It’s an exciting time in the electric car world at the moment, with more and more models going on sale.

There is big news today, too, with Dacia’s announcement that it will bring its compact EV, called the Spring, to the UK next year. The Spring has been on sale since 2021 in other European markets and has the title of Europe’s most affordable new electric car – something that it will likely be when it comes to the UK as well.

But if you can’t quite wait for the Dacia Spring to arrive, what are currently the cheapest new EVs today? Let’s take a look.

MG4 – £26,995

MG is now one of the key players in the electric car segment, with its affordable EVs really resonating with buyers that want to go electric, but without having to splash vast amounts of cash.

Its new MG4 is also currently the UK’s most affordable EV, with a starting price of £26,995. That buys the entry-level model, equipped with a 51kWh battery that’s able to achieve a credible claimed 218 miles from a charge. It’s also good to drive, well-equipped and offers attractive styling too. MG’s current offers mean you can get behind the wheel for £269 per month over a four-year deal, with a £6,000 deposit.

Fiat 500 – from £28,195

Fiat’s 500 continues to be one of the most popular cars across Europe, with petrol versions recently being joined by a new electric model, though based on new underpinnings and getting a raft of additional technology.

While substantially more expensive than the regular petrol version, this EV’s £28,195 starting price makes it one of the most accessible electric cars on the market. For this price, you are limited to cars equipped with the small 24kWh battery, which only allows for a claimed range of 118 miles. In terms of finance, a rough £6,000 deposit, and monthly payments of £290 can get you behind the wheel with a £6,000 deposit.

Nissan Leaf – from £28,495

Nissan has been producing EVs for longer than most manufacturers, with the Leaf debuting back in 2011, and helping to introduce many to electric cars. That remains the case today, with the latest car’s £28,495 starting price still putting it among the cheapest new EVs on the market. Thanks to the introduction of a new entry-level ‘Shiro’ trim level, it’s also just got £500 cheaper.

The Leaf is practical and generously equipped, with the entry-level 39kWh battery allowing for a claimed 168-mile range. Over a three-year finance contract, this Nissan is available from £350 a month with a £6,000 deposit.

Renault Zoe – from £29,995

Renault was another early firm to get involved in affordable, mass-market EVs with its Zoe, and this practical supermini remains a good option for those looking to make the switch without breaking the bank.

The Zoe starts from a smidge under £30,000, and comes generously equipped with a large touchscreen and front and rear parking sensors. A 239-mile range is also the longest of any model on this list. It is quite expensive to finance, however, currently costing £450 a month over three years with a £6,000 deposit, owing to its steep depreciation.

MG ZS EV – from £30,495

There are many electric SUVs on the market, but there are few at the affordable end of the spectrum. That’s where the MG ZS EV crossover comes in, by bringing this popular bodystyle at a lower price.

Available from £30,495, the ZS EV significantly undercuts its rivals, while still offering a respectable 198-mile range and generous equipment levels. Currently, to finance, the MG will cost £329 a month over a four-year agreement, with a £6,400 deposit.

MG5 – from £30,995

You might have noticed by now that MG dominates the affordable end of the electric car segment, with the MG5 also available for an attractive starting price of £30,995. It’s one of the few electric estate cars currently available and impresses with its practical interior and generous equipment levels.

As the MG5 is only available in ‘Long Range’ form, it means it’s also capable of a claimed 250 miles on a charge – the most of any EV on this list. It’s more to finance, however, as it costs £428 a month over four years with a £6,500 deposit.

Mazda MX-30 – from £31,250

Mazda is known to do things a little bit differently, and this is shown when it comes to EVs too. The MX-30 is quite an oddball choice, as this coupe-styled SUV might look the part but is let down by a poor range of just 124 miles.

That said, considering the level of equipment and high-quality interior, its £31,250 starting price is reasonable. It’s decent value to finance as well, as it’s available for less than £300 a month over a four-year contract, and with a £6,000 deposit.

Tamiya’s classic remote-controlled buggy from the 1980s has gone on to spawn a road-legal full-size version capable of travelling at speeds of up to 62mph.

Set to arrive on the road next year, the fully-built Tamiya Wild One Max – created by The Little Car Company – will start from £35,000 excluding VAT and shipping in range-topping Launch Edition specification.

