The recent actions of Chancellor Rachel Reeves, seeking to intervene in legal proceedings to block justice for millions of motor finance consumers, represent a shocking display of government corruption and undue influence by the financial industry. Her attempts to protect motor finance providers from the repercussions of their own unethical practices confirm a deeply troubling alliance between government and industry, prioritising corporate interests over consumer justice.

Justice Denied: Blocking Motor Finance Commission Claims

Motor finance providers have long benefited from undisclosed commissions paid to dealerships for arranging finance agreements. These hidden fees have caused significant harm to consumers, many of whom were left paying inflated interest rates without their knowledge. The Court of Appeal’s recent judgment rightly highlighted the injustice of these practices, holding motor finance providers accountable for their actions.

Rather than support the court’s decision to uphold consumer rights, Rachel Reeves has chosen to side with the financial industry, attempting to block justice for millions of consumers. This move undermines public trust in her ability to act impartially and raises serious questions about her suitability for office.

False Claims About Market Impact

Motor finance providers, emboldened by Reeves’ intervention, claim that the Court of Appeal judgment will increase the cost of credit and force lenders to exit the market. These assertions are not only unfounded but blatantly misleading. The judgment ensures greater transparency and fairness in motor finance agreements, which will ultimately benefit consumers and the market as a whole.

Here’s the truth:

• No More Hidden Costs: Removing commissions paid to dealerships will make motor finance agreements cheaper, not more expensive. Consumers will no longer bear the burden of inflated interest rates designed to cover undisclosed fees.
• A Healthier Market: Transparent practices will encourage competition and trust, fostering a market that prioritises fair treatment over profits driven by unethical behaviour.
• Accountability Strengthens Stability: By holding providers accountable, the judgment reinforces the need for compliance and responsible lending, ensuring long-term sustainability in the industry.

Corruption in Plain Sight

Rachel Reeves’ actions raise serious concerns about the influence of the financial industry on government decision-making. Rather than supporting measures to address consumer harm, she has chosen to shield those responsible for widespread misconduct. This intervention is not just a betrayal of consumer trust—it is a blatant endorsement of corruption.

By attempting to block justice for motor finance consumers, Reeves has shown that she is more interested in protecting corporate interests than upholding the rights of the public. Her position as Chancellor is no longer tenable, and her immediate resignation is necessary to restore faith in the government’s commitment to fairness and justice.

A Call for Change

This situation highlights the urgent need for greater accountability and transparency within both the financial industry and government. The Court of Appeal judgment provides an opportunity to reshape the motor finance market for the better, ensuring consumers are treated fairly and hidden commissions become a thing of the past.

Rachel Reeves’ intervention is a stark reminder of the corruption that exists at the intersection of government and finance. We must demand better from those in power—leaders who prioritise justice and fairness over the interests of the privileged few.

It is time for Rachel Reeves to step down and for the government to show genuine commitment to supporting the millions of consumers who have been harmed by unethical motor finance practices. Justice must prevail, and corruption must no longer dictate the actions of those who claim to serve the public.

Background: Canada Square v Potter

In the Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] case, the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for bringing a claim can be extended under Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 if the claimant can demonstrate that the defendant deliberately concealed a relevant fact. This ruling confirmed that time should not start running until the claimant became aware of the concealment, which in many cases involves undisclosed commissions in financial products.

The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for consumers, particularly those seeking compensation for financial mis-selling involving secretive commission payments, as is the case for up to 99% of motor finance agreements taken out since April 2007.

Time-Bar Arguments by Motor Finance Providers

Despite the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, many motor finance providers are still attempting to invoke the six-year time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 to dismiss claims. This tactic ignores the clear principles established in Canada Square v Potter, particularly the idea that consumers cannot be held to a time limit when they were unaware of the misconduct due to the provider’s concealment.

• Refusal to Acknowledge Concealment: Providers argue that consumers should have discovered the commission payments earlier, even when these were actively hidden from consumers.
• Rejection Without Investigation: Some providers seek to reject claims outright, citing time-bar rules, without properly considering whether the principles of Section 32 apply.
• Delaying Tactics: By delaying or rejecting valid claims, providers attempt to discourage claimants from pursuing their cases further, thus causing further consumer harm.

Why These Arguments Are Flawed

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Canada Square v Potter leaves no room for misinterpretation:

1. Deliberate Concealment: If the amount of commission was not disclosed at the time the agreement was entered into, and the consumer only discovered it later (e.g., through litigation or regulatory scrutiny), the limitation period begins from the date of discovery.
2. Public Policy: The ruling upholds the principle that companies should not benefit from their own wrongdoing. Using time-bar arguments to reject claims contradicts this principle.
3. Fairness to Consumers: Many consumers only became aware of these issues following regulatory investigations or court judgments, meaning their claims are valid under Section 32.

What This Means for Claimants

Consumers with motor finance agreements that included undisclosed commissions should not be deterred by time-bar arguments from providers. The Canada Square v Potter judgment reinforces their right to pursue claims, even if the agreement was entered into more than six years ago. Claimants should:

• Seek expert legal advice or assistance from regulated claims management firms.
• Challenge any time-bar rejection by referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling.
• Act promptly to ensure their claims are not delayed unnecessarily.

A Call to Action for the Financial Conduct Authority

It is clear that motor finance providers are not treating complainants fairly, going so far as to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in Canada Square v Potter. It is now clear that the regulator must step in and provide a clear deterrent to motor finance providers that continue to cause significant consumer harm. Continuing to reject claims on time-bar grounds without proper consideration further undermines trust in the financial services industry. The Financial Conduct Authority must:

• Enforce significant financial penalties for firms that handle complaints contrary to UK law.
• Order that firms pay additional redress where complaint handling is deemed to be inadequate.
• Consider a separate body to take over complaints from the outset, at a cost to finance providers that cannot be trusted to fairly handle complaints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Canada Square v Potter has set a clear precedent for extending the time limits on claims involving undisclosed commissions. Motor finance providers must adapt their practices accordingly and immediately cease attempting to use time-bar arguments to reject valid claims. Consumers are encouraged to stand firm and seek professional assistance to ensure they receive the compensation they deserve.