Who needs a city car when you can rent a golf buggy?
Each has a small 5kWh battery powering a 4kW electric motor and giving a range of 30 miles. Charging is via London's lamp-post network or a roof-mounted solar panel, which, after a day's sunshine, can provide a six-mile top-up.
However, for all its clever electronics, a Yo-Go buggy is still a golf cart, right? In fact, the vehicle is homologated for UK roads, so it's now classified as an L6e quadricycle. Its body has been redesigned, too, to make it more practical and weatherproof.
Even so, my fear of being the laughing stock of the capital's road users is not helped by the sight of my test buggy awaiting me at Yo-Go's Parsons Green parking spot. The small vehicle looks only a couple of rungs up the evolutionary ladder from the rickshaws that clog London's West End.
And what city needs yet another electric 'personal mobility' solution? My scepticism isn't helped by the buggy's questionable weather protection, its basic plastic interior (although the two seats look comfortable) and its twin rear-mounted boots, which can't be locked.
At least the foot pedals marked 'Stop' and 'Go' appear to be foolproof and, save for indicators and a windscreen wiper, there are few extras to distract the inexperienced driver. Driving the buggy is just a case of 'unlocking' it, belting up, selecting D for drive and pressing the Go pedal.
Thanks to its low weight, the buggy surges forward effortlessly; helped by fairly aggressive brake regen, it stops easily too. Independent front suspension absorbs the worst of the area's battered roads, and although the buggy is narrow, its track is just wide enough to clear speed cushions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Keir Starmer must fight for UK drug firms
The life sciences industry is among the brightest jewels in the British economy, generating £100billion a year and employing more than 300,000 people. At its heart is the development and manufacture of pharmaceuticals, notably by AstraZeneca, which spends vast sums on research and is worth £167billion. So, if this hugely successful company were to relocate to the US, it would be a disaster both for the London Stock Exchange and the wider economy. Worryingly, this is not out of the question. AstraZeneca already sells 40 per cent of its drugs to America and, following President Donald Trump 's tariff threat, is ramping up research and production there. While there are no immediate plans to desert the UK, chief executive Pascal Soriot is said to be 'flirting' with the idea. Mr Trump's latest demand that foreign drug companies cut prices to US customers or face penalties may be an added incentive. The Left has always been highly critical of 'Big Pharma', accusing it of profiteering on the backs of NHS patients. Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour planned to create a state-owned drug manufacturer with the power to override the patents which enable firms to make profits from their research. Only last year, Sir Keir Starmer refused to help fund a new vaccine plant in Liverpool – while pouring public money into our ailing steel industry. This Government must understand that failing to nurture AstraZeneca, GSK and others would be a catastrophic mistake. And Sir Keir should realise that while they say they want to remain in the UK, they may yet change their mind. Car lenders off hook Banks and credit providers will have heaved a huge sigh of relief yesterday after the Supreme Court ruled they will not have to pay compensation to millions of motorists who bought cars on finance without being told the dealers were receiving commission on the loan. The Treasury was also delighted with the result. Had it gone the other way, damages could have been comparable to the PPI scandal, which destabilised the financial industry for more than a decade. The court decided that dealers did not have a duty to act solely for buyers and that commissions were not a form of bribery in the legal sense, as had been alleged. However, it was not a total exoneration. Court President Lord Reed also ruled that excessive commission payments were unfair and ordered one buyer who had been charged 25 per cent of the value of the car to be repaid with interest. This opens the way to further claims. Many brokers and dealers were paid behind-the-scenes commission by lenders to sign buyers up to car finance deals, a practice deemed 'unlawful' by the Court of Appeal in October last year - a decision that was successfully appealed by lenders at the Supreme Court The dealers and lenders have escaped their worst fears, but they do not come out well. They have certainly been guilty of sharp practices even if not illegal ones. The Competition and Markets Authority must now force them to clean up their act. OAPs feel the cold In September, Rachel Reeves promised she would 'put more money in pensioners' pockets'. What she didn't say is that she would take even more out. Research shows pensioner households are an average of £800 worse off after a year of Labour thanks to higher bills – mainly owing to the Chancellor's £40billion Budget tax raid. With more taxes coming down the track to fill Labour's ever-widening financial black hole, the cost of living is set to soar further. For all Ms Reeves' promises, the elderly are in for a bitter winter.
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'
A ruling by the UK's most senior judges later has closed down an opportunity for millions of motorists to claim compensation for motor finance Supreme Court decided not to uphold an earlier ruling which found that hidden commission payments to car dealers were the ruling left open the possibility of claims for compensation for large commissions that were BBC talked to two of the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court, plus a person who is planning to make a claim. 'A really big bag of salt' Marcus Johnson from Cwmbran, Torfaen, was one of the claimants in the landmark described the the outcome as "a bitter pill to swallow", although was awarded just over £1,650 on the grounds that his relationship with the lender was said he was "pleased for myself, but not for the hundreds of others" who will now miss out."It's weird," he said. "It's a win, but it's a really big bag of salt to go with it".He was 27 when he bought a blue Suzuki Swift in 2017, and did not know that the commission had been paid, although the lender said he had signed a after passing his driving test in June of that year he walked into a car dealership, and within an hour was driving away in a car he liked, "very excited".It wasn't until threes years later, when he had paid off the finance on the car, that he realised he still had almost the cash price of the car left to was then he decided to contact the three claimants won their test cases, it could have opened up lenders to compensation claims totalling about £ it stands, that bill could shrink to between £5bn and £13bn, according to accountancy and advice firm BDO. 'There's still meat on the bone' Andrew Wrench has been described as "a postman with a penchant for fast cars".He says that description "made me chuckle". The 61-year-old is ex-forces, and also held other positions before becoming a postman, but he is proud to have been described as "the Erin Brockovich of Stoke-on-Trent".He says he is pleased that Marcus was awarded compensation, and that there will be further claims arising from that judgement."There's still meat on the bone," he says, adding that he is glad he helped throw light on the subject, even though his own case was not successful."I just want people to be accountable, and I don't want them getting away with being deceitful and dishonest," he adds. "It all comes down to: honesty is the best policy."Andrew's lawyer, Kavon Hussain of Consumer Rights Solicitors, says that the judgement was "a mixed bag", but showed that the Supreme Court expected car dealers to "always be acting in their own interests" and people should not expect a good deal. 'I'm going to chase my claim' Although it has been a mixed result for the claimants in the case, some people are determined to pursue dealers were paid a bigger commission if they sold a higher interest rate on the were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and were banned by regulators in Caffrey, from Blackburn, bought a car in 2009 after maternity leave. Her son was born with certain medical needs, and she wanted a car to get to work and multiple doctor appointments."I'm going to pursue my claim, but I do feel for the people it's put a stop to," she says. "They won't be compensated and I find that quite sad."Jemma feels she was "taken advantage of as a vulnerable new mum". She trusted the car dealership to give her the best deal it could, and paid a high interest rate for her blue Corsa, which she named "Colin". It was not until years later, having read about car finance in the local press, that she went to a law firm to bring a now intends to pursue it.
BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.