Buyers can secure their vehicle with a £3,500 deposit placed from Thursday, July 13, onwards. The first 100 people to place a deposit will get one of the first ‘Launch Edition’ models, which features a carbon fibre dashboard and a titanium plaque on the dashboard which highlights the specification’s limited nature. Plus, each Launch Edition model comes with a model kit of the original Wild One for buyers to enjoy before their full-size car arrives.

The Wild One Max comes with full Cobra bucket seats and four-point harnesses, as well as a five-inch central screen accompanied by ‘marine-grade’ switches. It also has plenty of off-road focused features, including Brembo discs all around, adjustable Bilstein dampers and Eibach springs and 14-inch Maxxis off-road tyres.

There’s also a healthy 270mm of ground clearance to help the Wild One Max tackle rough terrain, while good approach and departure angles ensure that it can deal with steep slopes and tough descents.

Powered by eight swappable battery packs, the Wild One Max brings a range of up to 124 miles yet weighs in at just 500kg.

A judge has warned about the dangers of driving at “excessive and unreasonable” speed after concluding that a hospital doctor who was in collision with a 12-year-old girl on a pedestrian crossing was going too fast despite being under a 30mph limit.

Deputy High Court Judge Dexter Dias heard that consultant physician Shanthi Chandran was driving her BMW i3 Range Extender at 28 mph in a 30-mph zone when the accident happened on a “dark and rainy Monday morning” on the Buckingham Road in Oxfordshire in January 2018.

He was also told that the child, who suffered a serious head injury, had stepped on to the crossing when the light was green for traffic.

But he concluded that Dr Chandran, who was on her way to work in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, was driving at an “excessive, unsafe and unreasonable” speed and had failed to pay “sufficient attention to hazards and other road users”.

The judge said there was a “common misconception” that it was “reasonable and competent” to drive “just below the speed limit”.

He said that “may not be”.

The girl’s mother had sued Dr Chandran for damages – on the girl’s behalf.

Judge Dias outlined his conclusions in a ruling published on Wednesday after considering evidence at a High Court hearing in London in April.

He said the child, who had been left with “cognitive and psychiatric problems”, could not be identified in media reports.

The judge ruled that Dr Chandran was in breach of her “duty of care” towards the child and was 60% liable for the incident.

He said the child had stepped on to a pedestrian crossing when the light was green for traffic and was 40% liable.

“While this case is not about a fatality, it shows yet again how dangerous it is to drive at excessive and unreasonable speed,” said Judge Dias in a written ruling.

“There is a common misconception that if one is driving just below the speed limit, this is sufficient to be a reasonable and competent driver.

“It may not be.

“The maximum speed limit is not a target or an infallibly safe measure.

“It is an absolute upper limit, only justified if conditions and the road situation are sufficiently good to permit it.

“This, essentially, was the error that Dr Chandran fell into.”

She alleged that the “incident” was caused by Dr Chandran’s negligence.

Lawyers representing her argued that Dr Chandran was “driving too fast” given the “prevailing conditions”.

They argued that if Dr Chandran had been driving at a “safe and reasonable speed”, the collision would not have happened.

Dr Chandran denied negligence and causation and argued that the incident was caused by the girl stepping out into the road when the “traffic light was green for vehicles to proceed”.

She said she was driving at 28 mph, which was below the 30mph speed limit, and “appropriate for the conditions” and maintained that the “liability” lay fully with the girl.

The judge heard that Dr Chandran had not been “reported by the police for any criminal offences”.

He said he had been asked to make decisions about liability – he has not made any ruling about the size of any damages award.

London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) was first introduced in April 2019, and while initially focused on central areas of the capital, it was expanded in October 2021 to include everything inside the North Circular and South Circular.

On August 29, however, ULEZ expands significantly once again, and will cover all London boroughs. Motorists that don’t have a car meeting the ULEZ requirements face paying £12.50 to drive within the area, and fines of £90 for breaching it. You can check on Transport for London’s website to see if your car meets the requirements.

The ULEZ standards for cars and vans are:

• Euro 4 for petrol vehicles (all petrol cars from 2005 will meet this, and all light vans since 2006)
• Euro 6 for diesel vehicles (all diesel cars and light vans from September 2015 will meet this, or September 2016 for larger vans)

Such is the expansion of the zone, it means it won’t just affect those living in London, but also those driving to various places and attractions, even if they might not seem all that ‘central’. Let’s take a look at seven popular places where drivers will soon face paying for the ULEZ.

Heathrow Airport

Heathrow is the biggest airport in the UK, with millions of passengers travelling through it every year. Many in the UK also travel to it by car. However, from August 29, Heathrow and all its official car parks will be within the expanded zone. And only by a fraction as the nearby M25 is excluded from ULEZ.

