01254 822880
The FCA Radio Ad That Tells Consumers to “Wait” (While the Clock Keeps Ticking)
There’s a new Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) financed radio advert doing the rounds telling consumers three things:
- Wait
- Don’t use a representative
- If you want “100% of the facts”, go to the FCA
If you’re the sort of person who enjoys irony, you’ll love this advert. If you’re a consumer with a potential motor finance claim, you should be deeply concerned.
Because in my view, those lines are misleading by implication, misleading by omission, and perfectly designed to cause consumer harm, all while wearing a high-vis jacket labelled “We’re helping!”.
And yes, this is exactly the kind of advert somebody might reasonably consider reporting to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)!
1) “Wait” for what, exactly?
The FCA’s own consumer page states plainly that there is no compensation scheme in place yet, unless of course the consultation period is merely a box ticking exercise (let’s not go there).
So “wait” is not guidance. It’s based upon an idea, an ongoing discussion that may not see the light of day.
Worse, the FCA has regularly told consumers the opposite of “wait” in black and white. It has actively encouraged consumers to “complain now”, and under its current proposals those who complain before any scheme starts are likely to be dealt with sooner.
So if an advert is nudging people to sit on their hands, it’s pushing them away from the very action the regulator says could get them assessed sooner.
And while the FCA has paused and extended complaint handling timelines, that doesn’t magically stop time existing for other routes that are available to consumers (including court timetables and limitation arguments). The FCA itself has confirmed the pause lifts on 31st May 2026, and it will announce whether it will go ahead with a scheme by the end of March 2026.
What is becoming clear, is that the Redress Scheme is in serious danger of becoming an unforgettable white elephant, with representatives guiding consumers to fairer redress via the courts… and the FCA seems to be doing all it can to stop that from happening at any cost.
2) “Don’t use a representative” is not consumer protection. It’s crowd control
Let’s be clear… there are good representatives and there are bad representative. Consumers should be careful.
But a blanket “don’t use a representative” message is, in my opinion, reckless, because it implies representation is unnecessary in all cases, and it fails to explain the trade-offs.
Even the FCA’s own page takes a more nuanced position. It says you won’t need a CMC or law firm for any scheme and warns about fees, but it also recognises people do use them and explains what happens if you cancel.
The advert chooses a blunt instruction instead of providing balance, and the benefits of using representation.
Consumers choose representation for multiple reasons, not least because of one mis-selling scandal after another, lenders failing to handle valid complaints fairly, and a seemingly weak regulator that is uncomfortably close to those it pertains to regulate, which has resulted in a complete lack of trust.
If you’re going to broadcast an instruction that could materially affect how consumers pursue redress, you’re already wandering into BCAP territory: don’t materially mislead (3.1), don’t omit material information (3.2), and hold evidence for objective claims (3.9).
(BCAP Code: Section 3)
3) “100% of the facts are on the FCA website” is a huge claim, and it needs substantiating
That “100% of the facts” line is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Yes, the FCA’s consumer page is helpful in parts.
But here’s the issue, the FCA is trying to steer behaviour.
It promotes a lender-run scheme as “simpler”, warns consumers they could end up with less “after legal fees”, and builds an entire comms approach around keeping consumers inside the scheme perimeter
Quite possibly because the scheme, in its current design, is heavily weighted in favour of lenders and allows the FCA some embarrassment for being asleep at the wheel in the first instance.
And then there’s the compensation point, which is absolutely central:
- The FCA’s proposal is that simple interest would be paid based on the annual average Bank of England base rate + 1%.
(FCA Consultation Paper CP25/27 (PDF)) - But the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson (part of the conjoined appeals) involved repayment of commission with interest at an “appropriate commercial rate”.
(UK Supreme Court: Press Summary (UKSC 2024/0157)) - Bank of England base rate + 1% cannot be considered as an appropriate commercial rate.
- The proposal does not put many consumers back into the position of being refunded every penny that they were overcharged as a result of unlawful commission arrangements.
- The proposal makes assumptions on what would be considered to be unfair levels of commission at court, without any legal precedent to rely upon.
So if an advert tells consumers “100% of the facts are on the FCA website”, while the FCA’s own messaging frames the scheme as the obvious route and doesn’t exactly shout from the rooftops that courts can approach interest and valid claim criteria differently, that “100%” claim starts to look less like information and more like… marketing.
And marketing, on the radio, is exactly what BCAP regulates.
4) The scheme is lender-run, and the advert glosses over the obvious conflict
Under the FCA’s current proposal, lenders should contact consumers:
- within 3 months if the consumer has already complained
- within 6 months if they haven’t
The FCA acknowledges the practical problem if a lender doesn’t have your details, you may not be contacted and so you’d have a year from when the scheme starts to make a claim.
That’s not a minor footnote. That’s the whole ballgame for millions of people who financed a vehicle years ago, moved twice, and can’t even find the original paperwork without a séance.
Yet the advert’s “wait” message effectively encourages consumers to rely on the same institutions that benefited from the unlawful commission structures to (a) find them, (b) assess them, and (c) pay them.
If that doesn’t deserve a raised eyebrow, I don’t know what does.
Why this is ASA-complaint territory
If someone wanted to complain to the ASA, the argument (in plain English) is:
- The advert creates a misleading overall impression that waiting is safe and sensible. (BCAP 3.1)
- It omits material information, like the fact there’s no scheme in place yet, that complaining now may be beneficial, and that there are legitimate routes outside any scheme (including court). (BCAP 3.2)
- “100% of the facts” is an objective-sounding claim that must be capable of substantiation. (BCAP 3.9)
- Broadcast ads must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to the audience and to society. (BCAP 1.2)
References:
And Ofcom is clear, radio advert content complaints go to the ASA (except political advertising)
Final thought
This advert doesn’t feel like consumer guidance. It feels like a behavioural nudge to stay calm, don’t get help, and only read what we put in front of you.
If that’s genuinely the intention, it’s grotesque. If it’s not the intention, it’s still dangerous—because consumer harm doesn’t wait politely just because a radio voice told it to.
And neither does the clock.
