
Brits offered £3,750 to switchover to EVs but experts warn of huge catch
Brits could get thousands knocked off the price of a new car if they switch over to an electric vehicle (EV) thanks to a major new investment.
In an effort to encourage drivers to make the switchover from internal combustion engine (ICE) to electric vehicles (EVs), the government is offering grants cutting the cost of selected models by up to £3,750. However, insiders have highlighted a significant shortcoming with the scheme.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has announced a new £650 million grant, which is available for three years and applies to any eligible model with a price tag of up to £37,000 — the most sustainably produced and environmentally friendly models qualify for the largest reductions — with the aim of making EVs more affordable for the average British household. Manufacturers can now apply for this grant, and once their models are approved, buyers will see the discounted price directly at dealerships.
According to the RAC, these discounted vehicles are expected to be available 'within weeks'. The scheme is part of the government's wider efforts to increase EV uptake, helping the UK meet environmental targets and close in on its goal of banning the sale of new ICE cars by 2030.
However, this incentive has prompted mixed reactions from the automotive industry — particularly in terms of its accessibility and effectiveness for ordinary buyers. An expert at Auto Express welcomed the introduction of support for consumers transitioning to EVs, but expressed several concerns regarding the scheme's reach.
In a statement sent to the Mirror, Head of digital content at the automotive publication, Steve Walker, said: "EV registrations have been growing steadily and are up nearly 35 per cent year on year. But there are two problems.
"First, the rate of uptake still falls below the levels required by the government's ZEV mandate targets for manufacturers. Second, most of these new registrations are being driven by the fleet sector.
"It's no coincidence that while businesses and company car users have strong tax incentives to purchase and run EVs, the private buyer has had nothing, not since the old plug-in car grant expired in 2022. Therefore, the prospect of new government assistance to help ordinary families afford a new EV and access the running costs savings that an electric car can bring, will be welcomed across the industry."
The ace went on to argue that while any incentive is 'good news', it does not address some of the main barriers to EV uptake. He cited how around 70 per cent of new EVs cost more than £40,000, yet the new grant of up to £3,750 is only available at the point of sale for cars priced at or under £37,000, meaning most models won't qualify.
He went on to add that, since April this year, owners of EVs costing £40,000 or more have to pay an additional £410 a year in road tax for five years — a total extra cost of £2,050 — which Auto Express has asked the government to reconsider. While Steve said the new grant is a 'welcome boost', he stressed that it's not enough on its own, arguing that to really speed up private EV adoption, the government must drop the luxury car tax for EVs and improve access to charging points, especially for people without home charging.
Responding to the criticism, a Department for Transport spokesperson told the Mirror: "The price cap ensures the Electric Car Grant targets the more affordable end of the market, ensuring funding can reach as many people as possible, rather than spending taxpayer's money subsidising luxury cars. The grant is in addition to the £63 million announced this week to support charging infrastructure, making it cheaper and easier for families, businesses and the public sector to make the switch."

