FAQs
About us
Have you paid for your bank account? Make a claim.
01254 822880

FCA Failings and the Role of Claims Management Companies

Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
FCA Failings and the Role of Claims Management Companies

MPs Brand FCA as “Incompetent”—The Crucial Role of Claims Management Companies

Published: November 26, 2024

Financial Scandals and Regulatory Failures

Today’s blistering parliamentary report exposes deep flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), labeling it “incompetent at best, dishonest at worst.” Over decades, financial scandals such as PPI mis-selling and motor finance commission abuses have revealed the FCA’s systemic weaknesses. However, claims management companies (CMCs) have emerged as unlikely champions for consumer rights, often leading the charge where the regulator and financial institutions have failed.

PPI Mis-selling

The PPI scandal, spanning decades, saw tens of millions of mis-sold insurance policies that consumers didn’t need or want. While the FCA eventually pushed for redress, it was CMCs that turned PPI claims into one of the largest consumer compensation movements in history. These companies uncovered the scale of the problem and battled financial institutions reluctant to repay billions in compensation.

Motor Finance Mis-selling

Similarly, recently uncovered motor finance commission abuses — where dealers prioritised personal commissions over fair lending practices — show another area where the FCA’s delayed response and poor regulations have left consumers vulnerable and in the dark. CMCs have once again played a critical role in exposing these practices, culminating in the October 25th 2024 Court of Appeal judgment which paves the way to ensuring customers are compensated.

The Role of CMCs in Financial Justice

Claims management companies have been instrumental in uncovering systemic abuses, empowering consumers and holding financial institutions accountable. Their contributions include:

  • Exposing Misconduct: CMCs identify patterns of mis-selling or abuse, often acting when regulators fail to intervene.
  • Providing Expertise: CMCs guide consumers through what can be complex claims processes, ensuring they receive fair compensation.
  • Challenging Resistance: Financial institutions frequently employ tactics to delay claims, deter claimants and minimise liabilities; CMCs push back to secure justice.

Overcoming Criticism

The culprits of the mis-selling scandals have often pushed the message not to trust CMCs, often maliciously tagged ‘ambulance chasers’. This message has been drip fed into society by the media, funded by the banks themselves. While some criticise CMCs for their fees, this ignores their essential role. Without CMCs, many victims would remain unaware of their rights or unable to navigate compensation claims. CMCs persistence has secured tens of billions in payouts and exposed widespread misconduct, holding both financial institutions and the FCA accountable.

What Needs to Change?

The FCA’s alleged failings, as suggested by MPs, underscore the need for reform. Recommendations include greater accountability, improved transparency, and a consumer-centric approach to regulation. However, until these changes materialise, CMCs remain indispensable in protecting consumer rights and securing justice.

Conclusion: Claims management companies have succeeded where others have failed. Their role in uncovering scandals and securing compensation for consumers is a testament to their necessity in a flawed regulatory environment. As the FCA faces calls for reform, it’s vital to acknowledge the value of CMCs in ensuring fairness and accountability in the financial sector.

Sources: Financial Reporter, Proactive Investors, Money Marketing.



FCA failings claims management companies

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...
Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Judgment

Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Court of Appeal Judgment

In a recent commentary, financial advisor Martin Lewis expressed concern that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and related cases has “gone too far.” However, his perspective overlooks critical legal and ethical nuances highlighted in the judgment. The ruling, far from being excessive, is a measured step toward ensuring transparency and fairness in financial transactions, particularly in motor finance arrangements.

Understanding the Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal judgment addressed whether the disclosure of commissions paid by lenders to motor dealers was adequate. The decision clarified that partial or buried disclosures, such as vague mentions in terms and conditions, do not satisfy the duty of transparency owed to consumers. Crucially, it found that motor dealers and brokers owe a fiduciary duty to consumers, requiring impartial advice when arranging finance, and that lenders can be held liable as accessories if they fail to ensure proper disclosure.

This is not an overreach. It corrects a systemic imbalance where consumers were often unaware of commission structures, always unaware of the amount of commission paid, and which incentivised dealers to prioritise profit over the consumer’s best interest. The judgment explicitly ruled that failing to disclose the scale or nature of commissions creates an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, particularly when commissions are disproportionately high compared to the borrowed amount.

