April 16, 2026

Daniel Lee

Santander Didn’t Know What It Financed. We Did. It Was GAP Insurance.

There are weak complaint responses, there are insulting complaint responses, and then there are complaint responses so absurd they amount to an epic own goal.

Step forward Santander as our latest ‘Wall of Shame’ entry.

In this case, and in what is becoming a pattern, Santander’s position was that it did not know what type of insurance product sold by the dealership had been financed under its agreement.

It didn’t know what it had financed!

That is a breathtaking admission from a regulated lender.

Lenders cannot operate on the basis of, “We financed it, we profited from it, but don’t ask us what it actually was”. The whole legal and regulatory framework provides that the lender must know what is being financed and provides the required information accordingly.

We looked into it. Santander apparently preferred not to.

Unlike Santander, we bothered to dig a little.

And guess what?

It was GAP insurance.

So the product was not unknown. It was not lost in the mists of time. It was there to be identified by anyone willing to do the work.

That makes Santander’s position even worse.

This not ignorance, this is avoidance.

Santander would rather admit it did not have a clue what it was financing, rather than properly investigate a GAP mis-selling complaint.

An astounding position to take.

A regulated lender claiming not to know what it financed is damning

If a lender is legally responsible for entering into a regulated credit agreement, profiting from it, and complying with the rules that sit around it, then saying it does not know what product sat within that agreement is not a defence to a complaint.

It’s a confession that the controls were either hopelessly inadequate, or that the truth was too inconvenient to confront.

If Santander genuinely did not know what it financed, that raises the concern of inadequate checks before advancing credit and taking its profits from a customer.

If adequate checks were carried out, it raises the question of why it would falsely admit that it has no controls in place.

Neither response does Santander any favours.

This is what the culture looks like

Santander’s stance tells us a great deal about the culture behind GAP insurance, and indeed other products that are sold to consumers alongside their motor finance agreements.

It points to a lender prepared to finance virtually anything a dealership could slide into the deal, with little interest in identifying the products properly so long as the agreement was written and the money flowed.

That is the real scandal here.

Not just that a dealership sold the product.
Not just that a customer overpaid for it, and maybe didn’t need it.
But that the lender appears to have been happy to fund it first and ask questions never.

Just bundle it in, finance it, collect the return, and dismiss any future complaint on the basis of ignorance.

It is a remarkable position for a major lender to take.

Better to look clueless than confront GAP?

Santander has concluded that the less embarrassing option was to present itself as a lender with no real grasp of what it finances, rather than get to grips with a GAP complaint on its merits.

Think about how extraordinary that is.

A bank would rather sound reckless than responsible.
Rather sound oblivious than accountable.
Rather imply it financed add-ons blindly than properly investigate whether GAP was mis-sold.

That is how toxic this response is.

Once the truth is uncovered, that the product was in fact GAP insurance, Santander’s earlier hand-wringing uncertainty starts to look very convenient indeed.

Santander cannot have it both ways

It cannot claim the rights and profits of the creditor while disclaiming knowledge of what the credit actually funded.

It cannot present itself as a sophisticated regulated lender when the agreement is signed, then suddenly become a baffled spectator when a complaint lands.

And it certainly cannot expect consumers to accept that identifying the financed product was somehow beyond its reach when we managed to establish that it was GAP insurance.

So which is it?

Did Santander not know what it was financing, which would be a damning indictment of its systems and controls?

Or did it not want to know, because knowing would mean having to engage with a GAP mis-selling allegation?

Either way, the picture is ugly.

This should alarm regulators, not just consumers

A lender claiming not to know what insurance product it financed must set alarm bells ringing.

This is not just about one complaint file, because this is a pattern and it goes to the heart of oversight, governance and conduct.

If Santander’s position is that it financed the product but cannot identify it, what does that say about the care taken when these dealership transactions were being pushed through?

Santander’s response reveals more than it intended

Sometimes complaint responses are useful because they clarify the issues. Others are useful because they expose them. This one exposes plenty.

It exposes a lender apparently willing to admit it did not know what it had financed.
It exposes a culture that looks far more comfortable with profit than scrutiny.
And it exposes a regulator that is weak, and has little idea what is happening in the markets it is there to control.

