01254 82288001254 822880
March 7, 2025 
Daniel Lee The motor finance mis-selling scandal is emerging as one of the UK’s biggest financial controversies, potentially surpassing PPI claims
The motor finance mis-selling scandal has already seen lenders setting aside significant provisions to cover potential compensation claims.
However, history tells us that these initial figures are often vastly underestimated.
The banking sector has a long track record of underplaying financial liabilities in order to avoid alarming investors and the markets.
The approach being taken now mirrors what happened during the PPI scandal, where early estimates were a fraction of the final cost.
Banks and finance providers have a vested interest in keeping their provisions as low as possible for as long as they can.
Large provisions can send shockwaves through the financial markets, reducing investor confidence and impacting share prices.
By drip-feeding relatively small amounts, they aim to minimise panic and maintain stability.
This strategy was clearly seen in the PPI scandal, where initial provisions were a mere fraction of the eventual payout.
At first, banks set aside a few hundred million pounds—by the time all claims had been settled, the total bill exceeded £40 billion.
So far, major motor finance providers have collectively set aside similar to what they initially set aside for PPI to cover potential compensation claims.
However, given the sheer scale of the issue, these amounts are unlikely to be anywhere near enough.
As the true extent of the scandal begins to be uncovered, these provisions will inevitably rise, just as they did with PPI.
Many analysts believe that if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s ruling from 25th October, the cost to lenders could potentially exceed the £40 billion PPI payout. Here’s why:
With such significant amounts at stake, it is crucial that consumers are fully compensated for the mis-selling they have suffered.
Just as with PPI, the financial industry must be held accountable for its systemic breaches of transparency and fairnes, and lessons must be heeded.
The Supreme Court’s ruling will be pivotal in determining whether lenders will be forced to compensate consumers appropriately.
As the scandal unfolds, one thing is certain: the provisions set aside so far are just the tip of the iceberg.
The real financial reckoning for lenders is yet to come.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 7, 2025 Daniel Lee In a significant development in the ongoing motor finance mis-selling scandal, the Supreme Court has rejected an application by the Treasury to intervene in the upcoming hearing.
This decision marks a crucial moment in the fight for consumer justice, as it signals that the judiciary remains independent and unwilling to bow to government pressure designed to protect the financial industry at the expense of wronged consumers.
With the Treasury’s intervention attempt rejected, it is now likely that the government will now seek to exert more pressure on the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to step in on its behalf.
The FCA, already under scrutiny for its handling of the motor finance scandal, may now find itself in the position of being used as a vehicle to carry out the government’s objectives—namely, shielding banks and finance providers from retrospective justice.
This move would not be without precedent.
Regulators have, in the past, faced political pressure to water down consumer protections in favour of financial stability.
However, the fundamental role of the FCA is to regulate financial markets in the interest of consumers, not to act as a shield for industry malpractice.
Any such attempt to use the FCA to introduce government intervention must be firmly resisted, as it would amount to an undermining of regulatory independence.
At the same time, the banks involved in the scandal are employing their own tactics to complicate and delay the legal process.
In a recent manoeuvre, they attempted to extend the hearing and introduce an additional 75-page bundle of documentation at the last minute.
This transparent attempt to “muddy the waters” and delay proceedings is a classic legal tactic used by financial institutions looking to confuse matters and frustrate the path to justice.
Such actions highlight the extent to which the financial industry is willing to go to avoid being held accountable.
However, this application by the banks has also been rejected by the Supreme Court, demonstrating that it wishes to keep the focus firmly on the key issues at hand.
This case is about far more than just motor finance—it is about whether the UK legal system will allow government and industry to interfere with the fair application of justice.
The Supreme Court must resist any further attempts to influence the process, whether from politicians fearful of financial repercussions or from banks looking to escape liability.
One of the most concerning aspects of this attempted interference is the stance taken by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Her recent comments suggest a lack of understanding of how the finance industry operates, as she has expressed concerns that large-scale compensation for affected consumers could damage the economy and motor finance industry.
In reality, the exact opposite is true.
Mass compensation would see billions of pounds returned to consumers—ordinary people who are far more likely to spend that money than banks and finance firms.
This spending would provide a direct boost to the UK economy, particularly at a time when consumer confidence and disposable income levels are under strain.
The idea that holding banks accountable for their actions would somehow cause economic harm is fundamentally flawed, as was proven by the PPI scandal, and fails to recognise the real economic benefits of returning misappropriated funds to consumers.
With the Treasury’s intervention rejected, attention now turns to whether the government will indeed pressure the FCA to act on its behalf.
The Supreme Court must remain vigilant to ensure that justice is served without political or industry interference.