Why Martin Lewis’ Critique Misses the Mark

  • Focus on Consumer Vulnerability: Lewis’ argument downplays the vulnerability of many consumers who depend on motor finance to access vehicles. The Court recognised that these individuals trust dealerships to act in their best interest. By reinforcing the fiduciary duty and disclosure requirements, the ruling prioritises consumer protection over industry convenience.
  • Cheaper Finance for UK Consumers: Lewis has fallen into the trap of believing the narrative of the finance sector, which has suggested the judgment could jeopardise the industry and lead to more expensive credit for consumers. However, the judgment forces lenders and dealerships to now be upfront and open about commissions paid. This may, and should, result in the payment of commissions being removed or reduced. As consumers ultimately pay the commission via the interest paid on finance agreements, the removal of commission would result in cheaper finance options available as a result of a more competitive, fair and transparent marketplace.
  • A Balanced Approach: The Court did not order the recission of the finance agreements included within the case. Recission would have had an earth shattering impact upon the finance industry, which it could be argued is long overdue. Instead, it allowed for the repayment of the hidden commissions that were unknowingly paid by the consumers via their finance agreements. This restraint reflects an intention to balance consumer rights with industry feasibility.

The Broader Implications

The decision strengthens the foundation for fairer practices across all consumer credit arrangements involving undisclosed commissions, not just in motor finance. Claims management companies and consumer advocates welcome this clarity, while lenders will need to adjust their practices to align with these higher standards.

In conclusion, while Martin Lewis raises valid concerns about potential litigation impacts, the Court’s judgment is a necessary intervention to rectify widespread unfair practices. It ensures that consumers are no longer kept in the dark about commission arrangements that could influence their financial decisions. This is not a case of the courts going “too far” but rather doing what is needed to restore trust in financial transactions.


Martin Lewis Wrench v FirstRand opinion

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...
Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
Will the Court of Appeal Judgment in Wrench v FirstRand Increase the Cost of Credit?

Will the Court of Appeal Judgment in Wrench v FirstRand Increase the Cost of Credit?

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Wrench v FirstRand has brought significant implications for the motor finance industry, specifically focusing on transparency in commission-based lending practices. While there are concerns that this judgment may lead to higher costs for consumers, a closer look suggests that, in reality, this ruling could help keep credit costs in check. Here’s why the Court of Appeal’s decision is unlikely to drive up the cost of credit in the future.

Background: The Court of Appeal’s Stance on Transparency and Fairness

In Wrench v FirstRand, the Court of Appeal upheld the importance of financial institutions disclosing any commissions paid to dealers. The case centered on undisclosed commissions, where lenders paid car dealerships incentives without informing the consumer. This practice led to higher interest rates on loans. By reinforcing transparency, this decision pushes lenders to avoid inflating interest rates with hidden commissions, which could ultimately benefit consumers by reducing the extra costs associated with these loans.

Lowering or Eliminating Hidden Commissions

One main concern from lenders following this decision is that it could lead to increased credit costs. However, removing undisclosed commissions may actually decrease the total cost of credit. By eliminating the hidden incentive structure that allowed dealers to inflate interest rates in exchange for commissions, lenders can adopt a more standardized approach to interest rates. This change ensures consumers are only paying for the actual cost of the loan without the added burden of hidden commissions.

Without commission-driven interest rate hikes, consumers may find motor finance agreements to be more affordable and predictable. This shift helps ensure lenders retain the same profit margins by focusing on transparency and efficiency rather than inflating rates to cover third-party commissions.

Enhancing Consumer Trust and Confidence

The court’s decision aligns with a broader trend towards transparency in financial services, enhancing consumer trust and confidence in the lending market. When consumers feel confident in the fairness of the terms offered, they’re more likely to engage with financial products. Increased consumer engagement can help lenders maintain high loan volumes, potentially offsetting any impact on revenue from eliminating undisclosed commissions.

Furthermore, the shift toward transparent, commission-free lending could mean fewer complaints, claims, and legal battles in the future—benefiting both lenders and consumers by reducing administrative costs.

