March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

High Court Defeat for Motor Finance Industry: Case AC-2024-LON-001124

On December 17, 2024, the High Court delivered another landmark judgment affecting the motor finance industry, this time in the case of Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd t/a Barclays Partner Finance v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (Case No. AC-2024-LON-001124). This case once again highlighted the entrenched issues of non-disclosure and unfair practices within the motor finance industry. The judgment also underscored the industry’s persistent, and ultimately futile, efforts to resist accountability for its systemic failures.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute centred around a 2018 motor finance agreement where the dealership, Arnold Clark, acting as a credit broker for Barclays Partner Finance, increased the interest rate on the loan offered to the customer from the base rate of 2.68% to 4.67%. This adjustment was not disclosed to the consumer, who later discovered the practice and lodged a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

This increase in the interest rate directly benefited the Arnold Clark, as it was part of a Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA) that allowed the dealerships to receive higher commissions based on the interest rates offered to consumers. The case highlighted the fact that the terms of the brokerage agreement expressly prohibited altering interest rates based on the assumption that a consumer could afford to pay more, or was willing to pay more.

However, Arnold Clark disregarded these terms, effectively prioritising its financial incentives over the best interests of the consumer. In addition, Barclays Partner Finance also appeared to turn a blind eye to this, likely incentivised by the fact it would generate more profit from the consumer too via the increased interest rate charged. This lack of disclosure and unfair practice became the focal point of both the FOS decision and the subsequent High Court review.

The High Court’s Findings

The High Court upheld the FOS ruling, delivering a scathing rebuke of the practices used in this case. Key findings included:

Unfair Relationship: The non-disclosure of the increased interest rate created an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The consumer was not provided with critical information that would have allowed for informed decision-making.
Breach of Brokerage Terms: The dealership acted outside the bounds of its agreement by increasing the interest rate without justification or consumer consent. This amounted to a breach of its obligations as a credit broker.
Systemic Failure of Oversight: Barclays Partner Finance, as the lender, bore ultimate responsibility for the dealership’s actions. The lender had created and maintained a commission model that inherently incentivised such misconduct, failing to implement adequate safeguards or transparency measures.

Delaying Justice Through Litigation – A Losing Battle

This case is emblematic of the motor finance industry’s ongoing attitude to systemic issues tied to undisclosed commissions. While the FCA banned discretionary commission models in January 2021, this ruling makes it clear that past misconduct continues to haunt the industry.

Instead of embracing transparency and compensating consumers for the harm caused, many motor finance companies, including Barclays in this instance, appear committed to delaying justice. By challenging FOS rulings and pushing cases into the courts, the industry is expending resources to resist accountability rather than resolving consumer grievances.

This approach, while temporarily stalling regulatory repercussions, further erodes public trust and highlights the industry’s unwillingness to prioritise fairness. It also exacerbates the financial and emotional toll on consumers who are forced to endure lengthy disputes to seek redress.

Wider Implications for Consumers and the Industry

The judgment serves as yet another defeat for the motor finance sector, reinforcing the courts’ and regulators’ stance against undisclosed commission practices. The key message is clear:

Transparency is Non-Negotiable: Consumers have the right to be fully informed about the costs and financial structures of agreements, including any commissions paid to brokers.
Misconduct Should Not Be Tolerated: Efforts to obscure unfair practices, whether by commission arrangements or litigation, will be should be scrutinised and penalised to the extent that a true deterrent is in place to guard against future misconduct.
Rebuilding Trust is Critical: The industry’s current strategy of resistance and delay only worsens its reputation. To move forward, companies must commit to reform, prioritising fairness and transparency in all dealings.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in this case should serve as a watershed moment for the motor finance industry. Yet, the industry’s continued attempts to litigate against regulatory and consumer protections suggest it is still fighting a losing battle. By resisting accountability, the sector risks deeper regulatory intervention, greater financial penalties, and further erosion of consumer trust.

For consumers, the judgment is a reminder of the importance of vigilance when entering into finance agreements and a hopeful sign that courts and regulators are committed to ensuring fairness. However, the industry’s repeated attempts to delay justice highlight the need for ongoing pressure from both regulators and the public to bring about meaningful change.

High Court ruling motor finance commission

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Exposing Corruption and Leadership Failures at Black Horse

Black Horse, a prominent name in the UK’s finance sector and part of the Lloyds Banking Group, has long attempted to position itself as a trusted provider of vehicle finance. However, beneath the surface lies a troubling history of mis-selling practices, leadership failures, and regulatory breaches that have eroded public trust and led to substantial fines. This article examines the systemic issues within Black Horse that has allowed, and arguably encouraged such malpractice to flourish, and explores the broader implications for consumers and the financial industry as a whole.

A History of Mis-Selling

Black Horse has been implicated in multiple cases of mis-selling over the years. The company has repeatedly misled consumers, often pushing them into purchasing products they neither needed nor understood. This systematic approach to mis-selling highlights a corporate culture prioritising profit over ethics.

