For most of my motoring youth I paid a car loan every month. I think I got it to about £200 a month, twenty years ago, and then whenever I changed cars I tried to get it so I paid the same, so it just felt part of expenses. That felt like as much as we could comfortably handle.
I never used PCP (wasn't invented I don't think!), so just HP. Never seemed to clear it, just changed. Did that for a long time.
More recently, I got to the stage where we thought we didn't want the debt and monthly payments, so saved hard and bought (secondhand) outright. No loans now.
However, of course, changing the car now is more eye watering, as it's either loan again (boo, nasty idea) or save and save and save, then it all goes bang in one hit.
Anyway, just interested in what everyone else does? Do you fork out a huge chunk of savings or do you use a loan? Obviously I appreciate one man's huge chunk is another's small change, and I guess company car drivers have different circumstances.
|
No hard and fast answer. Depends on the deals on offer. If I had enough in savings I'd try to wangle a deal for cash. Ditto using a personal loan if lacking savings or being unwiling to deplete. If you use savings you need to be disciplined about increasing what you put away each month substantially. OTOH if there's manfr/dealer finance at advantageous rate....
The trap, utilised by certain car supermarkets, is just to see it as a monthly outgoing without considering duration and total to pay.
PCP at nil/low APR while saving for the balloon payment was appealing last time.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Jun 13 at 09:54
|
We've always ran two cars. With one execption, the "main" car has always had to be bought with a car loan - which we've tried to keep as small as possible while getting a car that does the job we need. The second hack was always bought for cash, hunting about for the best deal we could get on the money we had to spend.
Having just cleared the loan on our current main car, which has lost 2/3 its value in the three year term of the loan, I'm determined not to have another loan, but to buy a middle-aged car from a reputable maker with a good service history for cash instead.
|
|
I have replaced my cars on a five year cycle for decades, I save and pay cash, with the trade in it is manageable even on a pension. I am considering an end of contract less than 20,000 mile Motability car next time. Or a new Duster. :-)
|
Have had loans and also had a PCP once. PCP actually worked out good.
Current car is out of loan, its mine now, with the plan that I put by the equivalent of the monthly payment to stack up into a decent deposit in a couple of years time.
Except that fund is zero as it is the first place we dip into when needs arise like annual insurance premiums, car repairs, road tax etc etc.
With a loan, you pay it, it goes and you just accept that you really don't ever have that money.
But then you look back and see how much you have paid for a diminishing return and it becomes eye watering!
|
My first couple of cars were sub £500 bangers, after that I bought a 3 yr old on Finance and financed every car after that for the next 15 years or so.
Our current 2 cars were bought cash, and after a lengthy thread on here :) decided against financing another.
We plan to never buy on finance again now, just saving what would be a monthly payment towards the next car.
|
I suppose we had gone right from one extreme to the other in my recent change. New Citroen C5 on lease costing £900 down and 3yrs at £300/mth... to a £1000ish outright purchase 5mths ago.
The C5 lease was a brilliant way to run a car when my mileage was higher and we had a lot going on so I needed a car with no maintenance worry or costs. The fixed monthly budget was perfect for that and in fact lease worked out cheaper than buying the car on finance and standing my own depreciation.
Now I am effectively retired but with a small business (just me) of my own I only have to go where I want when I want and have the odd few hours to do a service or repair so an older owned car is working out well and a better use (well saving) of money to spend on other stuff.
If I was retired with a decent income flow and just wanted the car as a transport tool I think I'd lease a new car... something like a Honda Jazz at £155/mth. The process of sourcing and then changing after 3yrs is so hassle free.
Regarding actual loans to buy a car that was ours.... don't think we've done that in over 30yrs... just bought what we could afford with cash/savings.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 5 Jun 13 at 10:14
|
|
For the majority of the time up to age 27, I didn't have a car at all and I either walked , cycled, or used public transport. I saved up and at age 27 I bought my first new car, a bottom-of-the-range Hillman Imp. I then continued to save and upgraded each time I traded in for another new car. The only thing I've ever had on credit is a house. When I bought my first property, a lowly flat on a mortgage with a mandatory 25% deposit, I even sold the car that I had at the time so that I had enough cash to buy the minimum of furniture . I just don't see the point of paying interest for anything other than a mortgage. I was brought up to believe that if you couldn't afford to pay cash for something then you didn't have it. One of my work colleagues even managed to be frugal enough to only have a mortgage on his very first house. Paying interest on anything other than a mortgage is a mug's game.
|
>>Paying interest on anything other than a mortgage is a mug's game
Whilst I agree in principal, there are times when loans are acceptable or necessity. For instance, a loan to buy a car as you have a new job, need a car and don't have one. The increased salary will justify the cost.
