I'm sure they didn't; some may even have had more.
If your car is over ten years old, is perfectly reliable and you are happy with the safety features it may or may not have, then hang onto it
That is a less biased statement by far.
Scrappage Scam Extended
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
That is a less biased statement by far.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
He did not simply pick one car from thousands at random. The Focus was infact the best selling car in the UK in 1999. There are more 99 Focus out there than any other make and model of car registered in 1999. Due to the sheer volume of them out there many early examples, despite being safe and reliable, are worth more as scrappage and will be destroyed.
Perhaps to be replaced by a less safe Picanto?
Every time you post you do nothing but hammer home the point that you know nothing about cars nor buyer behaviour. Why you post in Motors is a a queestion I find the answer to hard to fathom.
Too damned right there
Perhaps these entirely rational, unsentimental people scarp their old, unsafe, unreliable, expensive to maintain car in order to reduce the running costs and to get a safer, more reliable car
Indeed, but their older car was kept in a pretty decent condition, serviced regularly, passed it's MOT without resorting to backhanders.
Meanwhile Kev the unemployed bricklayer on the council estate in the next town is running the same car only his is rusted through on the sills because he never washes it, is running on near slick tyres (that are the wrong pressure), is belching blue smoke because he's never even changed the oil let alone taken it in for a proper tune up and the brake pads are worn down to the metal. It passed it's last MOT with the help of £20 and a bag of weed for the MOT tester.
Kev isn't going to get approved for a finance deal and even if he could, he couldn't keep up the repayments anyway.
Which car is the death trap and which car is being removed from the road?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
The only thing that can be concluded from any discussion on the scrappage scheme, is that most people think it's a bad idea, but will never agree with those that believe that they have benefited from it.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
As I understand it, you seem to be suggesting that because "Kev" from Dagenham continues to drive an unsafe car, the other (unnamed) individual should not be encouraged to drive a new, potentially more reliable car with modern safety features. That does seem a tad harsh on Mr Noname
Why should he be made to suffer for "Kev's" selfishness and stupidity?Back on topic, as I understand it, the whole point of what the OP described as a scam is what I would consider to be a pretty reasonable attempt by the Government to offer some assistance to someone other than spivs from the banking community.
The incidental benefits in terms of providing a welcome opportunity to remove some older, less reliable, less safe, more polluting cars from the roads can only be considered a good thing.
To be honest, a 5-10 year old Honda or Toyota is probably far more reliable than a brand new korean car or eurobox in 5 years, or even a new VW in 5 yrs...
Sorry but my 13 year old car is safer then some new cars...
4 star euro ncap, DSA, ABS, Side impact airbags, etc...
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
And since you are probably quite happy with it, I suspect that you will not be trading it in for a new car then; what are you complaining about?
I know its anecdotal but a lady at work has a toyota hybrid thing but uses it infrequently due to holidays etc, she normally needs AA recovery to get it started as all batteries drain over three - four days.
Been in and out of toyota apparently not fixed yet.
Sounds really reliable.
I will get a sworn testiment for this forum.
Been in and out of toyota apparently not fixed yet.
Sounds really reliable.
I will get a sworn testiment for this forum.
I was on about stuff like civic's,corolla's, starlets, accords or avensis's though 
.
That these cars are being destroyed in favor of something rubbish like an alto or a Dacia sandero or whatever other rubbish.
EDIT:
You haven't said anything about my comment on houses, you think people aren't supposed to be attached to their home either?
Well imo my car is my little home away from home, not a brick of metal, same as my house is not just a box of bricks....
.That these cars are being destroyed in favor of something rubbish like an alto or a Dacia sandero or whatever other rubbish.
EDIT:
You haven't said anything about my comment on houses, you think people aren't supposed to be attached to their home either?
Well imo my car is my little home away from home, not a brick of metal, same as my house is not just a box of bricks....
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Perhaps you feel that the Government should take responsibility for deciding which cars are rubbish as well then and compel everyone to drive a black Model T or a VW Beetle?
Maybe they should appoint a Car Czar
No, they should not let us pay tax so someone can scap their perfectly serviceable and working car so they can get a new one...
Here luckily the problem is not that bad, because the scappage scheme has much less effect due to near double used car prices compared to the UK, selling a car is often more profitable than using the scrappage scheme...
But I find it a shame that in the UK, so many good nice cars get destroyed for new cars that are often crappier ( there was no need for that merc earlier mentioned to be destroyed, which was in pretty much all fronts, a far superior car than a brand new city car).
Here luckily the problem is not that bad, because the scappage scheme has much less effect due to near double used car prices compared to the UK, selling a car is often more profitable than using the scrappage scheme...
But I find it a shame that in the UK, so many good nice cars get destroyed for new cars that are often crappier ( there was no need for that merc earlier mentioned to be destroyed, which was in pretty much all fronts, a far superior car than a brand new city car).
Last edited:
I think the term benefit is a little loose and varies..rather a lot based on purchase.
I would like to see the cost comparison between the final payout on a scrappage scheme brand new car and low mileage year old example without the SS.
I would be willing to wager you would get a better specced example in mint condition for less.
My opinion is that the scheme is blinkering people into a blind purchase of a brand new car because of "OMG 2 grand for anything I scrap!"
Would you buy a brand new car without scrappage? If the answer is no, why would you with the scheme if a 12 month old low mileage mint example could be had for less.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Well you see, this is perhaps where you are making some rather sweeping assumptions. You appear to know that lots of people are scrapping "perfectly serviceable and working cars". From where have you gained this insight? Do you have statistics to back up your claims? Are all of of the scrapped cars "perfectly serviceable and working"? Most of them? A few of them? Just a tiny minority?