The problem for Santander is that we looked further, found the answer and the answer was GAP insurance.

The mystery was never really a mystery at all.

Santander just preferred ignorance to accountability, and that is as damning as it is astounding.

Complaint escalated.

...

April 14, 2026

Daniel Lee

FOS can no longer say it wasn’t told about GAP

At last, albeit long overdue, we have now received a response from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) confirming that our concerns and evidence regarding GAP insurance have been put before James Dipple-Johnstone, and that we are to expect a response shortly.

Our understanding of “shortly” may differ, but the fact our evidence has been confirmed as received and put before the Chief Ombudsman matters.

This is no longer a case of the FOS being able to hide behind delay, bureaucracy or convenient ignorance. It has now been formally put on notice, and the evidence has been seen. The concerns have been raised in detail and, crucially, the relevant people within FOS have now been made aware of them.

The question now, what does FOS intend to do about it?

The material we have put before FOS is deeply serious. It includes evidence of grotesque undisclosed commission levels in GAP insurance, suitability concerns that go to the heart of whether these products should have been sold at all, and even evidence of Discretionary Commission Arrangements, the very type of corrosive commission model that has already detonated so spectacularly in the motor finance market.

If that is not enough to trigger alarm bells, what is?

This is evidence pointing towards the next mass systemic mis-selling scandal. Where FOS becomes aware of that possibility, it should not simply sit on its hands and wait for individual complaints to drip through the door. It has a regulatory obligation to share findings of potential widespread consumer harm with the FCA.

That point has been put to FOS directly.

The FCA, for its part, has also been provided with our evidence. Yet the response has been exactly what we have sadly come to expect… total radio silence. It is impossible not to see echoes of the regulator’s shameful handling of motor finance whistleblower Paul Carlin, whose warnings were also met with inertia before the scandal became too large to ignore.

We have seen this script before. A regulator is warned. Evidence is supplied. The concerns are serious. The potential consumer harm is obvious. And yet nothing appears to happen until eventually the scandal becomes public, the pressure becomes unbearable, and the same authorities scramble to look as though they were in control all along.

That cannot be allowed to happen again with GAP insurance.

So we have adopted a two-pronged attack, one aimed at FOS, and one aimed at the FCA. Both organisations have now been put on notice. Both have been given the evidence. Both know the seriousness of the concerns being raised.

FOS has now confirmed that our evidence and concerns have been escalated and that we should expect a response shortly. That is welcome, even if overdue. But acknowledgment is not action, and warm words will not be enough.

A proper response, proper scrutiny, and proper accountability is required.

If the evidence already provided points to what it appears to point to (and it does), then this is not a niche issue or a handful of bad sales. It is a question of whether GAP insurance has, for years, been quietly infected by the same culture of secrecy, conflicted incentives and consumer exploitation that has already disgraced other parts of the financial services market.

The implications are enormous, and FOS now has a choice. The FCA does too.

They can act early, act decisively and prove that warnings of consumer harm are taken seriously. Or they can do what regulators and ombudsmen too often seem to do… delay, deflect, and hope the issue goes away.

It will not go away, we will not allow it to go away and more representatives are joining us in the fight for justice.

The evidence has been handed over. The concerns have been clearly stated. The warnings have been given.

No one at FOS can now say they were not told., and no one at the FCA can pretend they did not have the chance to get ahead of this.

The clock is now ticking, stay tuned.

...

April 14, 2026

Daniel Lee

Good riddance, MotoNovo

Good riddance, MotoNovo. If redress is too much for you, the door is that way

FirstRand, trading as MotoNovo, is quitting the UK motor finance market and, incredibly, wants to leave with a lecture about how the FCA’s redress scheme is “deeply flawed” and goes too far.

The sheer nerve.

This is a lender walking away from a market tainted by hidden commissions, conflicted sales and widespread consumer harm, while pretending the real outrage is being asked to put some of that right. MotoNovo isn’t an innocent bystander getting caught up due to the rest of the industry, it stands front and centre. To it though, having to compensate UK consumers is the real scandal.

That tells you everything.

