🚗 The FCA’s Contradictory Position on Motor Finance Commission Redress: Whose Side Are They Really On?

At Your Money Claim, we’ve long championed transparency, fairness, and justice for consumers misled or mistreated by financial institutions. That’s why the FCA’s recent behaviour regarding the potential introduction of a redress scheme for motor finance commission claims is not only puzzling—it’s deeply troubling.

⚖️ The FCA’s Supreme Court Submission: Protecting Industry Over Consumers?

In a submission to the UK Supreme Court, the FCA made its stance alarmingly clear: it stood not with consumers—but against them.

The regulator argued that a judgment in favour of consumers in motor finance commission claims could pose a significant risk of financial harm to the motor finance industry.

Let that sink in.

The very body tasked with protecting consumers made a conscious choice to shield the financial institutions that may have engaged in misleading, non-transparent, or unfair practices.

This position undermines the FCA’s statutory obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—including the need to protect consumers and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system.

🔁 A Redress Scheme: Welcome, But at What Cost?

Following significant pressure, the FCA has now announced that it is considering a redress scheme. We welcome this development—but only if it results in full, fair, and timely compensation for all affected individuals.

A redress scheme could see a much higher percentage of consumers compensated, and in a much shorter period of time.

However, let us be crystal clear: the FCA’s change in tone does not absolve it of its earlier contradictions.

💰 The PPI Parallel: Case-by-Case Resolution Is Less Burdensome

There is a painful irony here.

During the PPI scandal, redress was primarily resolved on a case-by-case basis, allowing claims to be individually assessed and staggered over time.

This approach allowed firms to manage financial exposure incrementally, avoiding a full-scale, immediate financial shock to the industry.

The FCA’s Supreme Court intervention suggests that even a staggered approach—through claims brought individually—could be too financially damaging for the motor finance sector. That’s a clear contradiction.

❗ The Core Contradiction

Let’s break it down:

• The FCA opposed a consumer-friendly judgment on the grounds that mass payouts could harm the motor finance sector.
• The FCA is now proposing a redress scheme, which by nature would most certainly be far more financially burdensome than individual claims.
• Meanwhile, consumers are still waiting, and firms that profited from non-disclosed commission arrangements continue to benefit from more regulatory hesitancy.

This contradiction calls into serious question the FCA’s impartiality and commitment to consumer protection. Either consumer redress is financially manageable (as PPI proved), or the industry’s fragility is being used as a smokescreen to delay justice.

🗣️ Our Position

At Your Money Claim, we support any process that ensures affected consumers are compensated fairly.

We support a redress scheme—but it must not be a vehicle for delay, dilution, or escape.

We also believe that case-by-case claims remain a legitimate and necessary route.

In fact, they may be less damaging to firms than a sudden, mandatory redress rollout.

Any argument to the contrary is illogical and undermines the very premise of financial justice.

📢 Final Word

The FCA cannot have it both ways.

Either it supports consumer redress, in which case it must stop impeding it through legal manoeuvres—or it risks losing the trust of the very public it was created to protect.

If you’ve taken out a motor finance agreement and suspect a hidden commission may have been involved, we’re here to help. Justice delayed is not justice denied—but it’s time it was delivered.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM