|
Just purchased an electric EV, at I thought a bargin price, waiting for home charger to be fitted so went to my local supermarket to charge, there for 63min and got a £40 PCN. On 6pm local news it was announced increase in Dartord tolls, and a "spokesperson" said they want to discourgage drivers from using the crossing. Greenwich council intoroduced traffic bans on some roads dureing ceratain periods, generated £2m in penalties in 5 months.
Tonight the RMT announced a series of strikes in their demand for a 32 hour week, as the poor darlings are stressed by early hours and shift work.
Welcome to rip off britain with gov leading the charge
|
I’m not getting involved with the rest of your post, but I will say of the PCN, ‘been there, done that’.
Gateshead Retail Park, DFS’ car park. Arrived at about 07:30 and charged for about 40 minutes. I’m not blaming anyone but myself as it transpires that there are abundant signs saying that before 10:00 there’s a maximum stay of 10 minutes. £60 PCN.
|
|
Charging a car is not parking, you are refuelling a vehicle. The charging bays are also usually leased to the charging company so fall outside of the parking regime for the car park.
A little time and effort and there is no need to pay.
There is also a Government consultation running, but it is only live for the next couple of days
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-code-of-practice.
The whole form is long and complicated, but no need to fill it all in. Just find a question where it asks for any other information and provide details of how you were charging an EV and yet received an invoice.
|
A 21 plate Mercedes eSprinter has appeared at work today, tasked with replacing the workshops 66 plate Ford Transit diesel breakdown response vehicle - aka, the Greggs van.
My first thoughts were that it would never save money when considering the workshop hack really only nips to the local bakers for pies and pastries for our ever hungry mechanics and to the occasional breakdown. The price paid must’ve been fairly hefty for a tidy 4yr old Sprinter, surely it would never cover itself? List prices of electric vans are insane when new, upwards of £60/£70k!
Imagine the roasting the fleet manage who originally ordered these things must’ve had when they came to sell on. We paid less than £8k plus vat. A Quick Look online shows that used electric vans are hugely cheaper than equivalent diesels.
Only time will tell if it’ll work out in its intended role. I certainly wouldn’t want to be waiting on rescue with a broken down coach a couple of hundred miles away when the driver who brought the van up from down south said he only managed to get 90 odd miles from it sitting at around 60mph. You can see why values have gone through the floor. But at that money it is a bargain. A decent electric van can be bought for proper diesel van banger money.
|
A 21 plate Mercedes eSprinter has appeared at work today, tasked with replacing the workshops 66 plate Ford Transit diesel breakdown response vehicle - aka, the Greggs van. My first thoughts were that it would never save money when considering the workshop hack really only nips to the local bakers for pies and pastries for our ever hungry mechanics and to the occasional breakdown. The price paid must’ve been fairly hefty for a tidy 4yr old Sprinter, surely it would never cover itself? List prices of electric vans are insane when new, upwards of £60/£70k! Imagine the roasting the fleet manage who originally ordered these things must’ve had when they came to sell on. We paid less than £8k plus vat. A Quick Look online shows that used electric vans are hugely cheaper than equivalent diesels. Only time will tell if it’ll work out in its intended role. I certainly wouldn’t want to be waiting on rescue with a broken down coach a couple of hundred miles away when the driver who brought the van up from down south said he only managed to get 90 odd miles from it sitting at around 60mph. You can see why values have gone through the floor. But at that money it is a bargain. A decent electric van can be bought for proper diesel van banger money.
The problem will soon be not that why aren't all firms buying EV vans from the second hand market at ridiculously low prices because of monumental depreciation from new, but who the **** is ever going to daft enough to buy a new one to then flog it for so little a few years later?
The same applies to EV cars, it's just that few of the EV evangelists want to admit this, because at the moment, that market is obviously being proper up artificially by:
a) Manufacturers 'buying' them themselves via dealerships at a rate that makes similar practices decades ago look like they were playing at it;
b) Motability purchases / leases, and that spending has to be paid for by *someone* eventually;
c) Leases for company cars and PCP deals for much fewer private 'buyers' (who are mostly over 50), where both appear to be financially propped up by financing companies until now, because they seriously underestimated (or were lied to be proponents of EVs, including politicians) EV depreciation, including demand for them as second hand vehicles.
It looks as though those firms patience and money has run out, and I suspect that they will soon (if not already) will be demanding far higher 'monthly payments' to compensate for high depreciation and to recoup huge losses incurred on EVs sold over the last 3-5 years.
If not, these firms will go under, leaving *who* to pick up the tab for their debts, and likely few other financial firms willing to provide such services without them being on a much more sound financial base, i.e. the very same higher monthly payments I alluded to, thus making EVs even less attractive on the new car market, further exacerbating the issue.
Car and van manufacturers also won't continue to shoulder the financial burden by essentially taking losses just to 'sell EVs' to themselves or dealerships to pretend to government they are meeting sales quotas to avoid the swingeing penalties.
Buyers of ICE cars will also not tolerate the prices they are paying for new cars being used to cross-subsidise new EV prices either.
Motability is presumably financially propped up by central government, and the public finances are now in a far worse state than they were before the 2024 General Election, which was bad enough.
Despite this new EV subsidy money, I can easily see them running out of money soon as France now appears to be, and thus all this will likely get the chop. They've run out of ways to 'conjure' up money out of thin air and to hide all the inflation, debt and wealth transfer that it has been going on these past 28 years.
|
a) Manufacturers 'buying' them themselves via dealerships at a rate that makes similar practices decades ago look like they were playing at it;
If true (any evidence), it can only be a short term expedient as the cars need to be sold, not financed by expensive borrowing and then allowed to rot in fields.
b) Motability purchases / leases, and that spending has to be paid for by *someone* eventually;
Motability is funded by the grants to individuals who qualify for the benefits. That the grant process may be open to abuse in some cases is a different matter.
c) Leases for company cars and PCP deals for much fewer private 'buyers' (who are mostly over 50), where both appear to be financially propped up by financing companies until now, because they seriously underestimated (or were lied to be proponents of EVs, including politicians) EV depreciation, including demand for them as second hand vehicles.
Those companies financing lease and PCP deals are wholly responsible for making their own judgements on EV prices, depreciation, resale values, monthly terms etc. They are propped up by no-one - certainly not government.
It looks as though those firms patience and money has run out, and I suspect that they will soon (if not already) will be demanding far higher 'monthly payments' to compensate for high depreciation and to recoup huge losses incurred on EVs sold over the last 3-5 years.
If finance companies feel motivated to increase monthly payments they can do so. If consumers cannot find a competitive deal they can, for the next 5 years buy ICE.
The losses of finance companies over the last 3-5 years are history - they can only concern themselves weith the future.
If not, these firms will go under, leaving *who* to pick up the tab for their debts, and likely few other financial firms willing to provide such services without them being on a much more sound financial base, i.e. the very same higher monthly payments I alluded to, thus making EVs even less attractive on the new car market, further exacerbating the issue.
Some finance companies may become insolvent having borrowed money to finance vehicles based on overly optimistic resale values. Note ~80% of vehicles sold are ICE - EV losses are likely a storm in a tea cup.
There are ~1m EVs sold in the last 3 years. If all were sold on finance and lost £10k resale value, total losses would be ~£10bn. Those which are offshoots of banks or car manufacturers are unlikely to cause visible failure.
Visible failures likely may be £1-3bn with banks taking the hit. Annoying but hardly catastrophic - total UK banking sector profitability is ~£40bn pa.
Car and van manufacturers also won't continue to shoulder the financial burden by essentially taking losses just to 'sell EVs' to themselves or dealerships to pretend to government they are meeting sales quotas to avoid the swingeing penalties.
If existing car manufacturers can't price their offerings to be competitive they will simply go out of business. There are plenty waiting to take their place unconstrained by existing ICE product ranges or history - mainly well financed Chinese.
Buyers of ICE cars will also not tolerate the prices they are paying for new cars being used to cross-subsidise new EV prices either.
If the prices are too high they simply won't buy them - so what!