Let’s be honest about what is happening here. This is not a principled stand. It is not brave corporate leadership. It is not concern for fairness or balance. It is a full on sulk. A corporate tantrum. A lender throwing its toys out of the pram because the gravy train has finally hit the buffers.

And even now, the industry is still being handled with kid gloves.

The FCA redress scheme has already been watered down to protect lenders from the full consequences of their own behaviour. Consumers, in the main, will not receive all of the money they have been overcharged. They are looking at a scheme that has already been softened, narrowed and made more comfortable for the very firms that created this mess in the first place.

And MotoNovo still says that goes too far.

Too far?

What went too far was a motor finance market built on concealment, distorted incentives and commission arrangements that should never have been allowed to flourish for as long as they did as a result of an incompetent regulator. What went too far was consumers being left in the dark while lenders, brokers and dealerships enriched themselves behind a curtain of opacity. What went too far was an industry that behaved as though disclosure was optional and accountability was for somebody else.

That is what went too far.

The Supreme Court has made plain that the issues at the heart of this scandal were far more serious than lenders would now like to admit. This was not simply a case of things being a little untidy or slightly unfair around the edges. The legal and regulatory problems ran much deeper than that. And for firms like MotoNovo, that is the real source of the outrage. Not that the scheme is unfair, but that the game is finally up.

That is why this exit deserves no tears.

MotoNovo was perfectly content while the money was pouring in. There were no anguished warnings then about imbalance or injustice. No grand speeches about flawed systems. No concern for consumers being steered into finance agreements without proper transparency over who was being paid, how much, and why. The moral panic only begins when lenders are told they may have to hand some of it back.

How convenient.

So spare us the theatrics, and the wounded-corporate routine. Spare us the suggestion that this is some noble departure from an overregulated market. If a lender cannot stomach operating in a market where consumers must be treated fairly, commissions properly disclosed, and redress paid when wrongdoing is exposed, then it has no business being in that market at all.

In fact, if more lenders feel the same way, perhaps they should follow MotoNovo out of the door.

The UK motor finance sector has been clogged for too long with firms that saw compliance as a nuisance, transparency as a threat, and customers as revenue streams to be mined. If the clean-up of this market makes some of these lenders decide they would rather quit than behave properly, that is not a tragedy.

And there is something darkly funny about all this.

For years, consumers were expected to just accept the secrecy, the conflicts and the carefully engineered ignorance. But now, the moment lenders are told they may finally be held accountable, they stamp their feet and cry that the system is unfair.

Unfair to whom?

Certainly not to the consumers who were left in the dark.

Before you go, leave enough cash behind

And before MotoNovo disappears through the exit, there is one more thing.

Please make sure you leave enough cash behind to deal with the compensation bill for GAP insurance as well.

Because while MotoNovo is busy complaining about paying redress in one scandal, another is edging further into view. We are now starting to see Financial Ombudsman Service GAP insurance decisions being issued, and going against MotoNovo.

Grotesque, undisclosed GAP insurance commissions, unsuitable products and missing documentation. We’ve seen this pattern before.

So by all means leave the market. Few will mourn the loss. But do not imagine that walking away wipes the slate clean. Consumers still have to be compensated. Redress still has to be paid.

The truth is brutally simple. MotoNovo is not flouncing out because the FCA has gone too far. It is flouncing out because even a watered-down version of accountability is still too much for some firms that became far too comfortable in a market built on unfairness.

Off you pop.

Let us hope whoever replaces MotoNovo brings something this sector has lacked for decades… honesty, decency, transparency and a basic sense of morality.

And if a few more lenders are equally offended by the idea of compensating the people they helped exploit, they know where the door is too.

...

March 31, 2026

Daniel Lee

The wave is coming: GAP can’t be kept quiet any longer

We have said it for a long time. GAP is the next mis-selling scandal. Now the motor finance redress scheme has made it even harder for the FCA, FOS and the industry to keep GAP complaints quiet.

We said it when the industry was still trying to present GAP as a valuable add-on. We said it when fair value concerns exposed just how little of the premium was being returned to customers in claims. We said it when we discovered Discretionary Commission Arrangements within GAP sales. We said it when many cases reviewed showed GAP as being unsuitable for a customers needs. And we said it again when the evidence we uncovered showed that in a majority of cases chain commission is driven to extraordinary levels.