Short term loans (not the high st crooks), maybe to pay for a holiday that you know you need a bit extra but will be able to pay it off within 2 pay cheques of you coming back.
Re the mortgage, is this acceptable because the hope is that the property will gain in value or is it acceptable as it is probably the only way that you can guarantee a roof over the head?
|
If you can't afford paying upfront (be a car or a house) then a loan is only way to get it now.
In case you can afford paying upfront, you need to consider 2 options
a. how much interest you'll be paying on loan/mortgage
b. if you invest the money elsewhere (business, money, offshore investment whatever), how much return you can get from it
If b>a, take loan. Else pay upfront.
>> hope is that the property will gain in value
May not always happen any more especially with current downturn and when you consider inflation.
|
>> If you can't afford paying upfront (be a car or a house) then a loan
>> is only way to get it now.
I don't agree. The way to pay for your first new car outright is simply to choose a modest car and save up for it. I accept that people have to have somewhere to live, but they don't have to have a car. Wages have kept up with car prices, so it shouldn't be any harder now than when I was saving up for my first new car. My first new car cost six month's salary, so that scenario would be just as easily viable nowadays. I just made sure that my job was close enough to where I lived, or vice versa, so that I could walk, cycle, or go on the bus to work. The trouble nowadays is that people want everything all at once ~ nice house, big car, camera, computer, big television, holidays abroad, etc. etc.
|
No L'Es, the trouble nowadays is that people find it very difficult to obtain work that close to home these days that they can do without transport. Many workplaces now offer season ticket loans to their staff so they can buy commuter rail tickets (£4700 annually from Reading to London for example). Many people also have to deliver children to distant schools, with no acceptable public transport option. We don't have jobs for life in our generation, we have to move companies regularly, many of us are contractors who flit from job to job. It is impossible to keep moving house every time this happens, so we have to take root somewhere and commute to our workplaces. This costs.
It's not 1953 any more. Just banging on about how saving up and going without is the only way doesn't change that. We have massive unemployment, a hugely competitive job market and some questionable education policies driving all this. There is nothing wrong with taking a loan to purchase an essential transport item, be a car or a season ticket. This generation is paddling like hell to stay afloat, and if we need a bit of credit to do that every now and again, then so be it. It also provides jobs at the banks/loan companies etc.
Do you think people actually WANT debt? Of course we don't but in this modern world we sometimes have to have it, usually with a sigh and a roll of the eyes.
And it's not really fair to lump car/season ticket loans in with TVs etc. I'm not taken with the idea of debt for items like that, but if you can afford the repayments what's the problem? It's the same as saving up, and paying a bit extra for the privilege of getting your desired item early. So what?
|
>> No L'Es, the trouble nowadays is ............
We're obviously two very different people. At no time in my life have I had to have a car. I accept that my life would have evolved differently if I'd never had a car, but I would still be here.
|
>> >> No L'Es, the trouble nowadays is ............
>>
>> We're obviously two very different people. At no time in my life have I had
>> to have a car. I accept that my life would have evolved differently if I'd
>> never had a car, but I would still be here.
Thinking about it, what I think you're saying is that, if you haven't got a car and can't afford one, then get any job near to home that you can reach easily by foot or public transport.
What I think that point is missing is that, if you cast your net wider, you increase your opportunity to find higher paid work, and if that work pays enough to fund a car loan and you're still financially better than with the lower paid local job, then who is being the more financially sensible? The one who works locally for peanuts, or the one who takes the better paying job and borrows money in order to be able to keep the job, one which may have better future earning prospects also?
We may be very different people, but we are also, and importantly in the context of this discussion, from two very different working generations. I think, without wishing to sound patronising, that the realities of the current work market aren't that familiar to you.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 6 Jun 13 at 10:20
|
I accept that my life would have evolved differently if I'd
>> never had a car, but I would still be here.
