Car Horne

I am a fan of The Horne Section.  I have seen then twice and Alex spoke to me once when I was on the second row.

I had this advert by them recommended to me:

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with cars - although there is a van in there.

So here's an advert I'm recommending to you:

Unregistered

After yesterdays rather depressing post, this is another one.

Today is September 7th - the UK new car registrations came out last Monday on September 1st.

That's not the depressing bit.

I still haven't seen one.

That's also not the depressing bit - I haven't always remembered to look out for them so they are probably out there.  But when I have remembered to look this week, I'm seeing lots of 25s and 74s but no 75s.

Maybe everyone who buys a car in September usually buys a Land Rover vehicle.

The depressing bit is that nobody cares any more.

When I was a child, albeit a car-mad child, there was much excitement on August 1st when the new registration letter came out.

Wish I could claim the credit for finding that but it was in this other Blog talking about the same thing.  He does it a lot more eloquently than me and garners quite a few comments from like-minded people.

Now we have a system that you have to be a registration plate nerd to understand - at least for the September registrations.  The March ones are not too bad as nowadays, instead of a letter, the new registrations are the actual year - so people could get excited about that, especially if it was the ONLY new registration in the year.  There hasn't been an exciting September one since 2019 - and even then not everyone got the joke.

And, given that September car sales are always lower than March ones, maybe it is time to go back to once a year only - March 1st.

It might put a Spring back into car sales.

The Emperor's new Clothes

Rather depressing news this week.

Autocar have it here.

The Ford Puma, which isn't a real Ford Puma like this one:

...remains top of the UK's top selling cars list.

Like 8 out of the top 10, it is a crossover SUV.  

Obviously being bought in large numbers by people who are not particularly interested in cars or driving.  Only the Corsa and Golf remain in the list representing proper cars.

You can't really blame them, they will be looking for decent value cars that meet their requirements and if the dealerships only have crossovers in the showrooms then people will buy those.  And the dealers only tend to be showing crossovers because manufacturers are concentrating on producing them.  And manufacturers are only producing them because they are selling in big numbers.

And now we're stuck in a depressing spiral.

Interestingly, (slightly) none of the top ten are specifically electric cars - although some are available as electric variants.

Meanwhile, in the Driven section of the latest Top Gear Magazine, where they review new cars to market, 9 out of 12 of the cars reviewed are electric (including an electric Puma) but only 6 are definitely cross-overs (including an electric Puma).  A couple it's difficult to tell...

What about this?

Yes that is a cross-over but is it much taller than this?

I've decided that that one is not a cross-over.

I think cross-overs are getting shorter in height so maybe manufacturers have noticed that, although profitable, they are not very good.

So, based on what's coming - there is a glimmer of hope - but it depends on your idea of what a cross-over actually is.

On the Spectre, Um.

Car+Driver are telling us about the new trio of Rolls Royce Spectre special editions.

Rather confusingly for late August, it's called the Primavera, or "Springtime" collection. It's not like the Chinese don't have Spring at the same time as us - I see them as a bigger market than the Australasians.

It comes in three pastel colours including pink:

It reminds me of something...

No, not that.

Maybe this?

Yes, that's what it reminds me of.

The universally loved Jaguar Type 00.  I'm being sarcastic.

Still it could be worse:

Car Parking Karma

Back in June, the BBC reported about a scam whereby fake QR Code stickers were being placed over real ones in carparks to con motorists into giving away bank details when they thought they were paying for parking.

That sounds like a cheaper way than using genuine parking payments when those payments are operated by Excel Parking.

Here is why.

Basically, they have been widely criticised for charging drivers if they took more than five minutes to pay and demanded thousands of pounds from an 18 year old after she was repeatedly caught out by this rule in Darlington.

It was one of many Excel car parks to stipulate that drivers must pay for their parking within five minutes of entering, as part of its terms and conditions.

But, as she pointed out, it sometimes took longer than five minutes due to poor phone signal and problems with the payment app.  Not her fault.

She initially paid the parking charge notices (PCNs) - which were reduced from £100 to £60 if paid within 14 days - and continued using the car park because she felt it was the safest one as a young woman on her own at night.

She decided to start appealing against the PCNs towards the end of 2022, but Excel still insisted she should pay.

She eventually received a letter, in February 2024, asking her to pay 67 unpaid charges.

Each one was £100, plus a £70 debt collection fee, so the total was £11,390.

Law firm Keidan Harrison later offered to help Miss Robinson free of charge - good on them, glad they got a good mention in the BBC News story.

In March, a hearing was held at Middlesbrough County Court, where she was defended by barrister Seth Kitson.

Mr Kitson argued the £100 penalties were unenforceable as Excel had "no legitimate interest in forcing its users to pay within five minutes".

He also said the five-minute payment rule was "inherently preposterous" - and an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - due to the lack of phone signal in the car park and the time taken to pay by phone.

District judge Janine Richards dismissed Excel Parking's original claim for two PCNs, and also its application to amend the claim so it could pursue 11 PCNs.

She found Excel's "conduct in relation to this litigation was both unreasonable and out of the norm", and therefore ordered the firm to pay the winning party's legal costs of £10,240.10.

Sorry, I've basically just cut-and-pasted from the BBC story there for those who didn't click on the link above.

As she had had free legal representation, the judge made a pro bono costs order, meaning Excel Parking had to pay the money to a charity called the Access to Justice Foundation who presumably help out others in similar situations - maybe against Excel Parking - that would be nice.

But Excel Parking decided to appeal.  That was rejected by another judge.

Excel claimed,

"We stand by our position that the terms of parking are lawful, reasonable, and unambiguous. Persistent breaches of this nature cannot be justified."

That was clearly shown IN COURT not to be the case!

They have now paid. Good. Serves them right.  See how they like it!

They also need to change their name - they do not excel.