None of this came out of nowhere. We have been warning for some time that GAP has the same familiar ingredients seen in other consumer finance scandals.. poor value, weak disclosure, excessive remuneration and customers being sold a product they often did not properly understand, need or was suitable for.

GAP was never part of the motor finance redress scheme even if it was financed under the same finance agreement.

That matters now more than ever.

The FCA’s motor finance redress scheme has finally drawn a proper line around what the scheme is actually about. It is a scheme about motor finance commission disclosure only. It is not a sweeping clean-up exercise for every ancillary product that happened to be financed alongside the vehicle.

For months, one of the most convenient positions in the market has been to blur that distinction. If GAP sat on the same agreement, the message has effectively been to wait, pause, let the motor finance position settle first.

That position was always flimsy. It is now untenable.

The redress scheme announcement does not bury GAP. It does the opposite. It confirms that GAP complaints were never part of that scheme in the first place, and that separate ancillary product complaints must be treated as separate complaints.

The line has now been drawn

A GAP mis-selling complaint does not magically become a motor finance commission complaint just because the cost was rolled into the borrowing.

That is the point the industry can no longer dodge.

Yes, a finance agreement may have funded the vehicle purchase in whole or in part. Yes, ancillary products may have been packaged into the same transaction. But that does not mean every complaint connected to that transaction disappears into the FCA’s motor finance redress framework.

GAP stands on its own legal and evidential footing. It should be investigated on its own facts. It should be answered as its own complaint. And it should not be hidden inside a completely different scheme just because that is more convenient for firms, ombudsmen or regulators.

Our findings and evidence has been before the FCA and FOS

We have not just been commenting from the sidelines.

We have made submissions to both the FCA and FOS setting out our findings and evidence in GAP sales. Those submissions have, so far, gone unanswered.

This silence mirrors the silence that followed concerns raised in 2016 regarding what was happening in the motor finance industry. Like that, this is not going to go away.

If anything, the continuing silence makes the position more uncomfortable for both the FCA and FOS, not less. The evidence is there. The questions have been asked. The concern has been raised. The only thing missing is a serious response.

FOS can no longer keep GAP in the long grass

The practical effect of the redress scheme announcement is that FOS can no longer comfortably keep GAP complaints on pause by sheltering behind motor finance.

That excuse has gone.

If GAP is outside the defined subject matter of the motor finance scheme, then it cannot keep being treated as though it is waiting for permission to exist. It cannot be left sitting in limbo while everyone pretends the main event is somewhere else.

That may have suited the industry. It may even have suited parts of the regulatory system. But it is a position that is no longer available.

Keeping GAP claims quiet is no longer a credible long-term strategy for the FCA, for FOS or for the firms who sold or financed the products.

The excuses are running out

Firms cannot credibly say “wait for motor finance” when the boundaries of the motor finance scheme have now been made clear.

FOS cannot indefinitely treat GAP as an awkward side issue to be pushed to the back of the queue.

And the regulator cannot continue to act as if GAP is just a historic pricing concern with no wider redress consequences, particularly when sales were paused, commissions were cut and growing evidence keeps pointing back to the same core problems.

The truth is that the market has had every chance to confront this early. Instead, it has too often chosen delay, silence and ambiguity.

The door is now open

This does not mean the FCA has created a dedicated GAP redress scheme. It has not… yet.

But it does mean the latest announcement has made one thing much harder to defend, delay.

The scheme has drawn a line. GAP sits on the other side of it. That means the complaints must move. The remuneration chains must be examined. The fair value issues must be confronted. The suitability concerns must be addressed. The complaint responses must be given. Redress must be paid. And the firms involved should have to explain themselves.

That is why we say the door is now firmly open.

Not because the issue is new. Not because the evidence has only just appeared. But because the ability to keep GAP tucked behind the motor finance curtain has disappeared.

We have long argued that GAP is the next scandal.

The redress scheme announcement does not weaken that view. It strengthens it.

The only real question now is how long the FCA, FOS and the industry think they can keep holding back the tide.

Because the wave is no longer theoretical.

It is on the horizon. And it is approaching quickly.

...

