01254 82288001254 822880
April 2, 2025 
Daniel Lee As the Supreme Court prepares to decide one of the most significant consumer cases in recent years, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has taken a position that has left many observers stunned. At the heart of the case lies the issue of undisclosed commission payments in motor finance agreements — a practice that many argue amounts to bribery by any other name.
Yet, rather than aligning itself with the millions of consumers affected by this latest in a long line of financial mis-selling scandals, the FCA has chosen to intervene in support of the very lenders responsible for the sole purpose to save its own embarrassing failures in allowing such practices to flourish.
The ongoing legal battle centres on whether car finance providers and brokers acted unlawfully by failing to disclose commission arrangements to customers — guiding consumers to more expensive finance agreements that paid more commission to dealerships.
Lower courts have already indicated that this kind of commission structure can amount to a breach of duty or even a form of bribery. Consumers were left in the dark while dealers profited unfairly — all under the umbrella of supposedly regulated practices.
The Supreme Court is now asked to rule on these practices and whether consumers are entitled to redress for the hidden costs and conflicts of interest.
Instead of standing up for consumers and ensuring fairness in financial services — as it is mandated to do — the FCA has intervened in the Supreme Court case to support the lenders.
This intervention has raised eyebrows across the legal and financial sectors. It follows a worrying pattern of regulatory leniency and a failure to act decisively in previous scandals such as PPI and interest rate hedging products.
Rather than protecting consumers, the FCA’s position appears to defend the integrity of a system already proven to be fundamentally flawed.
The FCA’s reasoning seems to stem from a desire to protect the financial stability of motor finance providers — even if that means undermining consumer trust and turning a blind eye to unethical practices.
This is not just a poor judgment call — it is a scandalous dereliction of duty from the body charged with regulating financial conduct in the UK. By siding with the lenders, the FCA risks being viewed not as a consumer protector, but as an industry enabler.
The Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling that could unlock billions of pounds in compensation for mis-sold motor finance agreements. Whatever the outcome, the FCA’s intervention has already done serious damage to its credibility.
Consumers deserve a regulator that fights for fairness, not one that shields corporations from the consequences of their own misconduct.
The FCA’s intervention in this landmark case is nothing short of disgraceful. While the courts examine whether customers were effectively the victims of behind closed doors bribes, resulting in them signing inflated finance deals, the FCA has made its stance clear — and it’s not on the side of the public.
This moment must serve as a wake-up call. Regulatory reform is needed, and consumer trust must be rebuilt — not sacrificed to protect those who profited from deception.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 28, 2025 Daniel Lee As the motor finance commission mis-selling scandal reaches the highest court in the land, attention turns to the five senior Justices of the UK Supreme Court who will decide a case with monumental implications for UK consumers, financial transparency, and future mis-selling redress claims. The hearing, expected to be one of the most consequential in recent legal history, will be presided over by:
Each of these Justices brings a wealth of experience, legal intellect, and a commitment to justice. Their decision will set a defining precedent for the treatment of undisclosed motor finance commission payments in consumer car finance agreements.
Lord Robert Reed has been President of the Supreme Court since 2020. A distinguished jurist and former law professor, Lord Reed is known for his meticulous legal reasoning and emphasis on constitutional and human rights principles. He has a reputation for balancing detailed legal interpretation with fairness, making him a pivotal voice in consumer protection-related decisions.
His judgments often explore not just what the law is, but what it should aspire to be. Lord Reed’s leadership ensures that this case will receive the analytical rigour it demands.
Lord Patrick Hodge is a respected authority in both commercial and public law. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he served as a Lord of Session in Scotland and held senior legal advisory positions. His expertise in financial regulation, commercial disputes and contractual law will be especially relevant in dissecting the structure and implications of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs).
Lord Hodge is known for his precise, technical judgments and his grasp of the underlying commercial realities in complex financial disputes.
With a background as a Law Commissioner and expert in international and administrative law, Lord Lloyd-Jones brings a balanced and principled approach to judicial reasoning. He has dealt with a variety of regulatory and consumer-related cases, and his inclusion on the panel signals a focus on public interest, fairness, and regulatory compliance.
He has often emphasised the rule of law and the need for clarity in the obligations of financial services firms, particularly under FCA rules.
Lord Michael Briggs has long been associated with civil justice reform, particularly improving access to justice. His work on the development of online court systems and procedural efficiency reflects a commitment to ensuring that legal processes work for ordinary individuals.
As a former commercial and chancery judge, Lord Briggs is deeply familiar with the structure of car finance agreements, lender-broker relationships, and legal duties of disclosure. His experience makes him well-placed to assess whether non-disclosure of commission breaches the principles of fairness and legality.
Lord George Hamblen is a former commercial barrister with a focus on insurance, shipping, and financial litigation. His commercial acumen and deep understanding of contractual interpretation and fairness are likely to be influential in assessing the agreements between consumers, brokers, and lenders.
