Top Gear's Very Important Consumer Test: what's the best way to sleep in your car?
Video
£1k vs £100k car camping - is budget or luxury the best way to have a snooze in your car?
27 minutes 28 seconds
From an £800 bespoke inflatable mattress made for a Chinese crossover, through a £2k camping kit for a Dacia, via roof tents for a Porsche 911 and Land Rover Defender, up to camper vans nudging six figures, these are how OEMs officially encourage sleeping in or on your car.
Time to find out which is best...
Advertisement - Page continues below You might like
Advertisement - Page continues below
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. Look out for your regular round-up of news, reviews and offers in your inbox.
Get all the latest news, reviews and exclusives, direct to your inbox.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court to rule on motor finance compensation row
The Supreme Court is to rule on Friday on whether millions of motorists could be entitled to compensation on their hire-purchase agreements. In October last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that 'secret' commission payments to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent were unlawful. The court found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, had not been told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them, and should receive compensation. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, took the row to the Supreme Court, telling a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error'. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also intervened in the case, telling the UK's highest court that the Court of Appeal ruling 'goes too far', while the three motorists oppose the challenge. Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen are due to hand down their ruling at 4.35pm on Friday. The outcome of the ruling could have major consequences for the industry, with the FCA telling the Supreme Court last year that almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled that the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission, as there was 'no disclosure' of the commission payments in Ms Hopcraft's case, and 'insufficient disclosure' in the case of Mr Wrench. In Mr Johnson's case, the judges found that he had received 'insufficient disclosure' about the commission to give 'fully informed consent' to the payment. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice' as enough to properly inform a motorist about the commission. If justices dismiss the challenge, it is unclear how many people could be entitled to compensation. If they side with the lenders, then it is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. The FCA has said it will confirm within six weeks of the judgment whether it is planning to launch a redress scheme.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Car finance: What is the court case about and what does it mean for me?
The UK's Supreme Court will give a long-waited judgment in relation to the car finance commission saga on Friday. It is set to bring clarity over how the law should be applied to motor finance arrangements following a Court of Appeal decision last October. The ruling will have much wider ramifications for the industry, and the financial services sector, and could mean millions of motorists are due compensation as a result. Here, the PA news agency looks at the potential impact of the decision on consumers, lenders, and the wider car finance market. – What is the background to the court case? The Supreme Court – the UK's highest court – is considering an appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling made in October last year, relating to three claimants who had each bought cars on credit. In each case, the car dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them – which the three claimants argued they did not know about. The Court of Appeal found that 'secret' commission payments, as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, are challenging that decision. – Why is this court case so important? Wayne Gibbard, who leads the automotive finance practice at law firm Shoosmiths, said Friday's Supreme Court decision will be 'absolutely fundamental to what happens next' for the sector. He said it will inform the scale of potential compensation for customers, which will be overseen by the UK's Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The FCA previously said that, if it thinks there was widespread harm to consumers as a result of commission payments, then it could set up an industry-wide redress scheme. It said it will confirm within six weeks of the Supreme Court judgment whether it is planning to launch such a scheme. Mr Gibbard stressed that this response will be particularly important going forward. He said: ' People can make an informed decision – the query is around their harm, have they been mis-sold something? 'And I think that's been absent in the conversation.' – What does it mean for consumers? If Supreme Court judges side with the claimants then it could mean that many people who took out a car loan before 2021 may be due a payout, although it is difficult to say at this point how many. If it sides with the lenders, then it is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. However, the FCA is still looking at compensation for potential mis-selling of some types of motor finance arrangements – known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) – so this could go ahead regardless. – Does it mean I am entitled to compensation? If the FCA decides to proceed with a redress scheme, it is likely to clarify what type of motor finance arrangements it applies to – and potentially include all deals where people were not told clearly enough, or at all, that the car dealer was receiving commission. A scheme is intended to be simpler for consumers than making a direct complaint to providers. The watchdog said it would expect 'fewer consumers to rely on a claims management company, meaning they would keep all of any compensation they receive' and would be 'more orderly and efficient for firms than a complaint-led approach'. Mahesh Vara, a legal director for Shoosmiths, said a decision that secret commission payments were unlawful would 'naturally be a boon to claimants firms and consumers'. 'I think this is one of the first large-scale consumer mis-selling 'scandals' of the social media digital age,' he said. 'It's now leading to a greater expectation of there being almost a guaranteed payment. That is what the FCA will have to consider.' Adverts from claims management companies have sprung up significantly in the lead up to the court decision – but some regulators have been warning against using them as people may be charged for a service they ultimately do not need. – What could it mean for the wider industry? About 80% of new cars are bought using motor finance in the UK – so the decision could have major consequences for this industry. Mr Gibbard said: 'The FCA has got to make sure the market is stabilised – this is the second biggest credit market outside of mortgages. 'This is more than provision of credit – this is people getting to work, taking somebody to hospital, taking the kids to the playground – so this is a real facilitator for the economy. 'I think there is a risk, but everybody is so acutely aware of that risk so hopefully it won't have that disruptive effect.' Mr Gibbard also said a decision could have 'far-reaching consequences' with other parts of the financial services sector also potentially coming under pressure for commission payments on loans.