It means thousands of motorists who don’t have a compliant car will suddenly face the £12.50 charge, which becomes £25 if returning on another day. It’s worth noting that you only need to pay the charge when your car moves – so you won’t need to pay for each day your vehicle is parked at Heathrow, just when you arrive and leave.

Wembley

Wembley is the home of English football, and with 90,000 seats, it’s the largest sporting venue in Europe after Camp Nou in Barcelona. Not only does it host football, but various other sporting events, such as NFL, as well as gigs from global megastars throughout the year.

While Wembley was previously just outside the ULEZ expansion, from August 29, it will become part of it If you want to avoid paying the charge if your car isn’t exempt, you’ll have to make your way to Wembley another way.

Hampton Court Palace

Hampton Court Palace in Molesey, West London, is one of the grandest buildings of its kind in the UK. Used by King Henry VIII and all six wives, more than half a million people visit a year, helped by popular events like the RHS’ Garden Festival.

It’s another popular attraction that drivers visiting Hampton Court Palace face paying the £12.50 daily charge for, however, if using a none compliant vehicle.

Twickenham

While Twickenham might be located further outside central London than Wembley, it’s another popular attraction that will soon be located within the ULEZ zone, due to its particularly large expansion into South West London.

Twickenham is known to be the home of English rugby, and it’s one of the largest stadiums in the world for the sport. After Wembley, it’s the second largest stadium in the UK too, with a capacity of 82,000.

Wimbledon

For a fortnight every summer Wimbledon in South West London becomes the global centre of the world for tennis. With roughly half a million people attending over the course of the tournament, it’s a hugely popular event.

But those visiting Wimbledon by car or van will now face the event being within side the expanded ULEZ, and face charges and penalties for driving a non-compliant car.

Chessington World of Adventures

Compared to many other similar attractions, Chessington World of Adventures is quite centrally located to the capital. Unfortunately, due to the ULEZ expansion on August 29, it means that it will soon fall within the area.

Chessington World of Adventures is a key attraction, especially for families, because of its theme park, zoo and aquarium. Because it is only just located in ULEZ, motorists with non-compliant cars might be able to park just outside of the area to avoid paying the charge.

Richmond Park

Richmond Park in South West London is the capital’s largest royal park, covering a vast area of 2,500 acres. Known internationally for its wildlife and conservation.

Popular with walkers, cyclists and those that want to escape from the hustle and bustle of the city, anyone wishing to travel by car should note that from August 29, it will be in the expanded ULEZ area.

A High Court challenge by five Conservative-led councils against Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s intention to expand the capital’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez) will be heard on Tuesday.

The outer-London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon along with Surrey County Council launched legal action in February over the proposed extension of Ulez beyond the North and South Circular roads.

A judge at the High Court gave the councils the go ahead to bring the legal challenge in April, saying parts of the local authorities’ challenge were “arguable”.

If it goes ahead, Ulez will see drivers in outer London pay a £12.50 daily fee from August 29 if their vehicles do not meet the required emissions standards.

The new borders will reach Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey.

Councils involved in the legal challenge believe “relevant statutory requirements” were not complied with, expected compliance rates in outer London were not considered and the proposed scrappage scheme was not consulted on.

They also claimed the overall consultation process was not properly conducted and that there was a failure to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the plan.

The High Court has allowed the case to proceed on two grounds – the legal basis for the scheme and scrappage.

A spokesperson for the mayor said at the time: “The mayor is pleased to see the court has refused permission for the majority of the grounds.

“We will continue to robustly defend his life-saving decision to expand the Ulez and continue with preparations without delay.

“It is a shame that some local authorities have chosen to attempt this costly and misguided legal challenge instead of focusing on the health of those they represent.

“Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution.

“This is a health emergency and the mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”

The hearing, before Mr Justice Swift, is due to start at 10am on Tuesday and the judge is expected to give his ruling at a later date.

The press watchdog has upheld a complaint that a Jeremy Clarkson opinion column in The Sun was sexist towards the Duchess of Sussex, describing some of the comments about her as “pejorative and prejudicial”.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) also rejected complaints that the piece – in which Clarkson wrote he had dreamed of Meghan being paraded naked through British towns and publicly shamed – was inaccurate, harassed the duchess and included discriminatory references to her on the grounds of race.

The newspaper will have to publish a summary of the findings against it on the same page as the column usually appears, along with a notice flagging the statement on the front page of Saturday’s edition and on its website.

In a statement, the newspaper said it accepts “that with free expression comes responsibility”, adding it has a “proud history of campaigning for women”.

The Fawcett Society gender equality charity, which complained to Ipso, said the ruling is a “landmark decision” about a “vile and offensive” column.

The ruling is the first time a complaint to Ipso about discrimination relating to someone’s sex has been upheld, the regulator said.

Ipso found the article made references to the duchess’s sex, including a claim that she exercised power over the Duke of Sussex because of her sexuality.

It said this was “a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence” and “implied that it was the duchess’s sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power”.

The regulator also found the article’s use of comparison to Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon and serial killer Rose West was because the three are female.

In the article, Clarkson wrote: “I hate her (Meghan). Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.”

Ipso also said Clarkson framed Meghan’s position as a “specifically female negative role model” when he referred to her influence on “younger people, especially girls”, and described his “dream” of her being publicly shamed in the streets of Britain as a form of “humiliation and degradation”.

It said: “Ipso considered that any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of the code.

“However, to argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to ‘vivid bedroom promises’, to compare the hatred of an individual to other women only, and to reference a fictional scene of public humiliation given to a sexually manipulative woman, read as a whole, amounted to a breach of clause 12 (which relates to discrimination).”

“Ipso therefore found that the column included a number of references which, taken together, amounted to a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex in breach of the Editors’ Code.”

Ipso said it also “considered in detail” the complaints relating to the duchess’s race but concluded the elements cited “did not provide a basis to establish that there was a pejorative reference to race”.

It also said publication of one article was “not sufficient” to support a breach of harassment and it did not breach the accuracy clause.

The regulator launched the investigation following complaints from the Fawcett Society and the Wilde Foundation, a charity which supports women and girls who have been victims of abuse.

The duchess did not complain to Ipso or make any representations. The regulator said the duchess was given the chance to comment, but “she indicated that she did not have any opposition to Ipso considering a complaint from the representative groups”.

The article, which was published on page 17 of the newspaper on December 17 2022, became Ipso’s most complained-about article, receiving more than 25,100 complaints.

Former Top Gear host Clarkson later apologised for the piece, describing his language as “disgraceful” and said he was “profoundly sorry”. The Sun also apologised and said it regretted the publication of the column, which was removed online.

The Duke of Sussex branded the article about his wife “horrific, hurtful and cruel”, adding what Clarkson had written would encourage people around the world to believe it is an acceptable way to treat women.

Ipso chairman Lord Faulks said the article was a “serious breach” of the Editors’ Code of Practice, notably clause 12 in relation to discrimination, and they found the imagery used to be “humiliating and degrading” towards Meghan.

“Ipso’s purpose is to protect the public and freedom of expression by upholding high editorial standards”, he added in a statement.

“In this case, The Sun failed to meet these standards.”

Ipso chief executive Charlotte Dewar said: “The Editors’ Code of Practice protects the right of commentators to challenge, to shock, be satirical and entertain, but it states that the press must avoid discriminatory references towards an individual.”

Fawcett Society chief executive Jemima Olchawski said it had “made history with our complaints against The Sun for its publication of Jeremy Clarkson’s vile and offensive column about the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle.

“All women are harmed if any woman is the target of sexist reporting and media misogyny is not acceptable.

“This landmark decision is a real opportunity for our media to catch up with what women have known for years – misogyny and hate are not acceptable and they can no longer be dressed up as satire or banter.”

Labour MP Harriet Harman, incoming chairwoman of the Fawcett Society, said: “Women are no longer prepared to endure the sexism that generations of women have been subjected to. Fawcett will be vigilant about sexism in the media and challenge it wherever it appears. This is a big step forward for women in the battle against sexism in the media.”

In a statement, The Sun said: “After Jeremy Clarkson’s column was published in December, both The Sun and Jeremy Clarkson apologised. We said we regretted publishing the article and removed it from our website.

“The Sun accepts that with free expression comes responsibility.

“Half of The Sun’s readers are women and we have a very long and proud history of campaigning for women, which has changed the lives of many.

“The Sun is committed to its work campaigning to strengthen legislation on domestic abuse, helping to provide beds in refuges and empowering survivors of abuse to seek help. Our most recent campaign, Baby Bank on Us, is raising money to help women struggling with the alarming costs of living and a newborn baby.