Consumers affected by the motor finance scandal deserve full and fair compensation, and the legal system must not allow itself to be manipulated by those seeking to avoid accountability.
The coming weeks and months will be pivotal in determining whether justice prevails or whether financial institutions, with government assistance, succeed in minimising their liabilities.
What is clear, however, is that any attempt to block consumer redress is not just legally and morally wrong—it is also economically misguided.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 5, 2025 Daniel Lee The Supreme Court is set to hear what could be one of the most significant financial justice cases in recent history.
At the heart of the case lies the question of whether motor finance providers should be held accountable for historical commission arrangements, and specifically the fact that the amount of commission was not disclosed to consumers who ultimately paid the commission via the interest charged on their finance agreements.
This case follows the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which correctly favoured greater consumer protection.
However, with the stakes now at their highest, it is widely expected that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the government, and the finance industry will attempt to intervene to protect the interests of lenders and brokers.
The finance industry, supported by regulatory and governmental bodies, is likely to argue that motor finance providers adhered to the regulations as they were understood at the time.
The anticipated intervention will seek to ensure that, even if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision, lenders will not be required to retrospectively apply the law.
This would effectively shield them from facing action and compensation claims for years of misconduct.
The core argument will be that finance providers followed the rules in place at the time and that requiring them to compensate affected customers now would be unfair and overly punitive.
They will claim that imposing retrospective accountability would destabilise the industry, leading to financial instability and undermining confidence in financial regulation.
This is a well-worn tactic, often deployed when corporate interests face the prospect of significant financial liability.
However, a much stronger counterargument exists—one that exposes the fallacy of the finance industry’s position.
The rules governing commission disclosure were not ambiguous as it has been suggested; they were clear and unequivocal.
Specifically, under CONC 4.5.3R of the FCA Handbook, dealerships were required to disclose commission arrangements if they had the potential to impact their impartiality.
Dealerships generally work with a panel of finance providers, all offering different commission (bribes) incentives to get the dealership to sign customers up to particular finance agreements.
This resulted in dealerships proposing finance agreements that were in the interest of the dealership (deals that earned the largest commission), rather than proposing the best deal for the consumer.
This practice fundamentally compromised the impartiality of dealerships and created a clear conflict of interest, meaning that the FCA’s regulations required full disclosure of these commissions at all times.
The fact that disclosure did not happen on a systemic scale indicates that the rules were routinely breached all along.
The failure to disclose these commissions was not an oversight; it was an industry-wide approach that placed profit above consumer transparency and fairness.
The argument that finance providers merely ‘followed the rules at the time’ crumbles under scrutiny when considering that the applicable rules already mandated disclosure.
The reality is that consumers were deliberately kept in the dark about the financial incentives that could and did influence the cost of their finance agreements.
Had these commission arrangements been properly disclosed, or all of the available finance options provided to the consumer, this would have met the regulatory requirement.
Instead, consumers were misled into believing they were receiving impartial financial advice when, in reality, brokers were motivated by hidden financial incentives.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision, it must resist any attempt to shield finance providers from retrospective accountability.
To do so would be to reward years of non-compliance and to deny justice to the countless consumers who were misled by undisclosed commission structures.
It would also set a dangerous precedent, effectively signalling that regulatory breaches can be excused if they were widespread enough.
This case is not just about historical misconduct; it is about the integrity of financial regulation and consumer protection.
If finance providers are allowed to escape responsibility for breaking the rules, it will undermine confidence in the FCA’s regulatory framework and embolden future misconduct.
The upcoming Supreme Court case represents a pivotal moment in time for consumer justice.
The finance industry, with the backing of the FCA and government, will undoubtedly attempt to argue that retrospective accountability is unfair.
However, the truth is that these providers were already breaking the rules at the material time.
If justice is to be served, the Supreme Court must stand firm against these attempts to rewrite history.
Consumers who were misled by undisclosed commissions deserve redress, and finance providers must finally be held to account for their systemic failure to adhere to the regulations designed to protect the public.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 11, 2025 Daniel Lee The sudden departure of Abby Thomas from her role at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has sent shockwaves through the financial complaints industry. As the Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman, Thomas played a crucial role in ensuring fairness for consumers navigating complex financial disputes. However, her abrupt exit has raised serious questions, particularly regarding her opposition to the proposed introduction of fees on claims management companies (CMCs) and other representatives – a move widely feared to be detrimental to vulnerable consumers.
It is widely believed that Thomas took a principled stance against the FOS’s plans to introduce fees on representatives who bring cases on behalf of consumers. Many industry experts and consumer advocates argue that such fees would limit access to professional representation, making it harder for vulnerable individuals to seek redress against financial institutions.