BBC News
22 minutes ago
- BBC News
Car finance ruling has potential to trigger millions of claims
A ruling by the UK's most senior judges later could pave the way for millions of motorists to claim compensation for motor finance Supreme Court will decide whether or not to uphold an earlier ruling which found that hidden commission payments to car dealers were nine in 10 new cars are bought on finance, so a decision could lead to billions of pounds being claimed by people who bought cars over many the industry says it did nothing wrong, leaving lenders, drivers and the government waiting for clarity from the Supreme Court later. Many thousands of car buyers are already in line for payouts, but this case could widen the pool of potential claimants lenders, such as Lloyds, have set aside huge amounts of money in preparation for such a scenario, with the possibility of payouts approaching the levels seen during the payment protection insurance (PPI) car finance sector is the second biggest lender to consumers in the UK, with people only borrowing more in mortgages. How cars were bought The vast majority of new cars, and many second-hand ones, are bought with finance agreements. Motorists put down a deposit, borrow the rest as a loan, and drive off in their new were signing up customers to these finance deals and, behind the scenes, were paid a commission by dealers were paid more in commission if they secured a higher interest rate on the loan. These were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and were banned by regulators in 2021. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is likely to set up a central compensation scheme for those drivers who were mis-sold loans that had DCAs. However, some - like Jemma Caffrey, from Blackburn - want to take their cases to court, to pursue the prospect of a bigger 42-year-old bought a car in 2009 on her first day back at work after maternity leave. Her son was born with difficulties so she needed a car to get to work and multiple medical appointments, because it was impossible on public transport."I feel I was taken advantage of as a vulnerable new mum," she paid a high interest rate for the blue Corsa. It was not until years later, having read about car finance in the local press that she went to Courmacs Legal to bring a many other cases, that is now on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court is considering whether nearly all hidden commission arrangements were unlawful - not just are considering three test cases, including that of Marcus Johnson, 34-year-old, from Cwmbran, Johnson said when he bought a blue Suzuki Swift in 2017 he simply did not know that the commission had been paid, although the lender said he had signed a solicitors in these three cases say that the commissions amounted to bribes at common the heart of this case is the duty of the motor dealer. When selling the car, the dealer is trying to seal the best deal for the the Court of Appeal effectively said that, when the dealer then became a broker for the loan, it had a duty to act solely in the best interests of the buyer, not the lender. Economic fallout The car finance sector insists it complied with the law as it was understood, and as regulation Finance and Leasing Association, the trade body for the motor finance sector, has said it wants the Supreme Court to provide what the rules are permanently for the FCA said it would announce whether and how it would proceed with a compensation scheme within six weeks of the February, the Supreme Court rejected an unusual intervention from the government, which was worried huge amounts of redress payments could upset the car market and make it less competitive, as well as making the UK less attractive to Treasury has said it wants to see a "balanced judgment" that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own has been concerned this case is deterring investment in the UK, and hitting economic Bobby Dean, a Liberal Democrat MP and member of the Treasury Committee, who has questioned lenders and others on this topic, said growth was not in competition with fairness and redress for consumers."Good regulation can make sure that consumers are protected and have confidence to buy things like car loans and that's the best thing we can do for the economy," he said. We will bring you live reporting of the judgement as soon as we get it followed by expert analysis on what it means for millions of drivers.
