Motor finance: Concerns raised that some firms' records may be ‘patchy at best'
'We will be interested to see how the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) addresses this point in its consultation.'
On Sunday, the FCA said it will consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme.
The regulator said many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans.
The FCA said it will propose rules on how lenders should consistently, efficiently and fairly decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much. It estimates that most people will probably receive less than £950 in compensation.
The consultation will launch by early October and if the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026, the regulator has said.
Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA said: 'We're going to have to work through those issues in the consultation where one or the other party doesn't have all the details.
'That is one of the challenges here.'
Mr Rathi told the BBC: 'My message to the industry is – work with us, help us find solutions to some of these issues and don't try and haggle on every single point. If we want to get this up and running, get trust back into this market, let's get moving now and sort this out in the consultation.'
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can already look at complaints going back to 2007.
The FCA has said that people who have already complained do not need to do anything.
Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much for their motor finance lender should complain now, it has said.
The regulator has said that people do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Neil Woodford fine belies ongoing illiquid appeal
LONDON, Aug 5 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Neil Woodford's penalty looks odd in the current climate. On Tuesday, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) fined the fund manager 6 million pounds for poorly managing liquidity risks in his 10-billion-pound vehicle. Woodford's fall from grace is specific, but his big idea, including hard-to-trade assets in a fund format for retail investors, is now mainstream. Woodford, who made his name at Invesco Perpetual for big bets on British stocks like AstraZeneca, was one of the country's most famous stockpickers when he set up his own boutique in 2014. From there, he quickly amassed 10 billion pounds through a mutual fund. An overexposure to unquoted companies like biotechs, however, backfired after his performance lagged, investors yanked their funds, and Woodford was forced to sell his pool of more widely traded assets to honour the requirement to return investors' funds within four days. By the time the Woodford Equity Income Fund was forced to shutter, in June 2019, the fund had just 3.6 billion pounds of assets. And only 8% could be sold in under seven days, the FCA reckons. The fine was a long time coming, given the fund was suspended over six years ago, and retail investors who suffered 'life-changing, opens new tab' financial losses after it was liquidated have been campaigning for greater disclosure over what went wrong, and for reform of the watchdog since then. The FCA has hit Woodford and his management group with 46 million pounds' worth of fines, and banned him from managing a retail fund. Woodford Investment Management said in a statement that it disagrees strongly with the FCA's decision, and argues that the fund's liquidity rules were set externally by the fund administrator, and that the regulator, then overseen by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, 'was fully-sighted' on the fund's situation. It is challenging the fine at a UK court. Arguably, Woodford was ahead of his time. Increasingly policymakers are keen for private investors to get a bigger slice of hard-to-trade assets, where returns are higher than public securities. The hottest product in financial markets is the evergreen structure, pioneered by the likes of Blackstone (BX.N), opens new tab, which allows individual investors to own private assets like credit and equity, and withdraw their money. Those structures are very different from the open-ended vehicle that Woodford ran. They typically seek to limit redemptions to 5% of net assets a quarter, for example. Yet the British stockpicker's fate illustrates that liquidity rules can be hard to adapt to changing situations: his performance suffered after Brexit dented demand for UK stocks. And, whereas Woodford was an outlier, now retail demand for illiquid assets is the mainstream. Oliver Wyman reckons that wealthy individual clients' exposure to private credit could total some $1.5 trillion by 2029 from $300 billion to $400 billion in 2024. If these funds were hit by a Woodford-style run their collapse would have far graver consequences. Follow @Unmack1, opens new tab on X
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Woodford and his company face $61 mln fines over fund failure
LONDON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Former star stock picker Neil Woodford and his company are facing a near 46 million pound ($61 million) combined fine over management failures of a one-time flagship fund that collapsed in 2019, Britain's financial watchdog said on Tuesday. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) proposed fining Woodford 5.9 million pounds and banning him from holding senior manager roles or managing funds for retail investors. His Woodford Investment Management (WIM) company will be fined 40 million pounds. The Woodford Equity Investment Fund (WEIF), which was managed by Woodford and WIM, left more than 300,000 investors out of pocket when it was suspended in 2019, following outsized bets on illiquid assets that left it unable to meet redemption requests within a stipulated four-day period. The FCA decision, which follows warning notices last year, has drawn fierce challenges from Woodford and WIM, who have referred the penalty notices to the Upper Tribunal, part of the High Court which deals with challenges to regulatory decisions. The FCA accused Woodford and WIM of making "unreasonable and inappropriate" investment decisions between July 2018 and June 2019 by disproportionately selling liquid investments and not reacting appropriately as the fund's value declined, its liquidity worsened and redemption requests poured in. "The very minimum investors should expect is those managing their money make sensible decisions and take their senior role seriously. Neither Neil Woodford nor Woodford Investment Management did so, putting at risk the money people had entrusted them with," said Steve Smart, the FCA's joint head of enforcement and market oversight. The regulator said Woodford had a responsibility to oversee the management of the fund's liquidity and failed to provide proper oversight of WIM's relationship with Link Fund Solutions (LFS), WEIF's authorised corporate director. In a statement issued by law firm BCLP, WIM said the fund's liquidity was managed in accordance with LFS's framework, which had been "fully visible" to the FCA - and Woodford did not accept that his responsibilities extended to challenging and testing that. Both Woodford and the company believed any loss suffered by investors was the product of bad decisions made by Link after the suspension, which were overseen by the FCA, WIM added. These included a "disorderly fire sale of assets by Link (LFS)". "We believe that the appeal process will shed much-needed light on the events leading to and following the fund's suspension, including the regulator's role in those events, and we welcome the opportunity to set the record straight," it said. The FCA has also criticised LFS for making "critical mistakes and errors" in how it oversaw WEIF's liquidity risk management and controls. A redress scheme worth 230 million pounds has been secured for those investors trapped in the fund when it was suspended. ($1 = 0.7531 pounds)
Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Can you still get car finance compensation?