Motability is presumably financially propped up by central government, and the public finances are now in a far worse state than they were before the 2024 General Election, which was bad enough.
Motability receives no government funding directly - those on benefits get the funds to enable mobility which they can spend on buses, trains, cars etc as they see fit.
Despite this new EV subsidy money, I can easily see them running out of money soon as France now appears to be, and thus all this will likely get the chop. They've run out of ways to 'conjure' up money out of thin air and to hide all the inflation, debt and wealth transfer that it has been going on these past 28 years.
There is a legitimate point to make about the whether the ICE fines, EV targets, losses in fuel duty etc are reasonable. But if the strategy to move away from consumption of limited and polluting fossil fuels is correct (I believe it is) then using the tax system to make it happen is reasonable.
That the UK is beset by issues of debt, lack of growth, inflation, etc is a separate issue - the transition to EV is only a small part of the problem dominated by other issues.
|
a) Manufacturers 'buying' them themselves via dealerships at a rate that makes similar practices decades ago look like they were playing at it;
If true (any evidence), it can only be a short term expedient as the cars need to be sold, not financed by expensive borrowing and then allowed to rot in fields.
How can be doing this every month on a huge scale not be bad for profitability, when they pay dealers to buy them, who then 'sell' the cars as unused 'showroom', 'ex-demo' or 'loan' cars. Geoff Buys Cars appears to be very up on this.
b) Motability purchases / leases, and that spending has to be paid for by *someone* eventually;
Motability is funded by the grants to individuals who qualify for the benefits. That the grant process may be open to abuse in some cases is a different matter.
It doesn't matter if the grants are fraudulently or unethically obtained - it's that taxpayer money is being used to artificially prop up EV sales for people who often don't want/need them, never mind who already can afford them and don't need the 'modifications' because they aren't 'disabled' at a rate many times of that just a decade ago.
c) Leases for company cars and PCP deals for much fewer private 'buyers' (who are mostly over 50), where both appear to be financially propped up by financing companies until now, because they seriously underestimated (or were lied to be proponents of EVs, including politicians) EV depreciation, including demand for them as second hand vehicles.
Those companies financing lease and PCP deals are wholly responsible for making their own judgements on EV prices, depreciation, resale values, monthly terms etc. They are propped up by no-one - certainly not government.
I never said they were, but like with government (taxpayer) money, it eventually runs out, and the piper must be paid.
If the government (taxpayers again) props them up (as they want) via more 'grants' for them to receive instead of the new car user, that's more subsidy, which given the parlous nature of the current government's finances (even after squeezing the country's pips, now dry) is just adding more debt and increasing the chances of a default / IMF bailout making that of the 1970s look like peanuts in comparison. And they still would need to raise PCP / lease monthly rates to recoup previous losses.
On the other hand, if the firms don't get that help and the either just pull out or go bankrupt, the losses have to be recouped and why would any other firm (newcomer) want to join that type of market unless PCP and lease monthly repayment values properly reflected the far higher 3 year depreciation of EVs.
As such, sales would plummet because EVs would be far less affordable compared to ICE vehicles - even for fleet lessors / buyers taking into account the extra BIK type tax.
It looks as though those firms patience and money has run out, and I suspect that they will soon (if not already) will be demanding far higher 'monthly payments' to compensate for high depreciation and to recoup huge losses incurred on EVs sold over the last 3-5 years.
If finance companies feel motivated to increase monthly payments they can do so. If consumers cannot find a competitive deal they can, for the next 5 years buy ICE.
Given car manufacturers are having to 'sell' 28% of them as EVs this year 'or else', and there already is a shortage of new ICE cars (hence why second hand prices are so high - often 7-8yo cars now are going for the same price as 3yo ones back in 2019).
This will also be exacerbated by general economic conditions where people cannot afford to buy expensive new cars generally that are nearly double the price (not the RRP) they were just 10 years ago.
The losses of finance companies over the last 3-5 years are history - they can only concern themselves weith the future.
Bank balances and debt from previous years' business will determine what they can do in the future, including what rates they offer to customers - assuming they stay in business (see my previous comments).