Impact on Market Competition

With the removal of hidden commissions, lenders will need to rely on competitive interest rates and value-added customer service rather than relying on commissions to drive dealership loyalty. This shift could encourage healthy competition among lenders to offer the best possible terms to consumers, likely driving down interest rates over time and helping consumers secure financing at lower costs.

As the market adjusts to transparent practices, both lenders and dealerships will need to innovate in ways that attract customers based on service quality and competitive rates, rather than hidden incentives.

Summary

The judgment in Wrench v FirstRand aligns with the growing emphasis on transparency in finance, removing hidden commissions that have historically inflated interest rates for consumers. By fostering transparency, the ruling has the potential to streamline costs, encourage fair competition, and maintain affordable access to credit rather than increase it. The decision is a step toward a fairer lending environment where consumers benefit from clearer terms, fostering trust without necessarily raising the price of credit. As the market adapts, both lenders and consumers are likely to find that transparent, commission-free lending contributes to a healthier and more affordable motor finance industry.


Wrench v FirstRand impact on credit costs

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...
Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd Case Analysis

The Background and Implications of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd: From County Court to Court of Appeal Judgment

The case of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd is one of the recent decisions in a wave of motor finance mis-selling cases, reflecting the growing scrutiny on undisclosed commission practices in the UK’s finance sector. Here, we’ll explore the journey of this case through the judicial system, from the County Court’s initial ruling to the Court of Appeal’s significant judgment on 25th October. This case, along with similar judgments, continues to shape consumer rights in finance and establish precedent for future claims related to motor finance mis-selling.

Background of the Case: A Focus on Undisclosed Commission

The Johnson v FirstRand case centers on the issue of undisclosed commissions, a practice in which lenders pay dealers a commission without informing the consumer. This type of commission, often based on the terms of the finance agreement, has led to increased costs for consumers without their knowledge. In Johnson, the claimant argued that FirstRand Bank had failed to disclose the commission paid to the dealership, an omission which allegedly led to financial harm due to inflated interest rates associated with the finance agreement.

Undisclosed commission claims have increased following landmark judgments that highlighted the lack of transparency in motor finance agreements. Many consumers affected by undisclosed commissions argue that they entered into these finance agreements without understanding the full financial implications, as the commission was not transparently disclosed.

The County Court Ruling: Upholding Consumer Rights

At the County Court level, the ruling focused on the legality of undisclosed commissions and whether the lack of disclosure affected the consumer’s consent to the terms of the finance agreement. The County Court ultimately ruled in favor of Johnson, finding that the undisclosed commission arrangement between FirstRand and the dealership constituted a significant failure of transparency, which undermined the fairness of the agreement.

The County Court’s decision was rooted in consumer protection principles, emphasizing the duty of lenders and finance providers to be transparent in all financial dealings with consumers, especially in instances where commissions are involved. This ruling provided Johnson with a successful claim, setting the stage for FirstRand’s appeal.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal: FirstRand’s Arguments

Following the County Court decision, FirstRand Bank appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the findings on both legal and procedural grounds. In the appeal, FirstRand argued that the original ruling misunderstood the scope and implications of commission disclosure and consumer consent. They contended that non-disclosure did not necessarily invalidate the entire finance agreement and that the relationship between the consumer, dealership, and lender was standard within the motor finance industry.

FirstRand’s appeal sought to narrow the interpretation of disclosure requirements, asserting that commissions are a customary aspect of finance agreements that do not inherently alter the terms for the consumer. This appeal echoed arguments used by other financial institutions facing similar claims, underscoring the industry’s stance that full commission disclosure is not a standard practice, nor is it legally required in all instances.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision: A Landmark Ruling

On 25th October, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, affirming the County Court’s decision in favor of Johnson. The Court of Appeal ruled that the lack of disclosure regarding the commission arrangement between FirstRand and the dealership constituted a breach of duty to the consumer. The ruling underscored the importance of transparency and the consumer’s right to full disclosure in financial agreements, particularly when commissions may impact the interest rates or financial terms of the loan.