“Ipso has ruled that The Sun published a column about the Duchess of Sussex which contained a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the duchess’s sex. The committee did not uphold separate elements of the complaint that the article was inaccurate, harassed the Duchess of Sussex, and included discriminatory references to her on the ground of race.

“The Sun is today publishing the summary of Ipso’s findings.”

Drivers paid nearly £1 billion more for fuel at supermarkets last year due to increased margins, an investigation has found.

Watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said average supermarket fuel margins rose by 6p per litre between 2019 and 2022.

That led to an estimated combined additional cost of “around £900 million” for customers of Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, a report stated.

The inquiry also found that an increase in margins on diesel across all fuel retailers cost drivers an extra 13p per litre during the first five months of this year.

The CMA recommended that the Government introduces legislation requiring retailers to provide up-to-date pricing information available in an accessible format.

This would allow drivers to compare pump prices at different sites through apps or satnavs.

The watchdog also called for a new fuel price monitoring body to be created to hold the industry to account.

Supermarket giant Asda was fined £60,000 by the CMA for failing to provide relevant information in a timely manner.

CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said: “Competition at the pump is not working as well as it should be and something needs to change swiftly to address this.

“Drivers buying fuel at supermarkets in 2022 have paid around 6p per litre more than they would have done otherwise due to the four major supermarkets increasing their margins.

“This will have had a greater impact on vulnerable people, particularly those in areas with less choice of fuel stations.

“We need to reignite competition among fuel retailers.”

Nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of motorists are delaying having their car serviced or carrying out maintenance themselves as a result of the cost-of-living crisis.

The survey from the RAC found that 10 per cent had postponed a service on their car by up to a year, but five per cent had delayed this essential maintenance by more than a year, and are relying solely on the annual MOT test.

A further 10 per cent had decided to start servicing their car themselves or called in the help of a friend to do so. Of the 1,900 motorists surveyed, nine per cent had opted for cheaper servicing, such as swapping a major service for a minor one. Elsewhere, eight per cent had switched to a different garage to help save money.

While it’s easy to see why motorists are keen to save money when finances are tough, the RAC has advised motorists “strongly against” skipping on maintenance as it risks safety and increases the chance of a breakdown.

RAC spokesman Rod Dennis said: “Not keeping on top of servicing a vehicle is almost always a false economy, as the probability of suffering a breakdown emergency and having to fork out even more for expensive repairs down the line go up massively.

“So, while drivers might feel the best thing to do is to put off servicing or opt for a cheaper service even if their car is due a full one, we advise strongly against it as repair costs are likely to snowball when things start to go wrong.”

The UK Government appears less likely to meet its net zero targets since it became more transparent on its plans, its climate advisers have said.

Lord Deben said he was sad that his last progress report as chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) “is not a report that suggests satisfactory progress”.

It is the 15th such report from the CCC, which has been tracking the Government’s decarbonisation efforts since the introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008.

Last year, a High Court judge ruled that the Government must provide greater transparency on its net zero plans but now the CCC said that as a result, it has less confidence in the UK reaching milestone targets for 2030.

UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 46% from 1990 levels, mainly because of the removal of coal from electricity generation.

The Government has pledged to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030 but the CCC said the pace of scale-up action is “worryingly slow”.

Four areas in particular have the climate advisers concerned – industry, transport, buildings and fuel supply.

They said the pace of decarbonisation in these sectors over the next seven years has to quadruple what it has been over the previous eight.

Chris Stark, the CCC’s chief executive, said: “There are no secrets for net zero any longer, we know how to do it.

“Right across the board we have well-worked-through strategies for how to cut carbon emissions to zero in most areas and for those sectors that we can’t get to absolute zero, we have enough capacity in the natural world and through more engineered solutions to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

“Those things take time. They need to put policies in place now that would steer us towards that future. That’s what we’re not seeing at the pace that’s required.”

The Government claimed to be a world leader in net zero despite the CCC saying it is throwing that position away by supporting the development of new oil, gas and coal at home while telling other countries to stop.

It also celebrated decarbonising electricity, the one area the CCC said has moved at the correct pace so far, but did not address any of the specific issues raised in the CCC’s report, such as how to realistically decarbonise industry, transport and buildings.

A Government spokesperson said: “The UK is cutting emissions faster than any other G7 country and attracted billions of investment into renewables, which now account for 40% of our electricity.