His judicial record demonstrates an ability to cut through complexity and focus on the core legal principles of duty, transparency, and consumer protection.
The decision these five Justices reach will likely have ramifications for millions — if not tens of millions — of UK consumers who may have been mis-sold motor finance agreements through hidden commission models.
It will also send a strong signal to the financial services industry about the standards of commission disclosure, regulatory compliance, and treating customers fairly under the FCA’s consumer duty.
If the Supreme Court finds in favour of consumers, it could unlock tens of billions of pounds in compensation and establish a new benchmark for how fairness and transparency are applied in financial contracts.
With a panel of Justices as experienced, principled, and analytically rigorous as Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs and Lord Hamblen, we trust the consumer rights and fairness are being considered at the very highest level of legal authority.
This is not just a test case on motor finance mis-selling — it is a litmus test for how justice, consumer rights, and transparency are upheld in the modern financial era.
The upcoming judgment has the potential to reshape and improve the landscape of car finance claims, redefine legal obligations in financial services, and restore confidence in fair outcomes for ordinary consumers across the UK.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 26, 2025 Daniel Lee On 1st April 2025, the financial world will witness a pivotal legal confrontation: Barclays v the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The case is attracting considerable attention as it represents one of the most direct challenges to the authority and decision-making power of the FOS in the context of motor finance mis-selling complaints.
But make no mistake—Barclays is facing an uphill battle, and here’s why their legal challenge is almost certainly doomed to fail.
At the heart of the matter is the systemic practice of paying hidden commissions to motor dealerships. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has already confirmed that an estimated 40% of motor finance agreements involved discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs)—a structure that incentivised dealerships to inflate interest rates.
The Financial Ombudsman Service has found against Barclays in January 2024, correctly stating that non-disclosure of commission breaches principles of fair treatment and transparency, leading to successful compensation awards.
Barclays, as a major motor finance provider, is seeking to overturn the FOS’s jurisdiction or reasoning. But their challenge is built on very shaky foundations.
Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), the FOS is given broad discretion to make decisions based not solely on the letter of the law but on what is “fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.”
This unique standard of review is something Barclays cannot easily sidestep. Courts have consistently upheld the independence of the Ombudsman and confirmed that it is not a court of law, but a mechanism for consumer redress that operates outside of traditional litigation standards.
In short, Barclays is trying to use legal technicalities to defeat a process that isn’t designed to be constrained by such technicalities.
Courts have long supported the autonomy of the Ombudsman to reach decisions that protect consumers, even when such decisions diverge from how a court might rule. Past challenges to the FOS have rarely succeeded, particularly when they rely on claims of legal error rather than procedural unfairness.
With potentially millions of complaints pending, the judiciary is unlikely to sympathise with what could be interpreted as a tactical attempt to delay redress or undermine a public body acting within its statutory powers.
The broader environment is one of increasing scrutiny of financial institutions and stronger support for consumer protection. The FCA’s pause on motor finance complaints until December 2025 is temporary, and a wave of claims is expected to follow.
Barclays pursuing this case, at a time when consumers are demanding accountability, may backfire. The media narrative is already painting the bank as attempting to dodge responsibility, and a loss in court will only strengthen that image.
If Barclays fails in its attempt to challenge the Ombudsman, it will send a powerful message to other finance providers: the era of non-disclosure and profit-driven commission models is over.
And with an average redress expected to be approximately £1,500 per successful DCA complaint, the financial implications are enormous.
Barclays may have deep pockets and skilled legal teams, but in this fight, the strength of the law, the principles of fairness, and the tide of public opinion are all against them. Their 1st April 2025 hearing could mark the beginning of the end for corporate resistance to consumer justice in the motor finance sector.
Barclays isn’t just challenging the Ombudsman. They’re challenging the very notion that fairness should triumph over fine print.
And that is a fight they are bound to lose.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 11, 2025 Daniel Lee The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today announced its intention to consult on an industry-wide redress scheme for customers affected by the motor finance commission scandal. This development stems from the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, which followed the widespread use of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where car dealers received undisclosed commissions from lenders, resulting in higher interest costs for consumers. (Source)
At Your Money Claim, we fully support the implementation of a redress scheme to ensure that ALL consumers who were mis-sold motor finance agreements receive the compensation they deserve. Such a scheme would streamline the process, making it more efficient for affected individuals to claim the compensation they are due.
It’s important to note that a similar redress scheme was proposed during the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scandal. However, despite the widespread systemic mis-selling, a formal scheme did not materialise. Financial institutions resisted the implementation of a mandatory scheme that would have required them to proactively contact every affected customer and offer compensation. This resistance was primarily due to the significant financial implications and operational challenges associated with such an undertaking.
While the FCA’s announcement is a positive step towards addressing the injustices faced by consumers, the road to a comprehensive redress scheme is fraught with challenges. Industry resistance and logistical hurdles may impede the process, making it imperative for consumers to remain vigilant and proactive in claiming the compensation they are entitled to.