March 19, 2026

Daniel Lee

The Grotesque GAP Commission Award Has a New Leader

The Grotesque GAP Commission Award Has a New Leader: Step Forward, Motorpoint

We have a new winner for the grotesque GAP commission award.

Step forward, Motorpoint.

And what a performance it is.

This latest example shows a total gross underwriting premium of just £57 for the GAP product, yet the consumer was charged a staggering £429.00. Let that sink in for a moment. A product costing £57 at underwriting level somehow leaves the consumer paying £429. That is not a modest markup. It is not a tidy profit. It is not “just how the market works”.

It is an outrage, and yet again the FCA is asleep at the wheel.

And when the commission level comes out at a grotesque 86.7%, the question is no longer whether there is a problem with GAP insurance. The question is how anybody in authority was allowed this to carry on for so long.

GAP is not a new problem. It is not an emerging issue. It is not some quirky little side concern buried in the small print of the motor trade. It has been happening for years, in all likelihood to replace the lost revenue of PPI. Consumers have been sold wildly overpriced policies, often in circumstances where the paperwork is inadequate, the value is dubious, and the profit margins are eye-watering.

Now the numbers are becoming impossible to ignore.

£57 In. £429 Out.

Strip away the jargon and this is what you are left with…

A product with a gross underwriting premium of £57 ended up costing the consumer £429.

That means £372 was piled on top.

That is where the real story is, and the latest scandal on the conveyor belt.

The real story is in the staggering difference between cost and price, and that is where the ugliness lives.

When the overwhelming majority of the money paid by the consumer is not going toward underwriting risk, but toward commission and margin, this stops looking like insurance in any meaningful consumer-friendly sense. It starts looking like a profit-harvesting exercise attached to a vehicle sale.

GAP Is the New Scandal

Let us say plainly what the regulators still seem reluctant to confront.. GAP is the new scandal.

We’ve been building the evidence for years, while the FCA quickly brushed matters under the carpet. Complaint after complaint. File after file. Case after case. Inflated premiums. Nonsensical demands and needs processes. Consumers paying hundreds for products that appear to have been designed less for protection and more for extraction.

And still the response from the system has been painfully slow.

Where is the urgency from the FCA? It hasn’t event acknowledged receipt of our evidence of DCA’s in GAP.

Where is the knowledge and understanding within FOS? It seems to have lost all of its best people after PPI concluded.

How many more examples do they need before somebody stops pretending that this is all a matter of isolated bad practice? At what point do grotesque commission levels cease to be treated as unfortunate quirks and start being recognised for what they really are, a glaring sign that something has gone badly wrong in this market?

Because when a £57 product is sold for £429, nobody can seriously maintain that this was driven by consumer value.

It was driven by opportunity.

Opportunity to load the product.
Opportunity to exploit the sales environment.
Opportunity to profit from the fact that most consumers never get to see what sits underneath the price.

A Market Built on Consumer Ignorance

That is one of the most offensive parts of all this.

Consumers were never handed the full picture. They were shown the sales price, not the true economics. They were not told, in any meaningful way, that the actual underwriting cost could be a tiny fraction of what they were being asked to pay. They were not told that the product sitting in front of them may have been carrying commission at levels that would make even seasoned observers wince.

Why would they be?

Because the entire model depends on the consumer not knowing.

Conceal the facts, take the money and hope nobody finds out. This isn’t a pattern, this is a culture that has been facilitated by a weak regulator and weak leadership.

The less the customer understands, the easier it is to present these products as sensible, prudent, and worthwhile. But once the numbers are exposed, the illusion falls apart very quickly.

And that is exactly why this issue is becoming more dangerous for firms by the day.

The more these cases come to light, the more obvious it becomes that GAP was never merely an overlooked add-on. It was a highly lucrative stream of income hiding in plain sight.

Wake Up, FCA. Wake Up, FOS.

This is the point where the regulators need to decide what they are for.

Are they there to protect consumers, or are they nothing more than an industry damage control mechanism?

Because from where we are sitting, the message being sent to the market is hardly a deterrent. Firms have had years to make vast sums from these products, while the watchdogs appear to move at the pace of a sedated snail.

The FCA should have been all over this years ago.

The FOS should not need repeatedly educating on the basic ugliness of these figures.

