King Charles puts Queen Elizabeth II's luxury helicopter up for sale - and it's set to fetch £5m
The King is selling his mother's eight-seater red 2009 Sikorsky and will instead use two environmentally friendly jets, believed to cost £8.5m each.
The royal family have used the new AgustaWestland AW139s, which run on 50 per cent sustainable aviation fuel, since last year, having flown in the previous helicopter for the previous 15 years.
The opulent interior of the late Queen's helicopter has been revealed for the first time after it was put on sale.
Spacious grey leather seats are matched with a blue carpet, while a magazine rack, a wooden clock and tinted windows complete the design.
The listing, by helicopter broker AeroAsset, boasts that it has only had 'one owner since new' and is a 'Head of State Aircraft'.
It has had 5222 hours of flying and comes with 'ultraleather and ultrasuede interior panel upholstery,' it adds.
The Queen made innumerable trips in her helicopter, including one from Sandringham to Windsor a few months before she died.
Her personal Range Rover, which she used between 2006 and 2008, is also up for auction.
The 2006 L322 model features a distinctive ornament of a labrador with a grouse in its mouth.
It also has a number of unique features including side steps, mud flaps, a made-to-measure dog guard for Elizabeth II's canine companions and extra wiring for security measures.
While the rear grab handles, to help with the late Queen's entry and exit from the vehicle have been removed.
The car has covered 120,000 miles and is described as being in 'exemplary condition throughout.
The model's current value is between £9,000 and £16,000.
But it is estimated to raise up to £70,000 when it goes for sale at the Silverstone Festival on August 23.
The same auction house sold a different one of her Range Rovers for £132,750.
The car's MOT record shows that by April 2009 - around a year after it was released from the Royal Household - it had clocked just under 18,000 miles. Today, it is showing 119,938.
Rob Hubbard, Managing Director and Principal Auctioneer of Iconic Auctioneers, said: 'Vehicles with such distinguished provenance rarely enter the market, making this an exceptional opportunity for collectors and enthusiasts alike.
'Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II's personal Range Rover combines automotive excellence with an unmatched historical significance.
'We anticipate considerable interest in this vehicle as has been the case with other Royal vehicles we have offered.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rip up the benefits system and start again
As a fan of Jeremy Clarkson's writing I asked ChatGPT to compose, 'in the style of Jeremy Clarkson', some thoughts on a monstrosity reported often enough in this newspaper: the state-funded Motability scheme. AI's Clarkson impersonation began. 'Disabled? Have a BMW on me.' Sharp and amusing; but not what I want to say. You cannot (I maintain) get to grips with where state assistance has ended up without getting to grips with where it started. My column takes the Motability scheme as an illustration of this wider argument. Let me set out how we got to a situation in which one fifth of all new car sales in Britain are Motability cars, and disabled claimants whose conditions range from acne to neurodiversity may indeed get all or part of the cost of a new car that is replaceable every three years. Outrageous? Well, I think so. But we got here by a series of 'if — then' judgments, each of which has seemed fair and rational at the time. Read on, and tell me which was a misstep … • Just 900 people on top-level benefits joined work coach scheme in June We start just after the end of the Second World War, from which many servicemen returned disabled. The Labour government hit upon what became known as the Invacar (older readers may remember those weird little one-person, pale blue three-wheelers) for those war-wounded who could neither walk easily nor afford a conventional private car. Fair enough, don't you think? Invacar production continued for decades as governments of both parties introduced disability benefits for those who struggled to get about; and whether a disability stemmed from war service or some other cause seemed irrelevant. A system of disability benefits evolved which entitled all seriously mobility-impaired claimants access to an Invacar. Fair enough, don't you think? But the Invacar was dangerously unstable, underpowered and could take no passengers. What if a disabled mum wanted to take her toddler with her? The mobility allowance that was introduced in 1976 started at £5 per week (more than £40 at today's prices) and has crept up to the present rate for 'enhanced' impairment to mobility: £77.05. Naturally, many claimants entitled to these regular extra benefits have wanted to use the money to get a proper car. Fair enough, don't you think? • Artist misled NHS about disability when seeking £3m payout So the government arranged for a company to be set up. Motability Operations Ltd deploys claimants' benefits to lease cars for them. Using economies of scale and financed by the individual's benefits, it gets a better deal with a simpler process than a claimant could manage individually. It oils the wheels and costs the taxpayer nothing. If the whole Motability scheme were abolished tomorrow, there would be no saving for the taxpayer. The mobility-impaired would still get the same benefits, but if they wanted a car they would have to make their own arrangements, probably on worse terms than the company can get them. Fair enough, don't you think? So here we are today. The company operates the largest fleet in Europe, spending almost £3 billion of taxpayers' money last year on car leases, insurance and breakdown cover. TikTok influencers boast about how you can get a new car virtually free; online critics mock a scheme to