Drivers who bought their car on finance could still claim back up to £950 as part of a long-running investigating into hidden commission, despite a landmark court win for lenders last week. On Friday the Supreme Court spared the car finance industry from a worst-case scenario, which could have resulted in paying out a total of £44 billion to 15 million drivers. But the ruling was swiftly followed by intervention by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the City watchdog, which yesterday announced it would consult on a redress scheme that could see lenders on the hook for a total compensation bill of between £9 billion and £18 billion. The FCA is expected to confirm the details of its consultation in October and the first compensation payouts could start next year — so what does it mean for drivers, and will you be eligible for a payout? The FCA began an investigation into historic car finance lending in January 2024, prompted by a rising number of complaints to the courts and to the Financial Ombudsman Service, a free dispute service, about hidden commissions in car finance deals. In particular the FCA was looking at discretionary commission arrangements, where the fee paid to dealers was linked to the interest rate borrowers paid, which in some cases incentivised dealers to give customers a higher rate. This model was used in about 35 per cent of car finance deals, according to the FCA, before it banned the practice in January 2021. The FCA said borrowers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal under the commission model. The regulator was looking at whether consumers were fully told about how to commission worked and the impact it could have on their repayments. Nikhil Rathi, the chief executive of the FCA, warned yesterday that it was 'clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules'. The Court of Appeal had ruled in October that car dealers had a duty to make clear the nature and value of any commission paid to them to ensure that borrowers could give 'informed consent' before agreeing to a deal. The judgment involved three cases brought by drivers who argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals. The ruling triggered a backlash from lenders and from the Treasury, which tried to intervene, arguing that a massive bill for the industry would damage the economy. On Friday the decision was largely overturned by the Supreme Court, although it did uphold one of the three cases — in favour of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales, because in his case the £1,651 commission he paid was 55 per cent of the cost of finance on his five-year loan. The court said: 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture Most of the money paid out under a redress scheme will compensate those who were charged discretionary commission — but claims that do not involve discretionary commission could also be successful. The Supreme Court ruling has given hope to drivers with deals that contained a high level of commission, such as in the Johnson case, or where the commission model caused them to pay more. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'The key development is not just the confirmation of a scheme for discretionary commission arrangements, but the explicit inclusion of non-discretionary models as well. This is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling and widens the net of lenders that will be impacted.' The FCA suggested it would look at the size of commission in absolute terms, and also relative to the overall cost of the interest, in deciding whether an agreement was unfair. The size of the payout would likely be a refund of the commission, plus compensatory interest. The FCA suggested that the majority of successful claimants would get less than £950 per finance deal. The FCA said it would decide whether any scheme would be opt-in (where drivers would have to complain to their lender) or opt-out, which would require lenders to contact customers directly if they thought they were due compensation for loans taken out since 2007. These details are expected to be confirmed towards the end of this year. Adrian Dally from the Finance & Leasing Association trade body said: 'We have concerns about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007 when firms have not been required to hold such historic information, and the evidence will be patchy at best.' Since the FCA began its investigation last year it has been clear that any redress scheme would be free to use, like the financial services ombudsman, where customers can take a complaint if the company rejects it. But consumers have been bombarded with adverts from claims management companies and no-win no-fee law firms offering to take on their cases, in return for up to 30 per cent of any payout. If you have already signed a contract with a claims management company to represent your claim, it is worth checking it for any details of an exit fee. Under FCA rules you have the right to exit an agreement with a claims company, subject to a fee. But some consumer law firms have exit fees of £150 or more. If you feel a claims firm is charging an unfair exit fee — these charges must reflect the work the firm has done — you can complain about them either to the FCA (which regulates claims management companies) or, if it is a law firm, the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