“In the last year alone, we have confirmed the first state backing of a nuclear project in over 30 years and invested billions to kick-start new industries like carbon capture and floating offshore wind.”

Mr Stark said the Government could do much more to encourage the adoption of low-carbon technologies such as heat pumps, as the UK currently ranks 21st in Europe for the number of heat pumps installed.

There could also be more incentives for people to change to electric vans and more charge points, with a change in pricing to avoid entrenching further inequality.

Mr Stark said: “We’re reinforcing a general unfairness here if we don’t act on this with policy.

“Those who are rich enough to have that company car Tesla and the driveway and can charge it overnight have the cheapest car travel now by some margin.

“Those of the population that don’t have those benefits do not have that opportunity in front of them and face higher costs when they drive their car.”

The UK’s climate is warming along with the global average and last year saw 40C for the first time on record – grassfires destroyed dozens of properties and there were more than 3,000 excess deaths during the heatwaves.

Despite this, the Government is wasting time by shying away from taking difficult decisions, such as allowing new homes to be built that will need retrofitting, Lord Deben said.

He added: “The fact is that if you lead then there are bound to be people who would prefer you not to have made those decisions.

“And what we’re seeing at the moment is not only in Government, but in opposition, people being unwilling to lead lest some people don’t like the decisions that are being made.

“But these decisions have to be made and there will be some people who disagree with them. And it is no good hoping that it will all go away. In the end, you have to make those decisions.”

Ads for Hyundai and Toyota electric cars have been banned for exaggerating the speed of recharging and failing to mention the limited availability of the fastest chargers across the road network.

Three ads for Hyundai’s IONIQ 5, seen in January last year, all stated that the car could be charged from 10% to 80% in 18 minutes using a 350kw “ultra-fast” charger.

Three complainants, who believed there were significant limitations to achieving the advertised charging rate including low temperature, said the claim was misleading.

Hyundai told the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that its internal factory testing established a time of 17 minutes and 16 seconds to charge the battery from 10% to 80% when using a 350 kW ultra-fast charger, and with the battery at temperatures of 22 and 25 degrees centigrade.

However the carmaker said it was wrong to infer that this meant that the ambient temperature must also be 22 or 25 degrees centigrade.

Hyundai accepted that there were “a large number of variables” which could influence the charge time for an electric vehicle battery, including battery temperature, ambient temperature and the age and condition of the battery, and that actual results for individual drivers could therefore vary.

It said the Charge myHyundai website showed 37 ultra-fast 350 kW charging locations in the UK and six ultra-fast 350 kW charging locations in the Republic of Ireland at the time of the ad, while a fully charged IONIQ5 would provide between 238 and 298 miles of range depending on the battery size.

The ASA said any “less than optimal” factors such as battery temperature, ambient temperature and age and condition of the battery might affect the time it would take for a battery to charge to 80%.

It said: “We would therefore expect Hyundai to qualify the charging claim with an explanation of the conditions under which the figures were achieved and that they may not reflect actual consumer experience.”

It added: “We concluded that because the ads omitted material information about the factors that could significantly affect the advertised charging time and the limitations in relation to the availability of 350 kW chargers, the claims that the Hyundai IONIQ 5 could charge from 10% to 80% charge “in 18 minutes” or “less than 18 minutes” using a 350 kW charger had not been substantiated and were misleading.”

The watchdog also banned claims made by Toyota on its website in March last year that its bZ4X model could reach 80% charge in around 30 minutes using a 150 kW fast-charging system.

A complainant said there were “significant limitations” to the “misleading” claim.

Toyota said the claim was caveated with a prominent footnote informing consumers that the charging times were subject to local circumstances and that rapid charging power ratings could vary by location.

It believed consumers would know that not all charging units were rated 150 kW and that they would need to travel to access the relevant units.

The firm said it understood that 150 kW+ chargers were available in “multiple” locations across the UK, including in major population centres and major travel points on motorways or major arterial roads, and it believed it was those areas where drivers were most likely to need them.

The ASA said it would have expected Toyota to qualify the charging claim with an explanation of the conditions under which the figures were achieved, and that they may not reflect actual consumer experience.

It said: “We concluded that because the ad omitted material information about the factors that could significantly affect the advertised charging time and the limitations in relation to the availability of 150 kW chargers in Northern Ireland and across the UK, the claim ‘use rapid public charging to reach 80% charge in around 30 minutes with a 150 kW fast-charging system’ had not been substantiated and was misleading.”

The ASA ruled that neither of the ads should appear again.