Personally I don't know what %age are "perfectly serviceable and working", perhaps you can point me to a reliable independent analysis?
Again, you appear to know a great deal about the condition of cars that are scrapped and the cars that replace them; perhaps you could share with me the source of your insight.
As to the Merc, who knows? Certainly not me and I VERY much doubt that you do either.
And what are you talking about anyhow? Everybody knows that the Dutch are paragons of green virtue and ride bicycles everywhere
You are completely missing the point of the scheme, which wouldn't be so bad if it hadn't already been explained several times.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14985892&postcount=108
Perhaps you feel that the Government should take responsibility for deciding which cars are rubbish as well then and compel everyone to drive a black Model T or a VW Beetle? Maybe they should appoint a Car Czar
Why wont you tell us which safety features your i20 has? How many airbags? Does it have ESP?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Look it up for yourself you idle twerp[TW]Fox;15007281 said:
ps - I think that you may actually be missing the point of your own thread . . . see Dolph's post above.
Last edited:
look stockhausen i dont think either myself or fox disagree that about its main purpose. But why completely damage the second hand market. There is another solution scrap cars worth scrapping might be one of them. IMO cars should only be scrapped in the scheme if they are worth less than 1000 in the second hand market and fixing them would cost half their value.
Solid or decent cars should not be scrapped
Solid or decent cars should not be scrapped
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Fair question and I will try to give an honest answer. I really don't think that it is the Government's responsibility to preserve the 2nd hand car market.
Sadly, I do think that it is in the Government's and the country's interest to support the car manufacturing, sales and allied businesses.
I'm not entirely sure that I can get my head around this proposal at this time of night
but I'll try.Say a car is worth £900 on the 2nd hand car market and fixing it would cost nothing because there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, should it be scrapped under the scheme? Sadly, if the owner wants a new car, I guess it should since the alternative (with this scheme in place) is to force the owner to retain the car or to sell it for less than he would get under the scheme.
Say a car is worth £500 on the 2nd hand car market and fixing it would cost £500 because it needs new tyres and is going to fail its MOT in a month, should it be scrapped under the scheme? Definitely, yes.
Probably not, but what are you going to do? Legislate that people cannot dispose of old, unwanted cars; force them to sell at whatever they can get for them?
I believe that the real difficulty with your proposal would be in making the value judgements involved in deciding whether a car should or should not be scrapped. Who makes these judgements? Would you propose running auctions to see what people would actually be prepared to pay for older cars? Setting up a team of independent assessors?
I fear that in view of the declared objective, the scheme that the Government has come up with is as good as one is likely to get although I am not entirely clear as to why a car to be scrapped has to have a current, valid MOT certificate
As I understand it, you seem to be suggesting that because "Kev" from Dagenham continues to drive an unsafe car, the other (unnamed) individual should not be encouraged to drive a new, potentially more reliable car with modern safety features. That does seem a tad harsh on Mr Noname
I'm not claiming that the other guy (lets call him Dwane, if you like) doesn't benefit from the scheme, my issue is what happens to his hold car.
Pretend you have a 18yr old son, lets call him Dave. He's just passed his test and has saved up a grand of his own money to buy his first car, prior to the scrappage scheme, Dwane's car would now be on a dealer forecourt "part-ex to clear" and Kev's would be for sale privately, on paper they're the same, both have a reasonable amount of tax&MOT left and so on, however Kev looks a bit dodgy so Dave buys the other car. Unfortunately that car, that perfectly good serviceable and not too unsafe car isn't available. So he has to buy Kev's car
This is his first car, the one he is probably going to have a crash in. Now when he does have his crash, that is when he is going to discover that the sills are rusted through and have been replaced with chicken wire and bodyfiller, how is he going to know, because the sills will snap in two and the car will get crumple around him as the sills will be weaker than the crumple zones built into the car (yes they did have crumple zones in 1999).
If Dave is lucky, his new car will fail it's MOT before he has an accident and he will have only figuratively lost an arm and a leg rather than literally.
Meanwhile the only crumpling Dwane's old car will be doing is in a compactor machine.
I realise there will be more than two cars on the market at the time, but all the Dwanes in the country will have scrapped all their good cars and all the Kevs will be offloading them privately onto unsuspecting buyers such as Dave.
But the oldest, least reliable, least safe and most polluting cars will still be there, and will probably be killing someone. This scheme is literally putting lives at risk.
If they wern't forced to scrap perfectly good cars I would have very little issue with the scheme. It's a government bailout just like Obama did only this version actually does help consumers and not just big businesses.
How about instead of scrapping the good cars, the cars find their way into the income support and job centre schemes. If an unemployed person is fully qualified for a job with the exception that they cannot get it as they need to own a car for the job, or to commute to the job, a scheme where they get Dwane's old car for, say, a tenner a week interest free providing they take and keep the job that is offered. If they quit or get dismissed for something that is their fault before the car is paid for then the car is taken back. A similar scheme could work for those on low incomes / income support.
This would be a much better use for those old cars, it might even get Kev's deathtrap off the road if he qualifies for the scheme. Ovbiously this only works for the more mundane cars that come in, the exotics could be auctioned to fund the public purse ie. reducing the overall cost of this scheme to the taxpayer.
But, I hear you say, who decides what the value of what cars are and which are worth preserving, well luckily it's car dealerships who take in the scrap cars and they usually have experienced car salesmen and mechanics on staff. It would be a requirement before the dealer get's it's £1000 of government money that the car be sumbitted with a report detailing the car's mechanical condition, estimated value and suitability for re-use.
Personally I beleive that this isn't happening because the government want to poison the second hand market, they want to get poor people off the road, it'll make the roads look less congested without them having to actually spend any money building new ones or paying for more traffic police to educate middle lane morons.