I want to own my car, not lease it

I prefer to buy cars new and keep them for a decent length of time. I traded in my last car after ten years. Doing this and keeping to under 10,000 miles a year are the ways I save money. My cars have been reliable and the last time I called out a motoring organisation was in 1989.

I’m with Claire on this one, I have an 18 year old MX-5 and a permanent grin that a I just dont get from a modern car. I originally got the Mazda for £2k a few years ago as a 2nd car, but I soon ditched my shiny new 207 for the ultra reliable mazda purely because I like enjoying myself. It does 12,000 a year and I the only time I have ever called out a motoring organisation was for a motorcycle puncture 5 years ago. but then I have only been driving since 1979… I do keep the Mazda well serviced and whenever replacement parts are needed I generally go for an upgrade, so she improves with age, which is also nice. So my take on it is that if you like something, why not own it and improve it – like a house.
In terms of cost, I spend about £800 a year on tyres, MOT, maintenance, etc on top of the £2,000 outlay (that I would recoup tomorrow if I sold it). So it is hardly expensive motoring, though granted, modern comfort and are attractive. Besides, whenever I have had cars on finance, there was always a bun fight at the end regarding the final settlement – they generally fabricate a catalogue of imaginary dents and scratches. Finance companies are rarely pleasant people to do business with and they aren’t doing it for your benefit.
And another thing, I think I am correct in saying that new cars are often less reliable than slightly older ones (esp French wiring?) due to designed in obsolescence, and anyway, why would you want a car without a spare wheel or one that costs £50 to change an unreachable headlight bulb? Any thoughts anyone?

I feel that if someone else owns your car and lends it to you, they are going to do it for a profit so you will end up with more expensive motoring costs than proper ownership. Just like the nonsense of PFIs on a smaller scale. I keep my cars a long time; currently I have a 1994 and a 2004 car and would rather spend money on maintenance than depreciation.

I bought a car on 0% finance on HP over 3 years, and kept it for another year and a half. Then I replaced it with another (same model) on 0% finance but its PCP this time. I’ll still keep it though at the end of the term, as I feel 3 years is too soon to change my car. I love it too much to let it go after that time. If there was any interest on the finance I would have kept my previous car.

Until now, I have always bought my cars outright whether new or second-hand and usually kept them for more than 5 years with regular servicing plus tender loving care. I confess to the pride and satisfaction of actually owing something that is nice to look at, drives well and get’s good reviews but the same can be said for many other material possessions in our modern world, (watches, TVs, cameras etc). However, I have now decided to dip my toes into the PCP world with my next new car and have been agonising over whether this is a good or bad idea. I have savings that could buy the vehicle outright but mean a large lump of capital gone and the loss of reasonable discount. I have done umpteen sums and permutations and I understand that somebody is earning interest from me, but having crossed that psychological barrier into renting rather owning my deal gives me the car I have always wanted, lower monthly payments than HP, a guaranteed ballon value / payment which I can still afford and I have carefully chosen an annual mileage that is truly reflective of its planned use. Scratches and dents I will have repaired as I would if I owned the car. Also for my personal circumstances, I will have a larger capital sum left in my bank which I can invest or use for other unexpected outgoings. Seems a good deal for my personal circumstances and that, I think is the key, horses for courses, as they say.

I would like to comment on the realisation by dealers that PCP now gets a bad name, as noted above; and they are turning to PCH, or Personal Contract Hire, whereby the rates are lower per month, but at the end of the term the car is simply returned (so no further purchase or car to consider). I was shown a deal on a £40k Volvo which seemed to show I would pay £25k over 4 years and then hand it back (with the usual caveats over mileage and “wear and tear” costs). However I then noted a “28% taxable liability” comment nestled in the quote, with no further explanation, and remembered from my Company Car days that for a company car this was a taxable income figure based each year on the NEW CAR cost and paid at my marginal tax rate (40%), in this case £40k x0.28×0.4 = £4.5k pa, or £18k over 4 years , making MY COST to own £43k.
In further taking into account that in OWNING the car at 4 years, its residual value would be ca £15k, the PCH route would COST ME £58k over a purchase deal with “cash and a trade-in”.
I would be grateful if Which could consider this case, including the “hidden” tax implications, and investigate the growth of this ( now heavily advertised in the motoring press) PCH option.