>>
Missed the edit.
Why not extend your principle to housing? You'd equally still be here if you'd never had a mortgage - you could have rented all your life, private or council. I'll tell you why. You borrowed (affordably) to make your surroundings better, and perhaps invest in an increasing asset for retirement/legacy. Same principle as borrowing to buy something (e.g. a car) to enable you to earn (more) money.
|
>> It's not 1953 any more.
In 1953 my wheeled transport was a homemade go-cart (dilly, trolley, bogey, buggy, cart). www.oilyhands.co.uk/homemade_gocart_dilly_trolley.htm
|
's
>> I just made sure
>> that my job was close enough to where I lived, or vice versa, so that
>> I could walk, cycle, or go on the bus to work.
That's not so easy these days though, except perhaps for those working in Central London. Employers expect you to arrive and depart to their tune, not that of Stagecoach or First bus. One bus an hour from home to nearest town. Last service back leaves at 18:00 - plus a old biddy's special at 22:00 for end of session at Beacon Bingo.
As part of hoop jumping for voluntary redundancy I've been offered a post managing a twilight shift finishing at 22:00 in Brum. Would then kick my heels at New St for 55mins hoping the last train was a train not a replacement bus and not too full of drunks.
No option but to drive home from station.
And that's nothong by modern standards as vic so lucidly explains.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 5 Jun 13 at 15:38
|
>> Paying interest on anything other than a mortgage is a mug's
>> game.
Only if you measure everything in life by money alone.
|
I am planning to change mine every 5-6 years. A 6 year old small car will still be very easy to shift, if I buy another cheap car the cost to change will only be around £4k.
Could do with something a little bit bigger next time, the Dacia things look a bit basic (seen lots of them in Spain) so something like a Fabia would be ideal.
Unless the saving is substantial I will buy another brand new car. It is not worth buying nearly new just to save in my case a few hundred quid.
Back to the loans, I will always try and keep it as close to £100 a month as I can, that way its very easy to manage.
|
>> I am planning to change mine every 5-6 years. A 6 year old small car
>> will still be very easy to shift, if I buy another cheap car the cost
>> to change will only be around £4k.
It shouldn't be difficult for you to save £4000 in the next five years so that your can pay for your next new car outright. Car-wise, you'd then be debt-free and should be able to remain so for the rest of your life.
|
Given the exceptionally gentle life Rattle's Panda leads, why chop it in at 5 years old? Rather, change it against an ex-demo one around 8 years old (it'll still have value as a cheap to run first car for someone).
Just as with bangers, the trick is to eke it out as long as you can, but get rid before the problems that old cars throw up start to show. Which seemed to start around 9 years old on both Fiats I had/have.
|
|
Exactly, it cost me a lot more in the long run to run the bangers!
|
>> Exactly, it cost me a lot more in the long run to run the bangers!
>>
You must have been doing it wrong. The fatal mistake with bangernomics is failing to respect rule #1:
As soon as something serious goes wrong, cut your losses and walk away.
I've seen too many feel that they need to "get value" out of the thing and start chucking good money after bad....
|
But that can be a fine line TeeCee.
Your £1000 banger may be worth £200 unless you pay the £300 to get a major part fixed....
|
I only buy old jalopies so it's cash for me every time, but if I was to replace my present Forester with a new one,
I wouldn't get much change out of £30,000, so I'd have to get it on the knock.
|
Haven't borrowed for anything other than a house.
Means I drove some turds when I was younger ;-)
Only time I've had a non-mortgage loan was when banks were offering preferential rates for medical students in the 90s - the loan went straight into a savings account at a higher rate (back when you could get a TESSA paying 10-12%).
|
|
I did both with mine. MB were offering a 'dealer deposit contibution' on finance, which was actually centrally funded by MB and was on top of the discount the dealer offered. I took the finance but settled the balance the following month. I paid some interest, but certainly less than £100, and got what was effectively almost another 5% off the cost of the car
|
|
I've only ever owned classics or about-to-be-classics at the bottom of their value v. age graph, and have never borrowed for anything except a mortgage paid off 30 years ago.
|
Only ever borrowed money once for the forty odd cars I've owned. That was a Morgan 4/4 (RUG 699W) when I placed a £100 deposit in 1976 aged 21. Went to my friendly bank manager, explained my business plan, and borrowed the money when I took delivery in Dec 1980. Cost me £6475.46, inc wire wheels, a £155.73 extra, plus £10 for petrol and £60 for 12 months tax.