If not, these firms will go under, leaving *who* to pick up the tab for their debts, and likely few other financial firms willing to provide such services without them being on a much more sound financial base, i.e. the very same higher monthly payments I alluded to, thus making EVs even less attractive on the new car market, further exacerbating the issue.
Some finance companies may become insolvent having borrowed money to finance vehicles based on overly optimistic resale values. Note ~80% of vehicles sold are ICE - EV losses are likely a storm in a tea cup.
There are ~1m EVs sold in the last 3 years. If all were sold on finance and lost £10k resale value, total losses would be ~£10bn. Those which are offshoots of banks or car manufacturers are unlikely to cause visible failure.
Visible failures likely may be £1-3bn with banks taking the hit. Annoying but hardly catastrophic - total UK banking sector profitability is ~£40bn pa.
I suspect they lose far more than £10k per car, but as I said, even if the losses in relation to the overall banking industry size is small, many businesses are struggling anyway, making banking less profitable before that, plus the ponzi scheme of 'sub-prime' borrowing still hasn't been resolved - just swept under the carpet via creative accounting.
And it still doesn't answer my question of what happens when the ONLY way to make a profit is to charge far higher monthly rates for lease and pcp deals?
Car and van manufacturers also won't continue to shoulder the financial burden by essentially taking losses just to 'sell EVs' to themselves or dealerships to pretend to government they are meeting sales quotas to avoid the swingeing penalties.
If existing car manufacturers can't price their offerings to be competitive they will simply go out of business. There are plenty waiting to take their place unconstrained by existing ICE product ranges or history - mainly well financed Chinese.
Let the CCP take over via dodgy financing - brilliant! Waving th white flag to communism. I hate to break it to you, but the rise of China isn't the same as the rise of Japan and more latterly South Korea after wars.
Buyers of ICE cars will also not tolerate the prices they are paying for new cars being used to cross-subsidise new EV prices either.
If the prices are too high they simply won't buy them - so what!
Talk about head in the sand! I have to wonder if people with such opinions are likely to be around when the **** hits the fan.
Motability is presumably financially propped up by central government, and the public finances are now in a far worse state than they were before the 2024 General Election, which was bad enough.
Motability receives no government funding directly - those on benefits get the funds to enable mobility which they can spend on buses, trains, cars etc as they see fit.
Oh dear.
Despite this new EV subsidy money, I can easily see them running out of money soon as France now appears to be, and thus all this will likely get the chop. They've run out of ways to 'conjure' up money out of thin air and to hide all the inflation, debt and wealth transfer that it has been going on these past 28 years.
There is a legitimate point to make about the whether the ICE fines, EV targets, losses in fuel duty etc are reasonable. But if the strategy to move away from consumption of limited and polluting fossil fuels is correct (I believe it is) then using the tax system to make it happen is reasonable.
That the UK is beset by issues of debt, lack of growth, inflation, etc is a separate issue - the transition to EV is only a small part of the problem dominated by other issues.
TBH, I was expecting you to sell me a bridge next or saying you'd just be back in a mo, because some Greeks have left a huge sculpture of a horse outside as a present.
|
|
A couple of comments on the above.
1. If Andy expects people to read his posts, may I suggest they are shorter and to the point and without unnecessarily lengthy quotations.
2. It's a pity that, despite the moderators' best efforts, time and time again the EV thread gets bogged down in the same sort of political polemic.
I'm not going to attempt to plough through the post and reply to its content. I've learned from experience that it would be pointless.
|
A couple of comments on the above.
1. If Andy expects people to read his posts, may I suggest they are shorter and to the point and without unnecessarily lengthy quotations.
2. It's a pity that, despite the moderators' best efforts, time and time again the EV thread gets bogged down in the same sort of political polemic.
I'm not going to attempt to plough through the post and reply to its content. I've learned from experience that it would be pointless.
I do not read Andy's posts because they are tediously repetitive and long winded and did I say repetitive.
|
|
We have been keeping an eye on the thread, it's been tidied up once to try and keep it on EV issues. Most of what is being discussed is just about EV-related and so we have let things run, as we get criticised just as much if we don't let people have their say.
