ssstwitter.com_1741701855006.mp4 From a prvious post of his this morning 11/3/2025. HUGE CAR FINANCE MISSELLING NEWS! (Pls share) The regulator @TheFCA has just put out a statement saying it will consult on "an industry-wide redress scheme." Now, ‘consult’ is mostly technical, this really means its made up its mind. I’ve bashed out at top speed an explanation. It plans a section 404 redress scheme that will require lenders to proactively contact all borrowers who met the miss-selling criteria and offer them a fixed redress based on FCA rules. Therefore, people won't need to complain, they will be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA to firms based on their situation. This likely stretches the net of who’ll be paid far wider (and means there’s no need to use claims firms). There are two main types of Car finance miss-selling being looked at…. a) Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA). This is about 40% of car finance deals and applies where brokers and dealers could increase the amount of interest they charged customers (without telling them) on PCP and Hire Purchase agreements up to 2021 in order to increase their commission. This hidden commission has obvious problematic. This is the one I have been talking about and suggesting people complain about. If you’re one of the 2m who has put complaints in through my site, then it is very likely it was a DCA complaint. b) Commission Disclosure complaints. These are based on the Court of Appeal surprise ruling that if car finance agreements didn't tell consumers all details of commission including the amount (they rarely did) they were unlawful. It applies to up to 99% of car finance cases (including DCA cases). The Court of Appeal ruling took everyone, including the regulator by surprise and was not something it was looking at. Even I have concerns the decision risks doing more harm than good. It has been appealed to the Supreme Court which is due to be heard on 1 to 3 April. The redress paid out will depend on the Supreme Court decision… It’s important to remember while Commission Disclosure complaints are all about the Courts, DCAs were about a breach of the FCA regulations. Yet even on that, the regulator can’t act until it has clarity from the court. Of course no one knows what the court will say, but let me try and give three rough scenarios… - Most likely outcome. Many expect the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling on Commission Disclosure complaints. If that happens then the redress scheme will only be set up for DCA complaints. This is still huge and the fact the payouts will be automatic means it would reach more people and likely be in the billions to low £10s billions (depending on payout size – more on that in a moment). - Possible outcome. If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal ruling, then the FCA would set up a redress scheme for all car finance (well the 99% affected by this). This would be huge, have impacts on the economic competitiveness, and could be at PPI scales of redress, running into the £10s of billions. If so, it is not impossible we would see the government intervene with legislation. - Unlikely outcome (but not impossible). There is an outside chance the Supreme Court will rule out the Commission Disclosure complaints and make a pronouncement within that which causes the regulator to rethink on whether DCA complaints are justified. That could mean no redress at all, but I think this is pretty unlikely. How much will people be paid out? I hear work is being done at the FCA on the level of compensation for DCA claims, yet from what I understand no decision has been made yet. My pure guess is it will be … - Method 1: All the extra interest that was charged due to the DCA comes back. This would typically be around £1,400 per arrangement. - Method 2: It may set up a ‘fair interest rate’ (for those in the know, mirroring Plevin in PPI) and only refund amounts above that. This would therefore result in a lower payout than the first method. As for compensation claims if the Supreme Court rules on Commission Disclosure complaints. I’m not sure anyone has a clue yet; it depends how it formulates it. Is it worth complaining now? There’s far less a need as the regulator is signalling its strong intention that it will make lenders contact you. Though technically it is only ‘it’s intention’ so nothing is firm, but it would be very surprising if it didn’t now follow through with this unless the Supreme Court throws out a big wobbler. Putting complaints in may be helpful for firms to know who is affected. So you may still want to do it, I just wouldn’t do it via a claims firm (as we don’t know yet if you’ll still have to give a cut to the claims firm under an automatic redress scheme, it’ll likely depend on the contract you signed) just do it via free tools like the one I have on MoneySavingExpert. When will we hear? The Supreme Court will hear the case in early April, then likely take a few weeks to decide. The FCA will then aim to sort out what’s happening on its redress scheme within six weeks. So we should be hearing towards the beginning of June. I hope all this helps, this is just my first pass at it, things can change (including my view). Here’s what the FCA said… Statement on motor finance review next steps If motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings, we are likely to consult on a redress scheme We are currently reviewing the past use of motor finance discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs). We’re seeking to understand if firms failed to comply with requirements relating to DCAs and if consumers lost out as a result. If they have, we want to make sure consumers are appropriately compensated in an orderly, consistent and efficient way. Since we launched our review, a ruling by the Court of Appeal has raised the possibility of widespread liability among motor finance firms wherever commissions were not properly disclosed to customers. The Supreme Court will hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 1 to 3 April. We have been granted permission to intervene in the case and have filed our submission with the Court. We want to provide as much certainty as possible to firms, consumers and stakeholders. So, we are confirming that if, taking into account the Supreme Court’s decision, we conclude motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, then it’s likely we will consult on an industry-wide redress scheme. We previously said it is more likely than when we started our review that we will introduce an alternative way of dealing with complaints. Under a redress scheme, firms would be responsible for determining whether customers have lost out due to the firm’s failings. If they have, firms would need to offer appropriate compensation. We would set rules firms must follow and put checks in place to make sure they do. A redress scheme would be simpler for consumers than bringing a complaint. We would expect fewer consumers to rely on a claims management company, meaning they would keep all of any compensation they receive. It would also be more orderly and efficient for firms than a complaint led approach, contributing to a well-functioning market in the future. Next steps We are no longer planning a further announcement in May. Instead, we will confirm within 6 weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision if we are proposing a redress scheme and if so, how we will take it forward. The Court of Appeal case involved complaints about discretionary and non-discretionary commission arrangements (non-DCAs). Our next steps on non-DCA complaints will also be informed by the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, we may also consult separately on changes to our rules. Throughout our work, we will continue to consider how to make sure affected consumers are appropriately compensated and the motor finance market continues to work well, with effective competition, for the millions of consumers who rely on it every year.
.jpg.1e6cc2528d6af29b9c34678e4b44f896.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.9dd3f612ba7f13d10be5c518d3c8d255.jpg)