Advertised in The Times and pre sold before delivery for £7100. Drove it for a few days, and after paying insurance, advertising and bank fees cleared a £200 profit. Which is more or less what I paid for my first car, a Mini Clubman estate, bought when I was 17, with funds from my 'car fund' accumulated from 4 years caddying, snow clearing, paper rounds and lawn mowing from the age of 13. No idea how I found the time to go to school. Maybe I didn't!
|
|
just looked at the original invoice from Dec 1980, Otley & Ilkley Motors, and seen that the rear bumper was an optional extra! As were reclining seats & a luggage carrier I paid for. Fortunately, the Royal Ivory paint was standard.
|
It makes sense for anyone living in the real world to owe as little as possible, recent regimes both home and overseen by EU have proved unable to manage the country or its finances, they are not to be trusted.
Similarly, don't prop up the whole shambles by paying interest on anything other than the home you live out of your normal income.
I feel as L'escargot.
|
|
>> Similarly, don't prop up the whole shambles by lending banks your hard-earned cash and life's savings so they can hoard it all and give you sod all back in interest.
|
"Similarly, don't prop up the whole shambles by lending banks your hard-earned cash and life's savings so they can hoard it all and give you sod all back in interest."
And the alternatives are?
|
Spend it as you make it and let the state support you in your dotage.
That's how the last couple of generations have managed.
|
"Spend it as you make it and let the state support you in your dotage."
I think most people aspire to a little more. I wouldn't bank on the State being able to provide much in the way of comfort in your old age.
|
>>I think most people aspire to a little more
Like inflation minus 1.5% on your savings?
|
It's certainly a bum deal and savers have had a rough five years what with low interest rates and an effective devaluation of the pound. The people who have suffered most are the retired who see their savings dwindle and anticipated income disappear.
But the question I asked is what is the alternative to keeping your money in a bank and effectively there is none. Going out and sending all your savings and throwing yourself on the mercy of the state is not an option I fancy that much.
|
Not necessarily CG...the retired are getting a heck of a lot more when they bought their annuities than I will when I reach 60. The main reason I stopped paying into my private pension 20 years ago, and took all my 25% tax free lump sum when I reached 52.
My old Mum has some kind of guaranteed private pension which increases 4% a year and brings in £11k pa gross, more than she could ever spend even if she tried.
I quite fancy spending all my money and throwing myself on the mercy of the state. Actually I do. Have you seen the cost of long haul airfares recently? Thrice a year I visit my chums in sunny California, and my logic is that when in my dotage it wont be an option. Hence the Viv Nicholsons.
|
>> Going out and sending all your savings and throwing yourself on the mercy of the state is not an option I fancy that much.
I already pay approximately £30k pa into my "unfunded", "gold-plated", NHS pension*.
For this princely sum I get to retire at 68 and receive a pension of around £55-60k pa in today's money**.
This assumes: (1) That the rules won't be changed once again, and (2) somehow I would actually want to work like an idiot to 68.
For my £1.2m contributions I'm unconvinced that's great VFM.
Private pensions/annuities impress me even less: the winners are always the banks/insurance companies - the actual "investor" is now getting a very poor return and I can't see this improving much for the next decade.
The UK is competing on the World stage with an aging, ailing population. Governmental spending priorities are throwing its income at the retired and ill. This must surely put us at a competetive disadvantage compared to the rest of the world (excepting Europe): there is NO financial reason why the UK cannot become a 3rd world state economically if it continues to fail to invest in education/training at the rate of its competitors.
* apparently there is currently a surplus of £2bn in the pension scheme which simply goes straight back to general taxation - in time if contributions fall behind pay-outs I expect the govt of the day will increase the take.
** obviously I'm not pleading poverty - it's more a VFM point.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 6 Jun 13 at 08:29
|
>> I already pay approximately £30k pa into my "unfunded", "gold-plated", NHS pension*.