benefit 'bed-wetting boy-racers'; the benefit is available for acquiring even BMWs and Ford Mustangs; complaints abound about Motability cars' use for purposes beyond transporting the disabled; and The Times reports that the 'scheme now has vast eligibility, allowing people with anxiety, dyslexia, severe acne and Munchausen syndrome to claim. Hundreds of thousands of people receive the enhanced mobility award on Pip (personal independence payment) for mental health conditions, learning difficulties and skin conditions to get around.' Few across the whole political spectrum would fail to be disturbed. We on the right speak of 'the bloated state'. We talk about trimming, snipping, pruning, reforming, cutting back. But how? Reduce the benefits? That hits even the most appallingly impaired claimants. Stop the misuse of Motability cars for purposes unrelated to disability? How? Fitting vehicles with transponders would be impossible. Oblige owners to have the Motability logo painted in large letters on the side of their cars? Invite neighbours to squeal, or make DWP swoops? Cries of 'shaming' or 'Stalinist' would fill the air. So how about removing mental problems as a qualifying disability? But the most common, from autism to anxiety to depression may in severe cases be genuinely confining without a car. • Pensions sector seeks Gen Z talent amid recruitment challenges I've zeroed in on Motability only as a parable for the expanding reach and ballooning cost of benefits right across our welfare state. I read, for instance, that the Welsh government is introducing a prepaid subsidy card for those whose food intolerances add to their food costs. Things are spinning out of control. Indignant at manifest abuse, we call for a 'crackdown on scroungers'. We argue that the welfare state should 'sharpen its focus' so that it can 'address genuine need' and exclude 'the undeserving'. Yes, the undeserving predictably muscle in, and whenever the government gives there will be scroungers among those who take. But the core problem is not the undeserving but the deserving. The weight of their numbers and the burden of meeting their entitlements is in danger of toppling the whole economy supporting them. Kemi Badenoch was right to say last month that it's 'not about cutting bits of the state' or 'top slicing' spending. 'It's about looking at what the state does; why it does it.' I take my triple-locked state pension and concessionary travel pass, though I could easily manage without. But even as every such snipping around the edges dies in the Commons voting lobbies or falls victim to second thoughts at No 10, we still shrink from the alternative: abandoning the pruning shears and pulling things up by the roots. The scandal is that there is no scandal. Though cheating, gaming the system and over-claiming do exist, they're not the root of the problem. The root is that the state has taken on responsibilities it should not bear. Governments have tried to level the ups and downs with which time and fate may curse or bless any human being, but we cannot level that landscape; and even if we could, we wouldn't like the result. We cannot entitle everyone to compensation for their difficulties. Entitlement has crept, step by understandable step, too far. Hearts must harden. But I'm convinced that our fellow citizens are not yet ready for this. Your choice and mine, therefore, is between joining the bandwagon as it careers towards the abyss or adding our voices to a small chorus doomed to be drowned out until after the crash.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Motor finance victims urged to complain as compensation could hit £18bn
Millions of drivers could be owed a share of up to £18bn after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced it will consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme. Motorists could receive a pay-out after it emerged many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans, the FCA said. The authority estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The final total cost of any compensation scheme is estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added. Consumer champion Martin Lewis said in a video posted to X that millions of people are likely to be due a share of up to £18 billion. He told Sky News the consultation is 'likely to mean 40% of people who got a car finance deal between 2007 and 2021 will be due some form of redress, likely to be hundreds not thousands of pounds'. The consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. It comes after Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened. While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added. People who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said. Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much to their motor finance lender have been urged to complain now. Consumers do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid, it added. To make an initial complaint, the FCA says people should get in touch with their lender or broker, then the provider should send an acknowledgement within eight weeks. Under the FCA's current rules, it will not have to send a final response until after December 4 2025. But as the FCA is consulting on a compensation scheme, the deadline may be extended. If customers are unhappy with their provider's response, they can then complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FCA added. The authority will propose rules on how lenders should 'consistently, efficiently and fairly' decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much. It will monitor if firms are following the rules and act if they are not. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated. 'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal. 'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get. 'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.'