The Court of Appeal’s decision reiterated that consumers must be informed about any commissions that could affect their financial obligations. This judgment highlighted that non-disclosure of such arrangements could render the finance agreement voidable, giving consumers the right to seek compensation if they believe the lack of transparency resulted in financial detriment. By upholding the County Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal set a precedent, potentially impacting thousands of similar finance agreements across the UK.

Implications of the Johnson Judgment on the Motor Finance Industry

The Johnson v FirstRand case has broad implications for both the finance and automotive sectors. This decision reinforces the requirement for full transparency in commission-based agreements, a principle that could lead to substantial shifts in industry practices. Motor finance lenders and dealerships may now face increased pressure to disclose all commission arrangements and provide consumers with a clear understanding of how these fees may affect their loan terms.

In light of this judgment, financial institutions may need to reassess their commission structures, opting for transparent and consumer-friendly practices to avoid potential claims. Consumers, in turn, are becoming more aware of their rights in finance agreements, leading to a growing wave of claims and inquiries related to undisclosed commissions.

Conclusion: The Growing Momentum of Consumer Protection in Finance

The Johnson v FirstRand case exemplifies the courts’ ongoing commitment to consumer protection, particularly in cases where financial transparency has been lacking. As one of several recent rulings addressing undisclosed commissions, this case contributes to a developing body of case law that holds finance providers accountable for fair and transparent dealings.

The ruling in Johnson reinforces that finance providers must prioritize consumer rights and adhere to stringent standards of transparency. This decision not only benefits consumers but also sets a higher standard for industry practices. For those impacted by undisclosed commission agreements, the Johnson judgment provides a path to seeking redress and highlights the judiciary’s willingness to uphold fairness in financial agreements.


Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd case analysis

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...
Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
The Landmark Wrench v FirstRand Bank Case

The Wrench v FirstRand Bank Case – A Landmark Judgment for Motor Finance Mis-Selling Claims

The recent Court of Appeal ruling in Wrench v FirstRand Bank has generated substantial interest within the financial and motor finance sectors. This case serves as a crucial benchmark for motor finance claims, focusing on issues surrounding undisclosed commissions and inadequate affordability checks. The case outcome has implications for lenders, dealerships, and the consumers affected by these potentially unfair financial practices. Here’s an in-depth look at the Wrench case, including both the original County Court decision and the pivotal Court of Appeal judgment.

Background of the Wrench Case

The Wrench v FirstRand Bank case centered on a motor finance agreement, where claimant Andrew Wrench argued he had been mis-sold a vehicle finance product due to undisclosed commissions and an alleged lack of affordability assessments. Wrench claimed that FirstRand Bank, which financed his motor loan, had paid undisclosed commissions to the dealership, creating a potential conflict of interest. This non-disclosure raised concerns about whether Wrench was receiving unbiased advice on his finance product.

In addition to the issue of undisclosed commissions, the case also highlighted questions about affordability checks. Wrench argued that the lender had not conducted adequate checks to assess his ability to repay the loan, leading to financial strain later on. These arguments drew attention to the lender’s practices and sparked a larger conversation about transparency and fairness in motor finance agreements.

The County Court Decision

In the County Court, Wrench’s case initially found favor with the judge, who acknowledged that the non-disclosure of commissions could constitute an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This ruling aligned with recent regulatory emphasis on transparency and fair practices in the motor finance industry.

The County Court determined that the lack of disclosure in Wrench’s case meant he was not fully informed about the terms of his finance agreement. This judgment recognized the potential for an “unfair relationship,” where consumers could be unknowingly disadvantaged by terms that were obscured or inadequately explained.

Despite these findings, the County Court ruling did not lead to a significant financial award for Wrench. Instead, it primarily established a basis for future cases by identifying undisclosed commissions as a legitimate factor in determining whether an agreement was fair. However, both FirstRand Bank and Wrench sought further clarity on the judgment, which led to the case being escalated to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal Judgment

On 25th October, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling on the Wrench case, reinforcing the need for transparency in finance agreements. The appellate judges upheld the County Court’s decision, emphasizing that FirstRand Bank’s failure to disclose commission payments to the dealership indeed contributed to an “unfair relationship.”