£30,000 per annum? You must be on a good salary!
|
>>£30,000 per annum? You must be on a good salary!
Not technically a salary - GPs are 'independent' contractors who provide General Medical Services (ie. self employed partnerships). Our pay comes from what is left after running the practice.
Due to this we are liable also to pay our own employer contributions as well as employee which means over 25% of our income goes into the NHS pension pot.
|
>> >>£30,000 per annum? You must be on a good salary!
>>
>> Not technically a salary -
I stand corrected. You must be on a good income.
|
|
The system is now that doctors make money by not spending it on patients.
|
>>The system is now that doctors make money by not spending it on patients.
Has been the case since 1948, Zed, it's just since 2004 a big chunk of the income is actually dependent upon hitting certain targets.
Whether or not you believe the targets are true indicators of good care, of course, is another matter entirely.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 6 Jun 13 at 09:02
|
>>Whether or not you believe the targets are true indicators of good care, of course, is another matter entirely.
>>
Some targets are ok but it worries me a little when I am encouraged to take the likes of statins if that is a target.
|
>> but it worries me a little when I am encouraged to take the likes of statins if that is a target
Indeed. Treating medicine as a population science, giving all type 2 diabetics a statin, or those at high risk of heart disease, will reduce the number of heart attacks in that population.
On an individual basis, 90% of those people taking statins will not gain any benefit from taking that tablet every day for the rest of their life (ie. they still have a heart attack, or get some other ailment such as cancer or a stroke or get run over by a mimser).
The ones that do benefit, however, will benefit hugely by avoiding a heart attack.
We can't pick who will dodge a heart attack so current wisdom is treat everyone at risk and accept a few will have side effects (very rarely serious).
|
>> or get run over by a mimser)
Don't talk about Lud like that.
:+}
|
>>We can't pick who will dodge a heart attack so current wisdom is treat everyone at risk and accept a few will have side effects (very rarely serious).
>>
I tried statins a few years ago and had side effects. One was serious (to me) joint / muscle pain which fortunately went within 48 hours of stopping the pills.
The non seroius side effect was most odd- a sort of ring alopecia where I had a circle of white hair which also reverted to norm.
What worries me more is the medical profession not paying attention to what the public and lower ranked front line staff tell them re effects from treatments.
|
>> >> I already pay approximately £30k pa into my "unfunded", "gold-plated", NHS pension*.
Inland Revenue rules limited me to paying a maximum of 15% of my salary into my employer's pension scheme.
|
"The UK is competing on the World stage with an aging, ailing population. Governmental spending priorities are throwing its income at the retired and ill. This must surely put us at a competetive disadvantage compared to the rest of the world (excepting Europe): there is NO financial reason why the UK cannot become a 3rd world state economically if it continues to fail to invest in education/training at the rate of its competitors."
But your complaint seems to be that you don't want to pay as much for your pension, and you want to retire before 68.
To make this possible the government would have to take less from you - effectively the thing you are already complaining about i.e prioritising spending on pensions at the the expense of education training etc.
|
>> ................. there is
>> NO financial reason why the UK cannot become a 3rd world state economically ..........
It might be better that way, and then we'd receive aid from the richer countries.
|
>> But your complaint seems to be that you don't want to pay as much for your pension, and you want to retire before 68.
I don't want or need a pension of 60 grand when I retire - if I need that amount I have done something wrong during my working life. I'd happily pay less in with the promise of less at the end- but that's not an option.
And if I am drawing full pay/working until I am 68 who is going to be paying for this even bigger army of doctors between the age of 60 and 68?
Of course the cynics out there may be suspicious that the new set up is simply to ensure people still retire around 60-65 but get a reduced pension by doing so (NHS pension allows you to retire up to 10 years early with a much smaller payout).
|
>> I feel as L'escargot.
>>
Me too. Only borrow to invest, not to spend. That could mean a car if its an essential tool to earn, but not holidays for example.
If you haven't the cash to buy what you want, why make yourself poorer by borrowing.
|
>>If you haven't the cash to buy what you want, why make yourself poorer by borrowing.
Live now - pay later?
|
I belong to the SKI generation.
Spending Kids Inheritance.
|
>>I belong to the SKI generation
I'm in the generation below and it's no different here ;-)
ps. I can't ski: I even managed to fall off a skateboard while sitting on it.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 6 Jun 13 at 08:50
|
>> I belong to the SKI generation. Spending Kids Inheritance.
