FCA considers £950 car finance compensation for motorists
It comes after Friday's (August 1) ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened.
While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added.
Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm.
We'll publish the consultation by early October and finalise any scheme in time for people to start receiving compensation next year.https://t.co/47cNKnqkQX pic.twitter.com/EpfKtMzDV5 — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 3, 2025
The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest.
FCA issues statement on car finance compensation scheme
Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, commented: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated.
'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal.
'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get.
What can fail an MOT test?
'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.'
Recommended reading:
The FCA currently estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation.
If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026.
The final total cost of any compensation scheme is currently estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added.
The consultation will launch by early October.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How to work out if YOU can claim £950 from the car finance scandal - and what to do if you can't find the paperwork
It's the scandal dubbed 'PPI on Wheels', but last week five judges at the Supreme Court dealt a blow to millions of drivers hoping for a payout on their car finance deals. There will be no compensation for customers who were simply unaware commission was being paid when they took out car finance, with the judges declaring this was not enough to count as mis-selling.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Woodford fined £46m and banned from top City roles: Ex-fund manager branded 'not fit and proper' by watchdog
The financial watchdog has fined Neil Woodford and his company £46million and banned the disgraced fund manager from holding top City jobs. The former star stock picker 'made unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions' before his fund collapsed and left thousands of investors trapped, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found. In a damning verdict, it yesterday hit Woodford with a £5.9million charge and his company with a £40million penalty. And the regulator said the money manager's 'lack of competence, capability and reputation' meant he was 'not a fit and proper person' to hold senior management roles or control retail investor funds. It comes six years after more than 300,000 investors were left with around £3.7billion stuck in the Woodford Equity Income fund in one of the UK's biggest retail investment scandals. The FCA said Woodford 'did not react appropriately as the fund's value declined, its liquidity worsened, and more investors withdrew their money'. The regulator accused Woodford of holding a 'defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities'. Campaigners have urged the Government to strip Woodford of the CBE he received in 2023 for services to the economy. But in a statement through his lawyers, Woodford said he will fight the decision and blamed the regulator and the fund's manager Link for the collapse and investor losses. The penalty and ban are dependent on the outcome of the appeal process. At the crux of the scandal was a lump of illiquid investments made by Woodford, meaning they were difficult to rapidly turn into cash. When investors started pulling out their money, it was the more liquid investments that were sold first to fund the withdrawals. But that was unfair to those who kept their money invested, because they were left with a disproportionate share of the remaining illiquid assets before being locked out of the fund. Woodford Investment Management (WIM) insisted that his new venture – a subscription service that costs up to £840 a year – would not be affected. A spokesman for WIM and Woodford said: 'We believe 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.'
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Pitiful justice from the FCA: It took far too long to put Woodford in the stocks, says ALEX BRUMMER
How jolly good it is that financial justice has finally caught up with disgraced investment guru Neil Woodford and his irresponsible and deceitful management of the collapsed Woodford Equity Investment Fund (WEIF). There is satisfaction to be drawn from the ban imposed on Woodford from holding senior management roles and looking after retail investors' cash. Moreover, Woodford personally will have to cough up £5.8million in fines and his eponymous investment firm some £40million. Yet the process of delivering verdicts for Woodford savers (including this writer), which started when Andrew Bailey was chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has been exasperating. It has taken six long years to reach this point, and one fears that there will be victims of Woodford's nefarious behaviour who will have missed out on seeing the regulator swing into action. And it is not over yet since Woodford, lawyered to the hilt, is taking the matter to the Upper Tribunal, the FCA's equivalent of the High Court. That means more delays. Much of the material in the voluminous decision documents relating to Woodford Investment Management and WEIF emerged at the time. It was known, for instance, that Woodford sought to cover up a lack of liquidity in his funds by transferring assets to the obscure Guernsey stock exchange. He also sought to shift the blame for what happened to corporate director Link. The FCA found them jointly culpable and Link, now controlled from Down Under, has already paid £230million in restitution for its error. The rules-based system under which the FCA operates needs to be preserved if retail investors and professionals, such as Kent County Council, are to be protected. What is intolerable is the bureaucratic faffing which has taken so long to put Woodford in the stocks. In the interim, Woodford still offers his services as a financial adviser. The FCA has also failed, thus far, to establish how it was that some 300,000 people who invested in Woodford funds were exposed through the Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) platform and its own fund of funds. HL is now owned by a consortium of private equity investors led by CVC. That is no excuse for escaping culpability and facing up to HL's responsibility for misleading savers. Musical chairs Often it is said that the main duty of the chairman is to fire the chief executive. At Diageo, Sir John Manzoni, who took over as chairman early this year, lost little time in disposing of one of the FTSE 100's small gang of women bosses, Debra Crew. Admittedly, at the time, Diageo's share price was in sharp retreat, falling by 30 per cent. Authoritative accounts suggest that Crew was ambushed. When she questioned the assertiveness of finance director Nik Jhangiani with Manzoni, she signed her own resignation letter. The latest results show that, were it not for the Trump tariffs – which cannot be blamed on Crew – the underlying picture was much better than thought with organic sales up 1.7 per cent at £15.1billion. The vital North American market was still robust with sales up 1.5 per cent. This is despite the trend of Gen Z turning away from alcohol. Where does this, one wonders, leave Murray Auchincloss, chief executive of BP, in another part of the corporate forest? New chairman Albert Manifold has ordered a review of the business and costs, and he hasn't even been seated. What that means for the sensible Auchincloss strategy, already under fire from activist Elliott, one shudders to think. Tech leakage No board of directors would dare turn down a bid premium of 104.9 per cent unless it came from the Ayatollah himself. So British scientific instrument maker Spectris has been able to sit back as private equity ghouls Advent and KKR fight it out for control, with the latter back in the driving seat. If the sharp minds at Advent and KKR were able to see the value, where were the British analysts and buy-side investors as Spectris languished in the lower reaches of the FTSE 250? And doesn't a Labour government, committed to a high-tech future for the UK, worry about the escape of British intellectual property overseas? It should do.