And yet here we are, still uncovering commission levels so absurd that they would sound made up if they were not sitting there in black and white.

So let this latest example serve as a warning shot.

Wake up, FCA.
Wake up, FOS.
We’re knocking at your door, and we’re not taking no for an answer.

Because GAP is not going away.

Quite the opposite.

This is building.
This is spreading.
And this is about to blow up.

The firms involved may not like hearing it. The regulators may not like being reminded of it. But the numbers speak for themselves.

A £57 underwriting premium.
A £429 charge to the consumer.
A grotesque 86.7% commission level.

That is not a healthy market.

That is the anatomy of the next financial scandal.

...

March 19, 2026

Daniel Lee

The FOS Reform That Rewards Cover-Ups

The latest Financial Ombudsman Service reform announcement is being sold as “certainty”. But let us be honest about whose certainty this really is.

For consumers, it is not certainty at all. It is a warning.

For firms, it is a useful roadmap.

Buried in the government’s March 2026 consultation response is one of the most dangerous ideas to emerge from the FOS reform package, an absolute 10-year backstop on complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service, with only limited exceptions to be defined later by the FCA. It is being presented as balance. In reality, it rewards firms that can keep misconduct hidden for long enough.

That is the part they hope nobody says out loud, because once you strip away the language of “clarity”, “coherence” and “efficiency”, the message is brutally simple. If wrongdoing can be buried deeply enough, and for long enough, the ombudsman door shuts. After that, the consumer is left staring at the slower, costlier, riskier, and far less accessible legal route.

History shows that consumer protection is a secondary consideration with both FOS and the FCA, and this latest announcement is nothing more than a regulatory expiration date.

A Green Light for the Next Scandal

It is especially perverse when viewed against the real world. Financial misconduct is rarely identified at the start, especially when it comes to the FCA. It festers. It spreads. It is denied. It is dressed up as process, policy, training gaps, administrative oversight, or “industry practice”. The FCA, time and again, appears better at arriving after the fire than spotting the smoke.

So what happens when the watchdog is slow and the misconduct is well concealed?

Under this reform, the answer is obvious, the clock helps the firm.

That is the scandal within the reform.

A genuine consumer-focused system would ask when the consumer discovered the problem, and when they could reasonably have discovered it. This package instead asks how long ago the act happened. That is a very different question, and a very convenient one for institutions with deep archives, deeper pockets, and every incentive to keep a lid on things until redress becomes somebody else’s problem.

It also has the risk of contradicting legal precedent, which clearly states that in the event of deliberate concealment the clock does not start ticking until the salient facts are disclosed.

Then again, we’ve become used to the FCA facilitating unlawful conduct. See the PPI and Motor Commission scandals and prime examples.

The Regulator Marks Its Own Homework

Worse still, the 10-year backstop does not arrive alone. It comes as part of a broader shift to pull the FOS tighter into the FCA’s orbit.

The consultation response makes clear that where FCA rules are relevant, compliance with those rules will mean the FOS must find that the firm acted fairly and reasonably in relation to that element of the complaint. In plain English, if the rulebook is treated as the ceiling rather than the floor, firms will spend even more time arguing technical compliance while consumers are left trying to prove unfairness in a system increasingly designed to defer to the regulator’s own framework.

In simple terms, if the rules set by the FCA are subsequently considered to be unlawful… it’s “unlucky” for the customer and “well played” for the lender.

The government calls this “alignment”. To anybody who knows the system it is institutional self-protection.

The FOS was supposed to exist because life is messy, complaints are individual, and fairness is not always found in a compliance manual. Yet this reform package openly shifts emphasis toward FCA interpretation, FCA intent, FCA referrals and FCA-led guidance.

That should concern anybody paying attention.

No Appeal, More Control, Less Independence

The response also confirms there will be a formal mechanism requiring the FOS to seek a view from the FCA where there is ambiguity in FCA rules. The FCA will then have 30 days to respond. Even where one of the parties asks for a referral, it is the FOS that decides whether one is allowed. And if the FOS refuses, there is no appeal mechanism.

None.

Consumers are at the mercy of two organisations in the FCA and FOS, both of which have been subject to growing concerns from the highest levels. You only need to read what has been published by the All Party Parliamentary Group to realise that reform starts with the abolition of both the FCA and FOS.