>>
Me too but I am lucky. Fortunately my children no not need my funds as they both earn far far more than I ever did and are unlikely ever to be out of a good job.
|
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man."
|
All very good, but it's not 1602, either. Let alone 1953.
Most business borrow to invest for growth. That can equally apply to individuals when applied to the need for resources (training, education, transport) which can enable us to increase our earning potential.
|
Give thy thoughts no tongue.
:}
|
Own, never loan. If you haven't saved the money then you cannot afford it, simple.
If you take a loan then you will pay someone else for the privilege of utilising their money (it isn't yours, don't kid yourself).
Now, obviously there are exceptions - house purchase, interest free offers etc. People often seem to argue that it's the 'only way to access' a new car, big TV, lounge suite, kitchen or whatever. Maybe that's so, but then maybe there's the option to delay the purchase or just do without?
Generally it won't kill you.... unless it's medical care, in most parts of the world all medical care actually costs you money every time you use it, the UK is blessed/deluded on that particular issue IMHO but then I'm starting to sound rather more right-wing than I'd like to be.
|
>> All very good, but it's not 1602, either. Let alone 1953.
>>
>> Most business borrow to invest for growth. That can equally apply to individuals when applied
>> to the need for resources (training, education, transport) which can enable us to increase our
>> earning potential.
>>
But a car is a depreciating asset, rarely is a new one needed to generate 'growth' for an individual. Then there's the tax-shield for business which doesn't apply to individuals.
I contend that an individual can almost always do without the car they purchase via a loan and substitute a cheaper option (ranging from walking through push-bike to keeping the old car longer) whilst they save up.
|
>> whilst they save up.
>>
Don't know if you've noticed, but cash is a depreciating asset these days also.
|
>> >> whilst they save up.
>> >>
>>
>> Don't know if you've noticed, but cash is a depreciating asset these days also.
>>
Not everywhere it isn't.... but you make a valid point, it's a strong argument to spend it but not necessarily to borrow it.
|
>> Most business borrow to invest for growth.
True. But it's not without risk, and leads to some of them going bust.
They do it partly because debt is cheaper than equity. They also do it because gearing increases return on equity, and when times are good and growth is easy, the more you borrow the more you make; and because if they don't then somebody will take over their business cheaply and do it anyway. That is not generally the case with individuals.
You have highlighted the investment value of a car, education, and training that enable you to earn (more) money, which is fair enough. But most car loans aren't in that category.
The typical personal borrower just anticipates his or her earnings because they think they owe themselves a nice car or holiday. It's generally a poor judgement and arguably irresponsible behaviour for anybody with family responsibilities. Mostly they get away with it, but they are gambling on future earnings and on something turning up if it all goes wrong. In some cases they end up bankrupt or reliant on state handouts.
I've never regretted being a saver. My father never earned a lot, but always had money in his pocket after he'd paid the bills, unlike the neighbours with more income who were always skint. I admire him for it still.
The plus side of consumer debt is economic growth - until the bubble bursts and consumers start paying down debt instead of borrowing, then it goes rapidly into reverse. As we can now see.
Somebody get borrowing and spending please!
|
>> All very good, but it's not 1602, either. Let alone 1953.
What's the significance of the year 1953 you keep mentioning?
|
>>
>> What's the significance of the year 1953 you keep mentioning?
>>
Coronation ? I think it's been in the news quite recently.
Dawn of a new glorious Elizabethan Age, something like that?
|
"All very good, but it's not 1602, either. Let alone 1953"
It's 1434 in some places. ;-)
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 7 Jun 13 at 16:44
|
1644 where you were, apparently, CG.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be...
But from whose mouth does that speech come? A corrupt plodder, abettor and sycophant, who comes to a sticky - and stuck - end. I don't think it's advice the audience is meant to take at face value. On the contrary, I think we're being invited to see it for the simplistic platitude it is.
|
|
Lost me there WdB . I was alluding to the Moslem calendar in which is indeed 1434 AH
|
|
...and I was thinking of the 24-hour clock, which was showing 1644 BST when you finished editing.
|
Own or loan? - Bromptonaut
