Rachel Reeves ‘considers overruling' £44billion car finance Supreme Court decision in DAYS
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves may step in to overrule the Supreme Court's decision relating to the £44billion car finance scandal.
The Supreme Court is set to decide next Friday whether motor finance providers should compensate customers over undisclosed broker commission arrangements.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans
Credit: EPA
But, the Government is looking at new laws to limit compensation claims against motor finance providers and making them less exposed to the scandal, according to The Guardian.
These laws would set clear rules on disclosing broker commission fees and could even apply retroactively to existing cases.
If passed, lenders like Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, and Close Brothers could face lower payouts.
The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans.
The move would be an exceptional step by the Treasury, which previously attempted to influence the Supreme Court proceedings in January.
It's believed Government officials have been discussing the practicalities with both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business and Trade.
In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that motor finance firms broke the law by not telling borrowers about broker commission terms.
This decision could lead to £44billion in compensation for millions of people.
Motor finance companies argue they believed their practices followed the rules but say the ruling requires much more transparency.
Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April.
Martin Lewis explains potential new Financial Conducts Authority ruling
The court will now announce its final decision on motor finance commissions on August 1.
The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents motor finance companies, warns that if the Court of Appeal ruling is upheld, it could harm the motor finance market.
They say it could lead to less lending, higher borrowing costs, and even company closures.
The Government rarely steps in on compensation cases, but the Treasury is worried this scandal could scare off investors and hurt UK businesses.
There are also fears that a huge compensation bill could damage the industry.
Back in 2013, the coalition Government pushed through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act to "protect the national economy" from a £130million payout.
A Treasury spokesperson said they want a fair decision that gives consumers proper compensation for their losses.
They added: "We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles.
"It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course."
Paul Carlier, the whistleblower who first exposed the scheme in 2016, has accused the Treasury of acting dishonestly to protect motor finance firms at the expense of millions of customers.
He claims the FCA and Ombudsman have already covered up the scandal in previous years, depriving consumers of billions in redress.
Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force said: "This is at least the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal.
"It's not a good look for her, because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law."
The Financial Ombudsman Service is struggling with a massive spike in complaints about commission practices, now totalling over 60,000 – triple the number since May 2024.
The growing scandal could rival the infamous Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle.
In March, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed it had been granted permission to intervene in the case and had submitted its arguments to the Court.
Should the Supreme Court rule that motor finance customers have suffered losses as a result of widespread failings by firms, the FCA is expected to consult on the introduction of an industry-wide compensation scheme.
Under a redress scheme, firms would need to figure out if their mistakes caused customers to lose money.
If they did, the firms would have to pay the right amount of compensation.
The FCA would create rules for firms to follow and make sure they stick to them.
This scheme would make things easier for customers compared to making a formal complaint.
While waiting for news on the redress scheme, customers can still make a claim directly, but the FCA has advised against using claims management companies or law firms to avoid unnecessary fees.
WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHO'S AFFECTED?
By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter
What is being investigated?
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched an investigation last year into whether motorists were unknowingly overcharged when they took out car loans.
The investigation by the City watchdog focuses on past practices where banks allowed car dealerships and brokers to set their own interest rates on loans.
Under a now-banned discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), dealerships and brokers had a financial incentive to charge higher interest rates, as their commission increased proportionally.
However, many customers were unaware of this practice.
A landmark ruling in October 2024, deemed it unlawful for car dealers, acting as brokers, to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer's consent.
This applied to both discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where dealers set interest rates, and non-discretionary commissions.
The Supreme Court is now preparing to rule on whether lenders should be held responsible for compensating drivers.
Who is eligible for compensation?
There are two criteria you must meet to have a chance at receiving compensation.
First, you must be complaining about a finance deal on a motor vehicle (including cars, vans, motorbikes, and motorhomes) that was agreed upon before January 28, 2021.
Second, you must have bought the vehicle through a mechanism like Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP), which make up the majority of finance deals and mean you own the vehicle at the end of the agreement.