The Court of Appeal judgment went further in its analysis, examining how undisclosed commissions could affect a consumer’s decision-making process. By paying the dealership an undisclosed commission, FirstRand Bank effectively created a potential bias in the dealership’s advice, which compromised Wrench’s ability to make an informed decision about his loan.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of fair treatment in consumer finance and stressed that lenders have a duty to disclose any financial arrangements that might impact the objectivity of their advice. The court acknowledged that undisclosed commissions could skew the dealership’s recommendations and place customers at a disadvantage, violating the principles of fairness outlined in the Consumer Credit Act.

Implications of the Wrench Case

The Wrench v FirstRand Bank judgment has several far-reaching implications for the motor finance industry:

  1. Increased Scrutiny on Commissions: The judgment makes it clear that lenders and dealerships must be transparent about any commissions that could influence consumer choice. This level of scrutiny places additional responsibility on finance providers to ensure full disclosure.
  2. Enhanced Affordability Checks: Although the primary focus was on commissions, the case has also drawn attention to the adequacy of affordability assessments. Moving forward, lenders may need to adopt more rigorous affordability checks to avoid similar claims.
  3. Consumer Rights and Potential Claims: For consumers, this judgment strengthens their ability to pursue claims if they have been similarly affected by undisclosed commissions. Consumers who suspect they were mis-sold a finance agreement now have precedent to support their case.
  4. Impact on Motor Finance and Regulatory Standards: This judgment aligns closely with recent Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) guidelines aimed at curbing unfair practices in motor finance agreements. The FCA has been working to regulate undisclosed commissions, and the Wrench case further underscores the necessity of these measures.

Lessons for Lenders and Dealerships

The Wrench case sends a clear message to the motor finance industry: transparency and fair practice are not just regulatory expectations but legal necessities. Lenders and dealerships now face a heightened obligation to disclose all financial arrangements tied to consumer finance agreements.

Dealerships, in particular, will need to ensure that their recommendations are not influenced by undisclosed commissions. By placing a greater emphasis on transparency, the industry can work to restore consumer trust and prevent further claims arising from similar practices.

Conclusion

The Wrench v FirstRand Bank case serves as a landmark judgment, providing a solid legal foundation for consumers seeking redress for unfair motor finance practices. By reinforcing the importance of commission transparency and fair treatment, this case sets a powerful precedent for future motor finance claims.

For those who believe they may have been mis-sold a finance product, the Wrench judgment offers hope and clarity on their rights. If you suspect that your finance agreement involved undisclosed commissions or inadequate affordability checks, consider consulting a claims management firm like Your Money Claim. This ruling highlights the necessity of fair practices within the motor finance sector, giving consumers a renewed opportunity to pursue the compensation they deserve.

This case underscores the need for accountability, fairness, and transparency in consumer finance. The judgment reminds us that lenders and dealerships must prioritize consumer interests to ensure a fair and ethical industry.


Wrench v FirstRand Bank case analysis

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...
Read more
March 31, 2025
Daniel Lee
Court of Appeal Judgment in Hopcraft v Close Brothers: No Grounds for Appeal

The Court of Appeal’s Firm Stance in Hopcraft v Close Brothers: No Grounds for Further Appeal

In the recent Hopcraft v Close Brothers case, the Court of Appeal delivered a definitive ruling with potential wide-reaching impacts across the finance sector. The judges asserted that there were no arguable grounds for Close Brothers to pursue an appeal. This decision strongly reinforces consumer rights, particularly regarding issues of undisclosed commissions in motor finance agreements.

Background: The Hopcraft Case

The case centers around claims by Mr. Hopcraft against Close Brothers, a finance company alleged to have engaged in practices where commission payments to dealerships were not transparently disclosed to consumers. Mr. Hopcraft claimed that the lack of transparency in commission agreements resulted in unfair treatment and financial harm. The case highlights a larger issue in the finance sector: undisclosed payments and inflated costs, which are increasingly scrutinized in consumer finance.