The introduction of such fees has long been a contentious issue, with CMCs and legal professionals warning that it would create an uneven playing field. Without professional representation, many consumers would struggle to navigate the complex financial complaints process, leaving them at a significant disadvantage when taking on powerful lenders and financial firms. It is believed that Thomas recognised these risks and was unwilling to support a policy that could undermine consumer access to justice.
Perhaps most intriguingly, Thomas’ sudden exit comes prior to a public hearing with the Treasury Select Committee. This committee, responsible for scrutinising financial policies and regulatory decisions, was set to discuss the state of consumer financial protections, including access to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Speculation is rife that Thomas may have intended to raise concerns about the proposed fees during the hearing, highlighting the detrimental impact they could have on consumers. If this was indeed the case, her departure could be viewed as an attempt to prevent these concerns from being aired in such a public forum. The timing of her exit certainly raises eyebrows and suggests that internal pressures may have played a role in her decision to leave so swiftly.
Thomas’ departure is not just a personnel change; it represents a significant moment for consumer protection in the UK. If she was indeed pushed out due to her opposition to fees on representatives, it signals a worrying shift in priorities at the FOS – away from ensuring fairness for consumers and towards policies that may benefit financial firms at the expense of the public.
Consumer rights groups and CMCs are likely to watch developments closely, as any move to limit access to professional representation could have far-reaching consequences. At a time when financial complaints – particularly in cases involving motor finance and historic misconduct – are at an all-time high, ensuring consumers have the support they need should be the foremost priority.
With Thomas gone, the direction of the FOS is uncertain. Will her replacement uphold the same commitment to consumer rights, or will we see a shift towards policies that favour financial institutions over claimants? This remains to be seen, but one thing is clear – her departure has shone a light on an issue that will not go away quietly.
The Treasury Select Committee hearing may still provide an opportunity for these concerns to be raised, and if Thomas’ exit was indeed linked to her stance on fees, it will only add to the growing calls for transparency and accountability in the decision-making process at the Financial Ombudsman Service.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 5, 2025 Daniel Lee For years, car buyers across the UK have unknowingly been exploited by a widespread practice within the motor finance industry—undisclosed commissions. Motor dealerships received hefty kickbacks from lenders in exchange for signing customers up for finance agreements, all while keeping these commissions hidden from the very people they were supposed to serve.
This secretive system created a clear conflict of interest, incentivising brokers to push customers into deals that were more profitable for themselves and the lenders, rather than being in the best interest of the buyer. Consumers unknowingly ended up paying inflated interest rates without ever being informed that the dealerships brokers were profiting at their expense. The Court of Appeal’s October 2024 ruling rightly found this to be a breach of fiduciary duty—an outright betrayal of the trust placed in these financial institutions.
Despite mounting evidence, the motor finance industry has long resisted accountability. Just as the banks did with PPI, lenders have spent years denying wrongdoing, delaying claims, and obstructing justice for victims. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has been inundated with complaints, yet banks and lenders have sought every possible avenue to dodge liability, attempting to rely on legal technicalities and sheer delay tactics to minimise their financial exposure.
The industry’s strategy is clear—exhaust consumers, prolong litigation, and hope that fewer people pursue the compensation they deserve. But this latest court ruling has made one thing abundantly clear: lenders and dealerships who engaged in these deceitful practices must be held accountable.
Rather than supporting the Court of Appeal’s decision and standing up for wronged consumers, the UK government—through HM Treasury—has now shockingly intervened in the appeal process, seeking to sway the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision. This move raises serious questions about whose interests the government is truly protecting.
HM Treasury claims that the potential economic fallout of the ruling is too severe, warning that compensation claims could destabilise the motor finance industry. In reality, this is a desperate attempt to shield lenders from the consequences of their own misconduct. Instead of ensuring consumers receive fair redress, the government appears more concerned about the financial well-being of the very corporations that systematically misled the public.
The Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the UK, tasked with interpreting and applying the law impartially, free from political or financial influence. Its role is to ensure justice is served, not to bow to external pressures that seek to prioritise economic concerns over legal fairness.
The suggestion that enforcing justice will harm the economy is entirely baseless. History has shown that upholding consumer rights does not destroy markets—rather, it strengthens them by ensuring accountability and ethical business practices. The financial sector has repeatedly made dire predictions about economic collapse when faced with accountability, from PPI compensation to bank misconduct fines, yet the economy has continued to function and even improve with increased consumer confidence and distribution of compensation.