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Lenders in car finance scandal brace for judgment from investors
Shares in lenders most likely to be forced into compensation payments to consumers who purchased vehicles on credit will be closely watched in the City on Monday, after the financial watchdog set out plans for a redress scheme of up to £18 billion. Close Brothers, Lloyds Bank, Barclays and the controlling group of Santander UK, among Britain's largest providers of motor finance, could see an impact on their share prices as investors consider the consequences of the Financial Conduct Authority announcing plans for a potential compensation scheme that could distribute payments as soon as next year. The FCA said on Sunday that a redress scheme could cost between £9 billion and £18 billion and should cover car loans dating back to 2007. Individuals could receive payments of almost £950 each. The announcement from the City watchdog came after the Supreme Court overruled key elements of an earlier judgment from the Court of Appeal in October that could have put the motor finance industry on the line for compensation payments of more than £30 billion, similar in scale to the £50 billion of payouts under the payment protection insurance scandal of the 2010s. Following that October ruling, shares in Close Brothers, one of the largest players in Britain's motor finance market, slumped by about a quarter in just one day. Shares in Lloyds Bank, which is exposed via its Black Horse lending arm, tumbled by more than 7 per cent. RBC Capital Markets predicted a 'sector impact' of £11.5 billion, with banks paying £3.8 billion and non-banks paying £7.7 billion. Banks had already set aside billions of pounds for possible compensation payments for people who bought a vehicle from a dealership that failed to properly disclose commissions they received from lenders. Lloyds Banking Group alone reserved £1.2 billion. However, analysts at the investment bank Jefferies predicted that the regulator's plans 'largely de-risk Lloyds' shares' from the scandal and that the redress scheme 'is consistent with our long-held assumptions'. Carmakers will also be in focus as many have their own in-house credit divisions. In the wake of the October Court of Appeal ruling, Honda and BMW stopped offering new loans to customers. Alex Neill, co-founder of the rights group Consumer Voice, said: 'Millions of drivers placed their trust in car dealers to secure a fair deal, yet were kept in the dark about unfair commissions that inflated the cost of borrowing. Now, for the first time there is a clear path to justice.' Slater and Gordon, a law firm, said: 'While the [Supreme] Court effectively sided with lenders in two of the three cases, the judgment does not close the door on compensation.' However, it said it was 'concerned that aspects of any proposed redress scheme may inadvertently exclude a significant number of those affected'. Adrian Dally, director of motor finance at the Finance & Leasing Association, an industry body, said: 'We have concerns about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such dated information, and the evidence base will be patchy at best.' The FCA shocked the motor finance industry in January last year when it announced it would examine so-called discretionary commissions paid to dealers between April 2007 and January 2021, when these types of payments were banned. Under such discretionary commission arrangements, brokers were allowed to set the interest rate on loans extended to borrowers. If they charged a higher rate, they would receive larger commissions, so they were motivated to do so at the expense of consumers' finances. Concerns within the motor finance market then amplified in October when the Court of Appeal decided that car dealers, in their capacity as credit brokers, had a fiduciary duty to their customers, meaning that they should act in consumers' best interests. It also said that undisclosed commissions amounted to bribes. Key elements of this judgment were overturned by the Supreme Court last Friday. There were about 25.9 million motor finance deals arranged between 2007 and the end of 2020, although the Supreme Court ruling means many will be ineligible for redress. There had been fears in the government that lenders would face a deluge of compensation claims, leading to the car finance market seizing up. The Treasury had been considering whether to step in to protect lenders.