Drivers who leased a car through a Personal Contract Hire, where you give the car back at the end of the lease, are not eligible.
According to the financial regulator, on a typical £10,000 motor finance agreement, discretionary commission arrangements could have caused customers to pay an additional £1,100 in interest over a four-year term.
The FCA extended the deadline for lenders to respond to complaints, meaning borrowers whose lenders received other forms of commission may now also be eligible for compensation.
How can I make a claim now?
Consumer finance website MoneySavingExpert.com offers an email template to help you complain to your finance provider.
You can download this by visiting moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/reclaim-car-finance.
Alternatively, you can complain directly without using the template.
It's crucial for anyone who took out car finance to file a claim, even if a previous claim was denied.
In your complaint, ask whether you were overcharged due to your broker receiving a commission and request the company to rectify this if it occurred.
If you're unsatisfied with the company's response, you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at no cost.
You have until July 29, 2026, or up to 15 months from the date of the company's final response letter, whichever is longer.
Avoid using a claims management firm, as they will take a portion of any successful claim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
New Statesman
22 minutes ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
How drivers were sold a car finance compensation fantasy
Britain has narrowly avoided a costly car finance compensation free-for-all after a landmark court ruling derailed chances of a payout for millions of drivers. Claims lawyers had been bombarding consumers with adverts suggesting they may have been entitled to thousands of pounds in a scandal over hidden commission on car finance deals. The scandal had been expected to rival the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, which cost banks more than £38 billion. It was thought that nearly 15 million drivers could be entitled to payouts worth as much as £44 billion in total — although Friday's Supreme Court ruling means the numbers are set to be far smaller. Questions have now been raised over whether those using car finance really lost out and how many of them deserve compensation at all. The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had tried to intervene ahead of the ruling — arguing that a colossal compensation bill for the industry would damage the economy and consumers. The Supreme Court ruled on three cases where consumers bought cars on finance and argued that they had been treated unfairly because they had not been told about commission involved in their deals — which ranged from £183 to £1,651. The court rejected two of the three cases, but upheld a complaint by Marcus Johnson, a factory worker from south Wales — because in his case the £1,651 commission in his loan was 55 per cent of the fee (including interest) on his loan over five years. 'The fact that the undisclosed commission was so high is a powerful indication that the relationship between Mr Johnson and the lender was unfair,' the court's judgment said. It leaves the door open to claims for compensation on deals that contained large amounts of commission, or where the commission model influenced what they paid. How much would be needed for a deal to be unfair is something that is likely to be decided by the City regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which said it would confirm if it would introduce a redress scheme before stock markets open on Monday morning. The FCA had been investigating finance deals that had used a model called discretionary commission, which incentivised dealers to give customers a worse interest rate on their loan. However, a judgment by the Court of Appeal last October opened the door to compensation claims by millions of motorists who had bought cars on finance, regardless of the commission model. Lenders appealed to the Supreme Court over the ruling. About nine in ten cars are bought on finance and £39.7 billion was borrowed on more than two million cars in the year to May, according to the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body. 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. Reeves was among those concerned about a claims free-for-all, with the Treasury reportedly drawing up contingency plans to shield lenders from having to pay out billions of pounds in compensation. The Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case, arguing that a ruling had 'the potential to adversely affect the United Kingdom's reputation as a place to do business, with a consequent impact on economic growth'. In the meantime complaints about car loans to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), a body that solves disputes, have risen from 4,130 in the first three months of 2023-24 to 37,230 in the last three months of 2024-25. Most of these have been brought by claims companies and no-win, no-fee law firms that file complaints on behalf of consumers in return for up to 30 per cent of any compensation. These companies have swamped radio, social media and television with adverts that tell consumers they could be owed thousands of pounds. On Thursday the FCA said it had required 224 adverts from claims firms about car finance to either be taken down or changed. There had been highly speculative figures advertised for how much consumers could get back, it said, including compensation figures that