The Supreme Court must remain unwavering in its duty. Its decision in this case will set a precedent that extends beyond the motor finance scandal, determining whether financial institutions can continue to exploit consumers without consequences or if they will be held to the rule of law. Allowing financial misconduct to go unchecked under the guise of economic stability only enables further abuse.
The Treasury’s intervention is not just morally dubious—it is constitutionally dangerous. The Supreme Court exists to apply and uphold the law independently, free from political influence. The government stepping in to “warn” the court about financial ramifications amounts to an unacceptable overreach, setting a deeply troubling precedent. If such interference is allowed here, what’s to stop future governments from intervening in other legal cases to protect corporate interests over justice?
The Supreme Court is set to hear the case in April 2025, and its ruling will have far-reaching consequences. Not only will it determine whether thousands of wrongly overcharged consumers receive the justice they deserve, but it will also test the independence of the judiciary against government and corporate pressure.
The public must demand accountability. Consumers, legal professionals, and advocacy groups must continue to push for transparency and compensation. The financial sector has a long history of profiting from unethical and unlawful practices, only to escape the full consequences when caught. The government’s role should be to ensure justice—not to protect financial wrongdoers from paying the price.
The motor finance scandal is shaping up to be as significant as PPI, yet it faces the same barriers to redress—industry denial, legal obstruction, and now, political interference. This is not just a financial dispute; it is a battle for fundamental consumer rights and the integrity of the UK’s legal system.
If the Supreme Court sides with the lenders, it will send a dangerous message: that financial institutions can mislead the public, pocket billions, and rely on government intervention to escape accountability. But if justice prevails, it could mark a turning point, ensuring that those responsible for financial wrongdoing finally face the consequences of their actions.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 11, 2025 Daniel Lee The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has long been a vital avenue for consumers seeking justice against financial wrongdoing. However, the recent decision to impose charges on professional representatives who bring cases on behalf of consumers threatens to undermine access to fair redress—particularly for the most vulnerable in society. Put simply the Financial Ombudsman Service charges affect vulnerable consumers.
From April 2025, the FOS will introduce a £250 fee for claims management companies (CMCs) and other professional representatives bringing complaints on behalf of consumers. While the charge is reduced to £75 if the complaint is upheld, this financial burden will inevitably lead professional representation only being available for high value claims. This move, though framed as a way to prevent excessive or weak claims, will instead have serious consequences for the very people the FOS was designed to protect.
This drastic policy shift comes in the wake of the motor finance mis-selling scandal, one of the most significant financial mis-selling cases in recent history. Millions of consumers may have been affected by unfair commission structures and hidden costs tied to motor finance agreements. The introduction of these FOS charges appears to be a direct deterrent to the complaints arising from this latest scandal. Rather than facilitating justice for those impacted, regulators and the government seem intent on discouraging claims by making it more difficuly for vulnerable consumers to access professional representation.
By introducing financial barriers to representation, there is a real concern that this is yet another attempt to sweep the motor finance mis-selling scandal under the carpet. Regulators and financial institutions have been under increasing pressure to address widespread misconduct in the motor finance sector, but rather than prioritising consumer redress, they appear to be putting obstacles in place to protect financial firms from accountability.
Many consumers—especially those who are elderly, financially inexperienced, or suffering from mental health challenges—rely on professional representatives to navigate the often complex complaints process. Financial institutions do not make it easy for customers to challenge unfair treatment, and have a proven history of rejecting millions of valid complaints. Without the knowledge, confidence, or persistence required to bring and escalate a complaint, many consumers simply give up when faced with resistance from lenders.
A large proportion of individuals who attempt to complain directly to their financial provider do not take their case any further if their initial complaint is rejected. This is often due to a lack of understanding about their rights, fear of bureaucracy, or the emotional toll of fighting financial institutions alone. Many valid claims go unchallenged, allowing lenders to avoid accountability. This reality will only be exacerbated if access to professional help is restricted by punitive FOS charges.
Professional representatives exist for a reason. They level the playing field against well-resourced financial institutions that have legal teams dedicated to minimising payouts. Here’s why using a professional representative remains a vital option for consumers:
The FOS charge for representatives is not just a cost to businesses—it is a direct attack on consumer access to justice. By discouraging professional assistance, the policy will lead to valid complaints not being pursued and more consumers being left out of pocket, with financial institutions facing even less scrutiny for their actions. Vulnerable consumers will be the biggest losers in this misguided policy change.
Instead of penalising professional representation, the FOS should recognise the vital role that representatives play in securing fair outcomes. Without them, millions of consumers who rightfully deserve compensation may never receive it. The financial industry is complex, and justice should not be reserved only for those who can navigate it alone.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
