01254 82288001254 822880
August 14, 2025 
Daniel Lee When buying a car, especially through dealership-arranged finance, many consumers may have assumed that the dealership is there to find the “best deal” for them.
The recent Supreme Court motor finance ruling made it clear that this is not the case — and understanding why could save you thousands.
In its landmark decision, the Supreme Court accepted that dealerships arranging finance are not impartial.
Dealerships have now admitted that they act only in their own commercial interest, aiming to secure a profitable sale of the vehicle, and an additional income through commission from the finance provider.
This reinforces a widely considered opinion of car salespeople.
When you take finance through a dealership, the finance provider generally pays the dealer a commission. These commission deals could have been:
Historically, the amount of these commissions were never disclosed, and in many cases these figures can be substantial.
This issue is that these commissions were ultimately paid for by consumers via the interest paid on their finance agreement.
The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the dealer’s self-interest makes one thing clear: you must protect your own interests. That means demanding transparency.
When arranging finance in future, you should:
If the dealer refuses, walk away — and don’t be afraid to shop around for finance independently.
The Supreme Court has confirmed what many already suspected: when it comes to finance, dealerships work for themselves, not for you.
By being proactive — asking the right questions and insisting on commission transparency — you can take control of your car purchase, reduce the risk of overpaying, and make sure your money works for you, not for the dealership.
August 6, 2025 Daniel Lee The dust is settling following the long-awaited Supreme Court judgment on motor finance commission, and while some media outlets spun it as a victory for lenders, the deeper reality paints a very different picture — and one that could prove devastating for the finance industry.
Because in defending themselves, dealerships and lenders have openly admitted that they were never acting in the interests of the consumer.
They were acting solely in their own commercial interests — maximising profit, manipulating interest rates, and disguising hefty commissions — and, crucially, failing to disclose the amount of commission to the very people funding those profits: you, the customer.
Throughout the case, lenders and dealers repeatedly argued that they didn’t owe a duty of care to customers.
They weren’t providing advice, they claimed. They weren’t acting for the benefit of the customer. Their role, they insisted, was purely to sell.
But this defence is a double-edged sword.
If dealerships were acting in their own interests, and not as impartial brokers, then FCA rules (ICOBS 4.4.1R) required them to disclose the commission arrangements, including the amount, whenever that commission could influence the outcome of the sale.
🔍 FCA ICOBS 4.4.1R (as in force in May 2018):
“A firm must disclose the existence and nature of any commission or other remuneration… where that commission could affect the firm’s impartiality.”
So, the lenders’ own argument confirms that disclosure was required.
They’ve essentially admitted that they’ve breached the regulator’s rules.
Because disclosing it would receive a commission to enable to it sell the vehicle it wanted to sell would have raised too many questions.
It would have revealed the true cost of the deal.
It would have exposed that customers were being charged inflated interest rates to fund commission — and that they may not have received the best deal they qualified for.
💬 Let’s be honest: the commission model existed solely to reward dealerships for selling more expensive finance products.
That is the heart of the issue, and it’s why millions of motor finance agreements have been mis-sold.
With the Supreme Court judgment now in place and lenders having admitted that impartiality was never part of the transaction, serious questions must now be asked:
This isn’t a technical argument anymore.
This is about fairness.
This is about tens of millions of consumers who may have paid more than they should have.
This is about systemic, profit-driven misconduct disguised as routine practice.
And it’s about whether the UK’s regulatory bodies have the courage to stand up for consumers — or whether they’ll fold again under the weight of financial lobbying.
The Supreme Court has spoken.
Now we wait to see whether the industry and its regulators will listen — or continue the cover-up.
...
August 5, 2025 Daniel Lee The long-awaited Supreme Court judgment on motor finance has finally landed — and despite the misleading headlines initially pushed out by some of the mainstream media, the decision confirms what campaigners, claim firms, and consumer law experts have been saying for years.
This is a huge win for consumers.