The Appeal’s Dismissal: Why the Judges Said “No Grounds”

The Court of Appeal’s ruling was unequivocal: Close Brothers had no viable grounds for a further appeal. The judgment highlighted the strength of Mr. Hopcraft’s case and that Close Brothers failed to present any compelling arguments to overturn the existing decision. The presiding judges noted that the legal standards presented in Mr. Hopcraft’s favor were robust, leaving no room for re-argument.

This judgment underscored transparency and fair dealing in consumer finance contracts, especially concerning commission structures. The decision serves as a reminder that the judiciary holds financial institutions to strict standards, requiring clarity and integrity in consumer transactions.

Broader Implications for Financial Institutions

The ruling in Hopcraft v Close Brothers is a wake-up call for finance companies and dealerships engaged in finance agreements. It’s now clear that the courts will hold firms accountable for a lack of transparency, especially where undisclosed commissions might unfairly increase borrowing costs. This judgment could prompt lenders and financial intermediaries to re-evaluate practices and ensure full commission disclosures in all consumer-facing agreements.

Lessons for the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Industry

The case brings to light the need for heightened FCA oversight in financial agreements, especially those involving intermediary commissions. The FCA may need to re-evaluate its guidelines to prevent similar disputes from escalating to the courts. For the finance industry, this ruling is a call to prioritize consumer-centric practices, ensuring transparency and avoiding litigation or reputational damage.

What This Means for Consumers

For consumers, Hopcraft is a significant victory, reinforcing that they deserve fair treatment in financial dealings. The ruling demonstrates that hidden fees in car finance or loan agreements can and should be challenged. It assures consumers that the courts are willing to defend their rights against unfair practices, providing a pathway for similar claims in the future.

Final Thoughts

The Court of Appeal’s decisive stance in Hopcraft v Close Brothers signals to financial institutions that transparency is essential. This decision will likely influence how commission structures are disclosed in future finance agreements. Financial institutions should take note and adapt accordingly, while consumers can rest assured that the judiciary is committed to protecting their rights.


Hopcraft v Close Brothers Court of Appeal judgment

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

About YourMoneyClaim

Your Money Claim was set up by it’s directors who have over 35 years industry experience. Your Money Claim is a trading name of Your Money Management Ltd. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Read more >

Navigation

Contact Us

  • 8 Mitton Business Park
    Mitton Road
    Whalley
    Clitheroe
    Lancashire
    BB7 9YE
  • Email: info@yourmoneyclaim.co.uk
  • Phone: 01254 822880

Customer Area

Trustpilot

Your Money Claim is a trading name of Your Money Management Ltd. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 835466).

Your Money Management Ltd is a registered HMRC Agent (Agent Code SA:2497EJ)

Registered in England and Wales No: 07443559. Registered Office:  8 Mitton Road Business Park, Mitton Road, Whalley, Lancashire, England, BB7 9YE.

VAT Registration No: 108 103 853

You are not required to use our services to pursue your claim and it is possible for you to present your claim for free, either to the company against whom you wish to complain or to the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

You are not required to use our services with respect to a tax refund claim and it is possible for you to present your claim for free to HMRC.

Our Tax Claim services are not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Your Money Claim specialises in recovering compensation for UK consumers who have been mis-sold motor finance agreements and GAP insurance due to hidden commission. If you took out a PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) or HP (Hire Purchase) agreement, and were not informed about the commission being paid to the dealer or broker, you could be entitled to a compensation refund.

Motor finance mis-selling has affected millions of UK car buyers. Dealerships and lenders failed to disclose hidden commissions which resulted in high-interest rates for consumers. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and recent Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rulings have recognised that consumers were unfairly charged, opening the door to potential compensation claims.

Similarly, thousands of consumers were mis-sold GAP insurance (Guaranteed Asset Protection) without being properly informed of its necessity or cost. Many customers were charged for policies they did not need, and dealerships earned undisclosed commissions from insurers.

At Your Money Claim, we help consumers reclaim what is rightfully theirs. If you believe you were affected by hidden commission on motor finance or GAP insurance, you can start your claim today. Our expert team will handle the process, ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve.

©2025 YourMoneyClaim. All right reserved.
MENU