look elsewhere and buy on the basis of a well documented ‘approved used car check’ and one of the best dealer warranty products?


PS: By all means email me, info@foxyladydrivers.com, with your experience of used car warranties. We are compiling a FOXY feedback file to identify/recognise those warranty providers that are getting service levels right for Club members. And not all are it seems!

Fuel forecourt fiascos: female vs male drivers

Motorist filling up - close upI’m not at all surprised that men are more likely than women to run out of fuel and to fill up with the wrong sort.

We hear of this happening a lot so if you were to put the wrong fuel ie petrol in a diesel car here is some useful information to help you know what is the best thing to do.

Fuelling the battle of the sexes?

When it comes to the battle of the sexes there are two motoring awards that few men want to win, namely that of running out of fuel and putting the wrong type of fuel in their car.

Yet one in five (23%) – or an estimated 6.6m – UK motorists* admit to having run out of fuel at least once and more than a fifth (ie 22%) more men than women say they have fallen foul of an empty tank.

Of those who were left high and dry after ‘playing fuel roulette’ and losing, the majority ie 61% were men.

Happily, three quarters of us all claim never to have been caught out here, yet once again men are likely to be repeat offenders even if the statistics are small – 6% of men have run out of fuel more than once compared to 4%.

Not just that but research from the RAC** reveals that men are more likely than women to put the wrong type of fuel into their tank on a forecourt with 13% of men saying they have done so in contrast to 8% of women.

Just for the record, last year the RAC dealt with more than 22,000 ‘out of fuel’ incidents and a further 30,000 ‘misfuellings’ on average.

The ‘fuelish’ gender risk

Why do men seem to relish risking running out of fuel more than women? Why are they more likely to fill up with the wrong stuff? Maybe it’s down to their testosterone levels, a strong sense of misplaced confidence (I’m sure I can make it to the next forecourt) or their much reported inability to multi-task (such as adding fuel whilst thinking)? Only joking about the last one guys ;).

One thing is for certain, the number of ‘running out of fuel’ incidents increases when fuel prices are rising, suggesting that too many motorists are trying to make it to the nearest filling station with the lowest prices, regardless of gender.

RAC Technical Director David Bizley reminds us that running out of fuel and misfuelling can be seriously more ‘costly’ mistake to make in the end.

“Running out of fuel can result in motorists being stranded in dangerous places on the road and misfuelling can be very expensive, particularly if a vehicle suffers damage as a result of the wrong fuel being sent around the system.

“More than one in 10 people surveyed say they have run out of fuel on the motorway, putting themselves in a very dangerous situation unnecessarily.

“The best advice is always to ensure you have the right amount of fuel for the journey ahead. If you are on a long motorway journey, it’s a good idea to fill up at the nearest services, rather than risking waiting for the one after, running out completely and ruining your journey.”

Personally I can’t understand why anyone risks running out of fuel. Why not fill up at the right price when the vehicle is half full, not nearly empty? No difference to my fuel bills, just my peace of mind and potentially my road safety too as worrying about fuel levels is bound to affect my driving concentration.


*The one in five (23%) figure based on number of people who admit to running out of fuel once or more has then been extrapolated and based on 29.1m UK drivers (Vehicle Licensing Statistics 2013).

**This research was carried out among 1,463 UK drivers as part of a bespoke RAC Opinion Panel during May 2014.

Female car owners give new meaning to ‘motorhome’

FMOS CAR BOOT 30.jpgAccording to RAC research women increasingly see their car as a social life support system.

Female motorists are seemingly prepared for any social occasion – thanks to their cars, which are increasingly being treated like a ‘handbag on wheels’.

Apparently more than 35% of women admit to having a variety of shoes, clothes and make-up handily stashed in their cars equating to:

+ 4.5m pairs of footwear
+ more than 5m items of clothing 
+ 1m-plus complete sets of makeup

at any one time in the UK.

Although Jimmy Choos and Hunter Wellies may litter some cars, the most popular types of shoe on board are for general use, with work, ‘going out’, sports, sandals or flip flops and flats for driving topping the bill.

And the emotional attachment goes even further with upwards of a third of women (37%) saying they view their vehicle as an extension of their home.

As many as 3.5m female drivers say they regularly apply make-up in the car and nearly half of women (49% compared to 30% of men) have shopping bags and baskets in their boot.

The car is also a ‘life support system’ for women with nearly two thirds (63%) regularly eating while in their car as opposed to a half of men (49%).

Women and men are equally likely to work in their car (11% men vs 10% women), a quarter of each gender often has conversations with a loved-one from their vehicle and there is little in it between the sexes when it comes to changing a baby’s nappy on the backseat (women 6%; men 4%).

Laura Truman of RAC Insurance said: “There are more women than ever driving on the UK’s roads and it is clear that they see their cars as something more than getting them from A to B.

“In this fast-moving world women have to be ready for any occasion and usually want to look their best. Keeping a few pairs of shoes and a lippy in the car means you can go from school run to work and then on to an evening networking or social event without a second thought. However, while this might be super handy for these sorts of days, we really do strongly advise both women and men to keep any personal belongings out of sight and stored in the boot or glove compartment. At no time is this more important than when it comes to valuable mobile technology as this is clearly the kind of thing that thieves will target. The best advice is to avoid leaving anything valuable in the car and if you have to, make sure it is out of sight. Leaving valuables in sight could potentially invalidate a claim for personal possessions so we urge everyone to be extra vigilant. Leaving them on view might attract unwanted attention and result in an unscheduled shopping trip!”

guestblogThis is a Guest Blog supplied by the RAC. The survey in question involved 2,100 motorists and was conducted on rac.co.uk from April-June 2013. With around seven million customers, RAC provides services for private and business motorists including roadside assistance, insurance, vehicle inspections and checks, legal services or up-to-the-minute traffic and travel information.

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.


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.