So let us pause and appreciate the absurdity.

If the rules are unclear, the FOS asks the FCA.
If there is wider significance, the FOS asks the FCA.
If consumers want that question escalated, the FOS decides whether to allow it.
If the answer still goes against them, there is no appeal.

This is being marketed as streamlining. In reality, it looks uncomfortably like the consolidation of a complaints system around the same regulatory ecosystem that systemically fails to stop harm in the first place.

Mass Redress, Managed Outcomes

And then there is mass redress.

Firstly, mass redress wouldn’t be required if we had a competent regulator that implemented clear rules based in law, and provided a clear deterrent to any firm that considered acting outside of the rules.

We don’t have a competent regulator, and there has been no deterrent. Not one single fine for the motor finance scandal – NOT ONE.

Nevertheless, the response confirms that, in certain mass redress events, unresolved complaints at the FOS can be sent back to the firm to be considered under the terms of a redress scheme, with the FCA also empowered to pause complaints while it investigates and decides the regulatory response.

Again, this is described as orderly, efficient and consistent.

But from a consumer’s perspective, it is hard not to see the danger. The more systemic the misconduct, the more power the authorities want to centralise the outcome and channel people back through the machinery of the very institutions that caused the mess.

That is not justice. That is queue management.

Rewarding Delay, Punishing Discovery

This is why the 10-year backstop matters so much.

It does not exist in a vacuum. It sits within a package that narrows independent discretion, strengthens the FCA’s interpretive role, removes any formal appeal route, and in mass events allows complaints to be redirected back to firms under a managed scheme.

Piece by piece, the supposedly independent ombudsman model look less like a consumer safeguard and more like a managed pressure valve for the financial system.

The official line is that these reforms will “return the FOS to its original role”. That phrase should concern everybody. Because what is being described as a return to first principles increasingly resembles a return to deference… deference to the regulator, deference to the rulebook, deference to process, and deference to institutional convenience.

The public should not be fooled by the language of reform. A 10-year backstop does not deter misconduct. It encourages the next scandal.

It tells firms that if they can keep consumers in the dark for long enough, the ombudsman becomes unavailable.

It tells victims of long-running mis-selling that timing matters more than truth.

And it tells the market that the lesson from previous scandals has not been “find harm earlier and put it right”, but “draw the line sooner and close the book faster”.

This Is Not Reform

This is not reform. It is retreat.

And it is the kind of retreat that all but invites the next mis-selling scandal.

Because when the watchdog is late, the system is slow, and the cover-up clock is ticking, the 10-year backstop does not protect consumers from stale complaints.

It protects firms from fresh embarrassment.

...

The Compensation Claim Experts

Santander Didn’t Know What It Financed

Santander Didn’t Know What It Financed. We Did. It Was GAP Insurance.

We looked into it. Santander apparently preferred not to.

A regulated lender claiming not to know what it financed is damning

This is what the culture looks like

Better to look clueless than confront GAP?

Santander cannot have it both ways

This should alarm regulators, not just consumers

Santander’s response reveals more than it intended

FOS can no longer say it wasn’t told about GAP

The question now, what does FOS intend to do about it?

A proper response, proper scrutiny, and proper accountability is required.

Good riddance, MotoNovo. If redress is too much for you, the door is that way

Before you go, leave enough cash behind

The wave is coming: GAP can’t be kept quiet any longer

The line has now been drawn

Our findings and evidence has been before the FCA and FOS

FOS can no longer keep GAP in the long grass

The excuses are running out

The door is now open

The Grotesque GAP Commission Award Has a New Leader: Step Forward, Motorpoint

£57 In. £429 Out.

GAP Is the New Scandal

A Market Built on Consumer Ignorance

Wake Up, FCA. Wake Up, FOS.

The FOS Reform That Rewards Cover-Ups

A Green Light for the Next Scandal

The Regulator Marks Its Own Homework

No Appeal, More Control, Less Independence

Mass Redress, Managed Outcomes

Rewarding Delay, Punishing Discovery

This Is Not Reform

About YourMoneyClaim

Navigation

Contact Us

Customer Area