The length of posts are not a concern, I tend to just scan for anything that might be offensive or cause the website legal difficulties.
Further discussion about Motability and whether it's the best thing since sliced bread or not are not relevant to EV and further posts on that will be clipped from this thread.
|
We have been keeping an eye on the thread, it's been tidied up once to try and keep it on EV issues. Most of what is being discussed is just about EV-related and so we have let things run, as we get criticised just as much if we don't let people have their say.
The length of posts are not a concern, I tend to just scan for anything that might be offensive or cause the website legal difficulties.
The problem is, as I've said above, is that some of us on the 'other' side of the debate believe a good number of 'opponents' are not being reasonable and complain of 'offence' because we call them out for not properly engaging in the debate, including deliberately evading answering issues with EVs or giving 'stock' non-answer responsess akin to that of Westminster politicians
Further discussion about Motability and whether it's the best thing since sliced bread or not are not relevant to EV and further posts on that will be clipped from this thread.
Motability is an important on the EV issue because it is bar far the largest component of EV 'buyers' because it is effectively subsidised and thus artificially props up the EV sales figures to pretend to the masses that EVs are popular.
I strongly believe you cannot divorce the general 'technical' issues concerning EVs from the wider social and political angle, because it is being used as a way of artificially engendering permanent change using unethical manipulative means, whilst simultaneously covering up its many problems (some very serious) whilst, as I see in other posts, using people to 'police' dissenting voices via various means, including by censorship because some 'get offended'.
I get offended by such people regularly decrying me as some nutbag who goes on and on about such issues, and yet I still get no / inadequate replies to my questioning and seemingly some of my comments censored because some may not like hearing some hard truths about why the answer in the way they do.
I'm sorry, but not everyone has 'honourable intentions' when they post on (anonymous) forums. Some may not agree with me, but at least I am honest and open about what I believe and why. I'm not sure others on the other side of some debates can say the same.
Thank you.
|
.
Motability is an important on the EV issue because it is bar far the largest component of EV 'buyers' because it is effectively subsidised and thus artificially props up the EV sales figures to pretend to the masses that EVs are popular.
You do need to remember than not all cars on the Motability scheme are EVs though - there are many that aren't including the one we have parked outside. They even have cars like the Berlingo which you can get diesel versions of which Citroen don't generally sell anymore because they are a popular choice on the scheme due to the space the car has compared to many others of similar sizes.
|
A couple of comments on the above.
1. If Andy expects people to read his posts, may I suggest they are shorter and to the point and without unnecessarily lengthy quotations.
2. It's a pity that, despite the moderators' best efforts, time and time again the EV thread gets bogged down in the same sort of political polemic.
I'm not going to attempt to plough through the post and reply to its content. I've learned from experience that it would be pointless.
I do not read Andy's posts because they are tediously repetitive and long winded and did I say repetitive.
Most of the 'posts' are just what other people have already said, plus my responses, which are clearly marked, and, as the above one is, to the point.
Unfortunately, some people here don't want or can't answer my questions or give incorrect or, IMHO, blatantly false deflective responses to avoid the issues I raise.
I raise them more than once because the same people use what I believe to be false statements to justify the mandated change to EVs, how 'great' they are for everyone (and not just those with means, a house and limited use needs) - parroting the line of Establishment figures and avoiding admitting / discussing the many downsides of EV ownership / EV tech in general, some of which are significant and safety-related.
In my view, many of those who pretend the TLDR approach are just using that as a convenient excuse not to properly engage in debate.
|
|
|
Obviously the min ten mins stay cannot apply to those charging. In ten minutes you'd likely not get enough juice to get out of sight. Rendering chargers pointless. Other than as bait for parking penalties.
|
Obviously the min ten mins stay cannot apply to those charging. In ten minutes you'd likely not get enough juice to get out of sight. Rendering chargers pointless. Other than as bait for parking penalties.
There's usually a QR code or something similar you scan to validate the parking in such cases which is a bit of a faff but it is doable. Tesla are actually one of the worst as many of their chargers are in hotel car parks etc so you need to watch them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