did not make clear they covered multiple car loans and misleading claims that refunds were guaranteed. It said companies had been signing up consumers without their consent after they clicked on adverts. Philip Salter, a former FCA regulator now at the consultancy Sicsic Advisory, said: 'I haven't liked a lot of the claims company advertising. You've had a lot of companies arguing that time is running out, but the clock hasn't even started. It's been a bit of an unseemly scramble.' • Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture If there is to be compensation for consumers, it is expected that the FCA will announce a free redress scheme where lenders will contact those eligible, meaning consumers should not need to use a claims company. Gary Greenwood from the investment bank Shore Capital said: 'It's one of those things where if you go by the letter of the law of the previous Court of Appeal judgment, you're almost coming to the conclusion that commission is bad. But the problem is that if you look at the reality of what had happened, there doesn't seem to have been a lot of consumer harm that's gone on. 'So any sort of redress has got to come down to: has there been any consumer harm here, or are people just trying to claim money back on a technicality?' Greenwood said. Charlie Nunn, the chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group, which runs Britain's biggest car finance lender, Black Horse, has denied the scandal was on the same level as PPI. 'Some 80 per cent of people need finance to buy a new car, and a large number of second-hand car buyers do as well,' he told The Times in January. 'We need a well-functioning motor finance industry that supports consumers.' The National Franchised Dealers Association, a trade body, told the Supreme Court that 'nobody goes to a car dealer with a reasonable expectation that it is acting without self-interest in relation to any of the products it sells'. The Supreme Court's judgment could have been the difference between lenders facing a compensation bill of £11 billion — for complaints about a specific form of commission — and £29 billion, according to Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets, an investment bank. It could also have led to compensation claims about the sale of other financial products such as insurance where commission was involved but not properly disclosed. Consumers in turn could have had to foot the bill. Stuart Masson, the editor of the advice website The Car Expert UK, said that if lenders have to pay compensation to millions of people, car finance could get more expensive in the future as the industry tries to 'claw back' that money. 'That's not money they're going to find down the back of the sofa,' he told the BBC. 'They're going to have to get that back from increasing the costs of future lending, which won't just be on car finance. It could be on credit cards, it could be on personal loans, it could be on mortgages.' In January Reeves told bankers at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: 'There is nothing pro-consumer about making it harder for people to buy an affordable car for their family.' Before the courts widened the scope of possible mis-selling, the FCA had been investigating a specific model of commission called discretionary commission. This is where the cut that lenders paid dealers was linked to the interest rate consumers were charged, incentivising dealers to charge borrowers more. 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 consumers could have paid about £1,100 more in interest over a four-year £10,000 car finance deal because of this commission model — which is being used as the basis for many of the estimates around possible compensation. Salter, who worked on the ban when he was at the FCA, said: 'That previous Court of Appeal ruling surprised me. I think everyone knows that if they're buying a car the salesman's getting commission, don't they? But discretionary commission never felt right to me.' The FCA began its investigation in January last year on whether consumers had been properly told about the link between their repayments and the commission. The investigation was kicked off by two rulings by the ombudsman against Lloyds and Barclays last year, which ordered the banks to refund two consumers more than £1,000 each. The FCA is expected to set out its next steps, including whether there will be a redress scheme, within six weeks. Any scheme would be free and easy for consumers to use, it said, while the FOS is also free for consumers to appeal to. Rob Lilley-Jones from the consumer group Which? said: 'It's vital that finance firms are held accountable for mis-selling and if a large number of motorists are eligible for compensation consumers are likely to be bombarded with ads from claims firms offering to take on their case. 'Affected customers should be careful when enlisting the services of claims management companies as the wrong choice could lead to their case being poorly handled, losing a significant portion of the compensation in legal fees — or both.' Coby Benson from the law firm Bott & Co, which helped win the ombudsman's case against Lloyds, said the experience from PPI was that consumers could sometimes recover more money by going to court than through a redress scheme. He said: 'We would support a proactive redress scheme if it fairly compensated consumers. But we have doubts over the effective implementation of a scheme, because our data shows that about half of clients have a different address now to that which the lender had from the time of the agreement.'
