Repair and maintenance information for some battery electric vehicles (BEVs) is not reaching parts manufacturers, distributors and independent workshops, the UK’s leading automotive aftermarket trade body has said.
Mark Field, the Chief Executive of the Independent Automotive Aftermarket Federation (IAAF), which represents a broad church of UK aftermarket members, says that the manufacturers, who have chosen not to provide some information, “are in breach of Vehicle Type approval regulation”.
The legislative requirements, which are implemented and enforced by both the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) and the Driver Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) compels all manufacturers operating in the UK to make repair data available to the entire aftermarket.
Captive parts
But according to Field some BEV manufacturers are also not making captive parts, which are technology related components, available to the independent aftermarket.
Field says, “In not providing data and some captive parts to independent workshops, those manufacturers are pushing up costs for motorists and insurance companies. This is highly significant when you consider that 76 percent of the UK’s 34 million motorists use the independent aftermarket for servicing and repair.”
On the issue of higher motor insurance premiums, which have increased by 21 percent in the last two years, Neil Pattemore, the IAAF’s Technical Director, says that increased labour costs and the war in Ukraine have disrupted automotive aftermarket supply chains, but noted that “the restriction of parts by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to the independent repair sector is also a significant factor”.
New entrants
While the IAAF were reluctant to name non-compliant vehicle manufacturers, it said that the majority were “new brand entrants” but added that “for entirely different reasons” some established vehicle manufacturers “were also sometimes not making parts and data available to independent workshops”.
Pattemore says: “Some Chinese BEV manufacturers entering the UK market have a limited understanding of European type approval legislation. This has meant that in some cases spare parts have been, and are still, not made available to the UK independent aftermarket.”
In terms of automakers with a major presence in the UK, he notes some are using the new cyber security type approval laws, which were introduced in July, “to prevent independent repairers from accessing standard components, such as fuel system parts and headlights”.
Pattemore explains, “These standard parts have already been approved for use by legislators, but because they are often linked to complex technologies, such as advanced driver assistance systems or emergency braking systems, some automakers are using the new laws as convenient cover to restrict the supply of parts to the aftermarket. This has left independent workshops with no choice but to pay OEMs for access to vehicle replacement parts and data. The result is that the cost of mobility is being compromised for millions of UK motorists.”
Collaboration
The issue has not gone unnoticed in the motor insurance sector. Thatcham Research, a not-for-profit automotive risk intelligence organisation, has been working closely with new Chinese BEV manufacturers to ensure greater visibility and a steady flow of parts to the aftermarket.
Ben Townsend, Thatcham Research’s Head of Automotive, has worked with several Chinese automakers, who entered the UK automotive market in 2023 and 2024.
“We have helped Chinese OEMs to understand the market, the repair and logistics sectors, dealer networks and also the motor insurance industry. We strongly believe that despite some teething issues, they have worked very hard to ensure there is a solid infrastructure in place around the distribution of parts and repair data to the entire aftermarket.”
One such beneficiary is Omoda and Jaecoo UK, whose parent company, Chery, is one of China’s largest automakers. Thanos Athanasoulas, Omoda and Jaecoo UK’s senior aftersales manager, says that its collaboration with Thatcham Research has helped the dual-brand to lay solid aftermarket foundations in the UK.
“In China it is very different,” he explains. “If, for instance, the side panel of one of our vehicles was damaged in an accident, the bodyshop would simply replace the whole panel regardless of the damage. That is possible due to government subsidies and because aftermarket labour is a lot cheaper in China than it is in the UK and Europe.”
However, in the UK, where most repairs need to be approved by insurers, Athanasoulas says that Thatcham Research advised Omoda and Jaecoo UK on a different aftermarket design and repair strategy.
He explains “Thatcham Research worked closely with our R&D team to separate the side panel into specific coded parts and produce an instruction repair manual for each section. It then invited key players in the aftermarket and insurance sectors to a specialist event earlier this year, where it explained to them the work that had taken place – not just relating to side panels – but to every component in our UK supply chain.”
This, he says, has helped Omoda and Jaecoo UKto establish its aftermarket footprint in the UK, while a partnership with DHL, means that the UK aftermarket – whether it is through dealer networks or independent non-dealer repairers – “can source any part they need within a 24 to 48-hour timeframe”.
Will the improve Vehicle Risk Rating system transparency?
In an attempt to further improve transparency, Thatcham Research has created the Vehicle Risk Rating system, which has replaced the 1-50 Group Rating system. The new method assesses vehicle models against five different criteria: Performance, Damageability, Repairability, Safety, and Security. Using real-world data insurance claims, each of the five variables is then scored from 1 to 99: 1 being the lowest risk and 99 the highest.
Townsend explains that to record a low repairability score, vehicle manufacturers will need to demonstrate that the right level of spare parts are in stock and are available to consumers at a reasonable price.
“We hope that by providing motorists with a much higher level of transparency than the previous system was able to offer, it will help the market to settle back and get to a position where it is once again driving real consumer value.”
However, while the IAAF believes that the new system provides more visibility to motorists than the old arrangement, it is not convinced that the Vehicle Risk Rating system will make a palpable difference to repair costs.
Pattemore says, “The new risk rating system provides more information to potential buyers and it is credible too that the system could help to force automakers with low repairability scores to improve the design of their vehicles. However, it is largely a blunt instrument as it is not the OEM that decides the cost of repair, but insurance companies and they will always seek the cheapest quote possible.”
Secondly, Pattemore believes that the new Vehicle Risk Rating System does not solve the fundamental issue of OEMs restricting the aftermarket’s access to in-vehicle data.
However, Townsend says that because the Vehicle Risk Rating is dynamic, “it will evolve over time and that could include the addition of in-vehicle data”.
He adds, “The framework we are setting out with Vehicle Risk Rating will hopefully encourage vehicle manufacturers to provide the right level of data into the market, without the need for unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy.
Closer alignment the only solution?
Pattemore thinks a better solution would be to change the law so that Vehicle Type approval and the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Order relating to the ability to service and repair motor vehicles are aligned.
“If they were, this would mean that independent workshops would have all of the data they require to diagnose an issue and fix problems.
Car Aftermarket Trader contacted the Department for Transport (DfT) to seek clarification as to why it hadn’t yet merged the two and when it planned to do so.
The DfT chose to not directly answer Car Aftermarket Trader’s questions, but in a statement, a spokesperson said, “Existing regulations in place already allow access to all relevant maintenance and repair information ensuring they operate on a level playing field. Any independent operator who feels a vehicle manufacturer is not fulfilling their obligations should report their concerns to the relevant agencies.”
In response to the DfT’s statement, Field said, “We are disappointed by this response from the DfT, as the changes in vehicle technology and the new service and repair business models that this supports, are already distorting the costs to the consumer, as these new business models are not available to the independent aftermarket.”
Go to comments