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scottish Sun
15 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Dragon's Den star & gold medal-winning athlete took out £100k in fraud loans despite £75k show investment
None of the money he applied for went towards his business STAR JAILED Dragon's Den star & gold medal-winning athlete took out £100k in fraud loans despite £75k show investment Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A DRAGON'S Den winner and former Team GB gold medallist fraudulently used Covid loans to buy himself a £1.8million mansion. Rick Beardsell illegally pocketed £100,000 worth of taxpayers cash to purchase his home - despite receiving a £75,000 investment during his stint on the BBC show. Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter Sign up 6 Beardsell received £75,000 in investments after appearing on Dragon's Den Credit: Cavendish 6 The British world sprinting champion illegally pocketed two Covid Bounce Back business loans to buy himself a £1.8m mansion Credit: Cavendish 6 Beardsell was only entitled to apply for one loan worth £50,000, but fraudulently applied for two Credit: Cavendish The 46-year-old fiddled two Covid Bounce Back loans to buy himself five-bed Holly House in the exclusive village of Prestbury, Cheshire. Dad-of-two Beardsell was only entitled to apply for one loan worth £50,000, but fraudulently applied for two and greatly exaggerated his annual turnover by up to 23 times. It came after the world champion sprinter had successfully secured investments from TV Dragons Tej Lalvani and Deborah Meaden for his successful protein shake bottle business, ShakeSphere. Chester Crown Court heard he applied for the loan to prop up his other company, Sports Creative Ltd, but none of the money went towards the sportswear business. Prosecutor Geoff Whealan told the court Beardsell made the fraudulent applications to HSBC in December 2020 and then to NatWest in January 2021. He said: ''The defendant stated on the HSBC form that the turnover of Sports Creative was £485,000 and on the NatWest form said it was £320,000. "But unaudited financial statements showed turnover for the year end February 2020 was £20,622. ''The turnover was clearly exaggerated to secure the maximum bounce back loan. "Subsequent transactions showed the bounce back loan funds were not being used for the economic benefit or business purposes of Sports Creative at this time.'' The money arrived in Sports Creative's account in January 2021, but then almost £400,000 was transferred to Beardsell's personal Santander account in the space of six months. Then £431,160.80, including the remaining bounce back loan funds, was transferred to a firm of solicitors for the purchase of Holly House he bought with his wife Ezster. Mr Whelan added: ''In effect the bounce back loan funds had been used for this purchase. Shocking moment Dragons' Den winner Ross Mendham smashes £100k Ferrari after ploughing into bike racks in city centre "It can be inferred from the defendant's conduct that it was his intention to use the bounce back loans for this purpose at the time he made the application for it." Beardsell, who won two World Records for sprinting, faced three years in jail after he admitted two charges of fraud. In October 2024, he attended an interview under caution at the Insolvency Services offices. In a statement he said: ''The guidance pertaining to Bounce Back Loans indicated that the proceeds of such loans may be utilised for any purpose that yields a direct benefit to the company. ''At that juncture, I sought professional advice and was advised that such purposes include, but are not limited to, the coverage of overhead expenses or outstanding liabilities, as well as the investment in company assets or property. "The funds that were transferred to my personal account constituted a director's loan and other economical overheads for the business.'' Mitigating, his counsel Nichola Cafferkey explained that the loans had been repaid in full to the banks. She said: ''The loss of his good character is of some significance in respect of a man who has dedicated his life to his family, his professional entities and also his sporting endeavours. "These offences were out of character and were committed four years ago. "He has taken responsibility and repaid the money back. He knows that it's his own fault. "He has brought shame on his family and brought shame on himself. ''His wife is also his business partner and concerns that they have had about the ability to provide financially for their young children have been significant." The court also heard that Beardsell had suffered a series of medical issues both before and after securing the loans. Ms Cafferkey continued: "A year prior to the submission of the first loan application, the defendant was diagnosed with an aggressive form of testicular cancer and required surgery and extensive chemotherapy. "The chemotherapy was successful but led to some significant side effects. ''One of those being vertigo, of which he had a severe episode which required hospitalisation and thereafter there are ongoing long-term issues as a result of that. 6 Beardsell was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for two years Credit: Cavendish 6 Hundreds of thousands of pounds were transferred to a firm of solicitors for the purchase of Holly House Credit: Cavendish "The investigations brought on by the defendant's own actions has had an impact on his family which has led to a situation where he has been experiencing significant stress over the past few years. "On top of that there are ongoing knee pains associated with his athletic success at national and international level. "He has been running a business for many years without issue and it is plain he is extremely remorseful and regretful for his actions. "The impact on his wife's physical health in terms of stress and strain has been significant. There has been significant weight loss and insomnia. "This will be the only time that Richard Beardsell appears before the court." Beardsell was sentenced to 18 months in prison, suspended for two years. He was also ordered to complete 250 hours of unpaid work and pay costs of £11,142.70. Judge Simon Berkson told Beardsell: "You fraudulently lied and lied again in your applications for these loans. "They were supposed to be for use in keeping your business running but the money was used for your own personal needs and the needs of your family. "This is not a victimless crime. The government was trying to help struggling businesses at the time of national crisis. "People were in lock down, people were dying and people were very ill at the time when people required their public services. "You used fraudulently obtained public funds for your own use, depriving honest people of the scheme's funds when the country was in crisis. "You are a generally successful man both in business and in sports, particularly your involvement with athletics. "You continue to run your business and it was on the TV programme Dragons' Den. "You are a married person with two children and they are young children. You have survived an aggressive form of cancer. "I have concluded that an immediate custodial sentence would have a significant harmful impact on your wife and children.''

Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
The humble deck chair has been given a 21st century makeover
The humble deck chair has been given a 21st century makeover to cater for the modern beachgoer - including a phone charger and screen glare block. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The contraption originally dates back to the late 1800s, and it's now been given a modern twist which could become a staple along British shorelines. Solar panels and a battery pack are included in the high-tech prototype to keep electronics topped up. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While a drinks holder has also been installed as well as a built-in fan, and bespoke horn to spook greedy seagulls. PayPal have created the modern seaside seat which Brits can visit from the 9th August in Brighton, following research which revealed one in five Brits shop on their phones or tablets – at the beach. A poll of 2,000 adults found clothes and fashion (37 per cent) are among the top purchases, with food and drink (34 per cent) and gifts for others (24 per cent) also on the cards. With nearly a fifth (19 per cent) spending between £51-75 when shopping online at the beach, with some spending up to £200. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Phones overheating (43 per cent) and a lack of WiFi (36 per cent) are among the things holding consumers back from a seamless scrolling experience on the beach. While a lack of shade (31 per cent) and getting sand in the phone charger hole (23 per cent) are other inhibitors. The deckhairs have been launched to help aid seaside shopping | James McCauley/PinPep Kick-back, relax and shop! Consumer behaviour and retail expert Dr. Amna Khan, speaking in partnership with the brand, said: 'Smartphones have transformed nearly every aspect of our lives, from how we navigate our cars to how we manage our health and shop for essentials. 'This digital shift has made shopping anytime, anywhere second nature – even on the beach, positioning it as the next frontier for a tech refresh. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'The once simple beach experience is getting a long-overdue upgrade. 'With tech-enhanced deckchairs featuring innovations like built-in glare-blocking screens, beachgoers can now seamlessly blend relaxation with connectivity, reflecting the evolving expectations of today's digital-first lifestyles.' The research also lifted the lid on all the factors people consider when picking a perfect beach spot, with shade (48 per cent) ranking as the top factor ahead of privacy (40 per cent) and proximity to the bar (36 per cent). When it comes to beach nostalgia, buckets, spades and sandcastles are among the items 70 per cent associate with childhood trips to the seaside, with arcades and slot machines also featuring (52 per cent). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Striped deckchairs were cited by 41 per cent, with mini fridges containing snacks (29 per cent), solar panels for charging (21 per cent) and pop-out book holders (25 per cent) among the other creative add-ons people would like to see incorporated in the classic beach staple. Dave Jones, head of consumer from PayPal, which has introduced a three per cent cashback incentive to help people put money back their pockets, added: 'We can see from our research that more and more people are bringing their phones to the beach, and their shopping habits too. 'That's why we've reimagined the classic deckchair with a modern twist, making it easier to stay connected and even earn cashback while soaking up the sun.'


New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Who is accountable in privatised Britain?