The Supreme Court considered whether Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs) and other undisclosed motor finance commissions could amount to an “unfair relationship” under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
This isn’t a ruling that shuts down redress. On the contrary — it opens the floodgates.
Soon after the ruling, several media outlets reported that the Supreme Court had “closed the door” to most motor finance claims.
That narrative was wrong.
While the Court rejected some legal arguments surrounding bribery, the judgment clearly affirms that consumers have rights under the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act when faced with hidden commissions and inflated costs.
Millions of agreements may have been mis-sold, and now that fact is confirmed by the highest court in the country.
Let’s be clear. This wasn’t brought to light by regulators or banks.
It was claims management companies and law firms who:
And yet, the media and lenders continue to attempt to discredit the very firms who have once again uncovered another industry scandal — just as they did with PPI.
The ruling now puts pressure on dealerships and finance providers to:
The days of pretending these commissions had no impact are over.
The Financial Conduct Authority is now in the process on consulting on a redress scheme.
However, it has initially suggested that most consumers will receive less than £950.00, raising serious concerns that it will seek to protect lenders further.
The FCA has suggested that a £10,000 motor finance agreement, paid over four years, and where a Discretionary Commission Arrangement applied, resulted in consumers overpaying interest by £1,100.00.
That being the case, how can the FCA suggest that most consumers would receive less than £950.00?
We therefore call upon the FCA to stop protecting lenders, and focus on the consumers that have been left out of pocket by this latest scandal.
Only then will true justice have been served.
The motor finance commission scandal is real.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that unfair relationships exist when consumers were left in the dark about commission structures that affected their monthly payments.
The media misreported it. The lenders tried to hide it. But consumer advocates exposed it — and now, the nation knows the truth.
Now is the time to act.
...
August 4, 2025 Daniel Lee Martin Lewis has long been hailed as the voice of the consumer—a trusted figure helping households save money.
But when it comes to the motor finance commission scandal, serious questions are now being asked about whose side Mr Lewis is really on.
It sounds unthinkable right? But let’s look at the facts.
The upcoming Supreme Court judgment on hidden motor finance commissions could unlock billions in compensation for consumers who were charged inflated interest without being told about the backdoor payments made to car dealers.
And yet, Martin Lewis—despite his public image—has not backed the strongest legal arguments or consumer positions.
In fact, he has argued that a judgment in favour of consumers may go too far.
Why? One theory is painfully simple.
Martin Lewis may have made his name as a savvy money-saving guru, but the financial engine behind his empire was commission.
The MoneySavingExpert.com website, which he later sold to Moneysupermarket Group for up to £87 million, profited by earning undisclosed commissions every time a user signed up to products via their links—including insurance, energy providers, broadband deals, loans and more.
Sound familiar?
The very undisclosed commission model that has now been found unlawful in motor finance sales may have propped up the MSE business model in the past.
If the Supreme Court rules that such commission structures are fundamentally unfair and mis-sold, it could set a precedent—opening the door for retrospective complaints not only against lenders and car dealers, but possibly against MSE or affiliated parties for failing to ensure transparency.
If that wasn’t bad enough, Martin Lewis—alongside MoneySavingExpert—published a DIY complaint template for consumers to submit a claim to motor finance providers.
The result? Catastrophic.
Well over a million consumers have now received near-identical rejections from lenders. Why?
This has created a false sense of “nothing owed” among consumers who may very well have valid claims worth thousands of pounds.
Was this incompetence, not knowing the legal arguments, or was it a strategic play to reduce complaint volumes or protect vested interests.
Let’s be clear: Martin Lewis has helped millions reduce their household bills, something that he should be applauded for.
But that doesn’t make him immune to criticism—or above scrutiny.
When consumers are being misled, denied justice, or pointed toward ineffective complaint methods, it is vital we ask why, and who benefits.
The looming Supreme Court decision could shake the foundations of decades of commission-based selling practices.
And Martin Lewis might just have more reason than most to want the old system protected.
...