Illustration by Andy Carter / Ikon Images 'New, unadopted estate.' The Hitchin MP, Alistair Strathern, pointed. Then he gestured to a building site where diggers were enthusiastically getting to work. 'New estate that will be unadopted… Unadopted estate… Unadopted estate.' During the 20-minute drive from Shefford town centre to Hitchin Station, we passed at least six examples of the phenomenon Strathern had invited me to his constituency, which straddles the Bedfordshire-Hertfordshire border, to explore: new-build housing estates their councils have refused to adopt. Much has been written about leasehold, the peculiarly British 'feudal' system in which homebuyers own a property but not the land it sits on, leaving them liable for spiralling ground rent and management fees. After decades of advocacy, some improvements were made under the Conservatives in last year's Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, and Labour has promised to go further with protections for leaseholders in this parliament. But even when new-build homes are sold with the freehold, hidden costs can sneak in. Known as 'fleecehold' housing, the estates Strathern pointed out are those where the responsibility for maintaining the roads, street lighting, drainage and communal areas has not been adopted by the council, as it deems development not to have been completed to a high enough standard. Until a development is adopted, the residents must pay for the services the council would usually provide, in addition to council tax, via yearly fees paid to private management companies. The fees themselves may not sound large – £200-£300 a year. Or, at least, that's the level at which they start out. At a new estate I visited, fees had been hiked by 41 per cent in a year, with vague explanations. Calls and emails to the management company went largely unanswered; correspondence was limited to scarily worded 'final demand' letters. If owners refuse to pay, management companies can go direct to their lender to have the charges added to their mortgage, tanking the owner's credit rating. Residents I met spoke of finding it impossible to determine what they were paying for, or to hold the management company accountable for the work it was – or wasn't – carrying out. Fleecehold is now the norm across the country. Whereas councils used to adopt new estates, the Competition and Markets Authority has found that 80 per cent of new homes built by the 11 largest developers in 2021-22 were sold under the fleecehold system, with £260m in estate management charges paid out in 2022 alone. There are stories of owners being assured their estate would be adopted as a formality, only to still be paying fees a decade on. Meanwhile, the government is pushing through planning reform to meet its target of 1.5 million new homes by the end of this parliament. The problem may not be as visceral as the issues with build quality that owners of new-builds often face: cracked walls, dodgy plumbing, damp and mould. But the two are inextricably linked. Every owner I spoke to about fleecehold charges also had a horror story of how their 'dream home' had turned into a nightmare of construction faults that developers were reluctant to rectify. One showed me a brimming lever-arch folder of his correspondence with the developer – 200 pages in 20 months. The question is one of accountability. When things go wrong, whose job is it to fix them? What happens if they fail to do so? And how are they seemingly able to charge what they like, with no cap on costs or any obligation to show how the money is spent? Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe You might imagine the council would step in. But, as I found out in Hitchin, cash-strapped local authorities have little incentive to ensure developments are built to standard, as adopting them means adopting additional costs. The developers, meanwhile, have little incentive to come back to complete repairs once the houses have been sold. Strathern, who worked on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill committee, is hoping to change this and has introduced a debate in parliament on ensuring new estates are adopted on schedule. But it's hard to fix a problem most people don't even know exists until after they've bought their homes. Passing the accountability buck can be an art form. In Shefford, I visited Old Bridge Way: a 220m stretch of road through an industrial park connecting an estate of some 1,000 homes to the centre of town and a Morrisons. I stood there for ten minutes watching non-stop traffic navigate a maze of potholes six inches deep. Central Bedfordshire Council says this is not its responsibility, as it doesn't actually own that part of the road. Who does own it is an open question: the company responsible for it was liquidated in 2024, leaving it effectively ownerless. But I noticed double yellow lines along the kerbside. I asked the council if it was issuing parking fines for a road it claimed it had no responsibility for, but it did not offer an answer. A council that won't adopt a thoroughfare used by thousands of people is unlikely to adopt estates full of new homes. Strathern described both situations as 'hollowed-out councils retreating from the public realm'. To me, they resembled what the satirical science-fiction author Douglas Adams once termed a Somebody Else's Problem field, a way of concealing inconvenient things that utilises 'people's natural predisposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain'. For residents placed in fleecehold limbo the issues of rising fees and the lack of accountability are impossible to ignore. For everyone else, they are Somebody Else's Problem. [See also: GMB chief Gary Smith: 'Oil and gas is not the enemy'] Related