The PPI scandal: The PPI debacle serves as the most glaring example of Black Horse’s unethical practices. Customers were frequently sold PPI policies alongside loans and finance agreements without being properly informed of the terms and conditions or even the necessity of the product. In many cases, consumers were ineligible to claim on these policies due to pre-existing conditions or employment status. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed widespread evidence of misrepresentation and non-disclosure, leading to significant consumer harm. The Lloyds Banking Group, including Black Horse, was forced to set aside billions of pounds in compensation for affected customers, an amount that starkly illustrates the scale of the issue.
Mis-Selling of GAP (Guaranteed Asset Protection) Insurance: Another area of malpractice is the mis-selling of Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) insurance. Black Horse, alongside other providers, failed to adequately explain the product’s coverage and limitations, leaving customers paying for policies that provided minimal value. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stepped in to address these issues, but not before countless consumers had been exploited. Similar to PPI, hidden commissions generated obscene profits that were far too tempting for Black Horse to take advantage of.
Motor Finance Commission Claims: One of the more recent controversies involves the mis-selling of motor finance agreements, particularly concerning undisclosed commission. Black Horse has been accused of failing to transparently inform customers about the sizeable commissions paid to car dealerships for arranging finance agreements. This lack of disclosure often led to higher interest rates for consumers, as dealerships had an incentive to push more expensive deals that maximised their commission. The FCA’s investigation into motor finance practices uncovered widespread evidence of harm, with customers overpaying for loans without understanding the true cost of their agreements. This scandal further underscores Black Horse’s prioritisation of profit over fairness and transparency, adding another layer to its tarnished reputation.

Regulatory Fines and Consequences

The FCA and other regulatory bodies have repeatedly fined Black Horse and its parent company, Lloyds Banking Group, for breaches of conduct. These fines have highlighted systemic failures in governance and oversight, including:

Inadequate Training and Monitoring: Black Horse staff often lacked proper training, leaving them ill-equipped to provide clear and accurate information to customers.
Pressure to Meet Sales Targets: High-pressure sales environments pushed employees to prioritise sales volumes over customer needs, leading to unethical practices.
Failure to Rectify Issues: Despite being aware of systemic problems, Black Horse’s leadership failed to take meaningful action to prevent further harm.

Leadership Failures: A Lack of Accountability

Poor regulation and a lack of real deterrent has allowed Black Horse to continue with its culture of profit over consumer focus, which appears to attract a certain type of employee and leadership within the organisation.

A Culture of Denial: At the heart of Black Horse’s problems lies a profound failure of leadership. Senior executives have repeatedly neglected their duty to foster a culture of integrity and compliance. This absence of accountability allowed harmful practices to persist unchecked.
Missed Opportunities for Reform: Rather than confronting the issues, Black Horse’s leadership repeatedly downplayed the severity of the problems. Whistleblowers and consumer advocacy groups have reported instances where concerns were ignored or dismissed outright, further entrenching the culture of denial.

The Broader Impact on Consumers

The fallout from Black Horse’s malpractice has been devastating for consumers. Victims of mis-selling have faced financial hardship, stress, and a loss of trust in financial institutions. Many were left paying for products they did not need or could not use, while others struggled to navigate the claims process to secure compensation.

What Needs to Change?

To rebuild trust and prevent future scandals, Black Horse and its parent company must undertake significant reforms. Key steps include:

Strengthening Governance: Implementing robust oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with ethical and regulatory standards.
Enhancing Transparency: Providing clear, honest, and accessible information to consumers about financial products.
Fostering a Customer-Centric Culture: Shifting focus from profit-driven practices to genuinely addressing customer needs.
Holding Leadership Accountable: Ensuring that senior executives are held responsible for systemic failures and actively promoting a culture of integrity.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

FCA Failings and the Role of Claims Management Companies

MPs Brand FCA as “Incompetent”—The Crucial Role of Claims Management Companies

Published: November 26, 2024

Financial Scandals and Regulatory Failures

Today’s blistering parliamentary report exposes deep flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), labeling it “incompetent at best, dishonest at worst.” Over decades, financial scandals such as PPI mis-selling and motor finance commission abuses have revealed the FCA’s systemic weaknesses. However, claims management companies (CMCs) have emerged as unlikely champions for consumer rights, often leading the charge where the regulator and financial institutions have failed.

PPI Mis-selling

The PPI scandal, spanning decades, saw tens of millions of mis-sold insurance policies that consumers didn’t need or want. While the FCA eventually pushed for redress, it was CMCs that turned PPI claims into one of the largest consumer compensation movements in history. These companies uncovered the scale of the problem and battled financial institutions reluctant to repay billions in compensation.

Motor Finance Mis-selling

Similarly, recently uncovered motor finance commission abuses — where dealers prioritised personal commissions over fair lending practices — show another area where the FCA’s delayed response and poor regulations have left consumers vulnerable and in the dark. CMCs have once again played a critical role in exposing these practices, culminating in the October 25th 2024 Court of Appeal judgment which paves the way to ensuring customers are compensated.

The Role of CMCs in Financial Justice

Claims management companies have been instrumental in uncovering systemic abuses, empowering consumers and holding financial institutions accountable. Their contributions include:

Exposing Misconduct: CMCs identify patterns of mis-selling or abuse, often acting when regulators fail to intervene.
Providing Expertise: CMCs guide consumers through what can be complex claims processes, ensuring they receive fair compensation.
Challenging Resistance: Financial institutions frequently employ tactics to delay claims, deter claimants and minimise liabilities; CMCs push back to secure justice.

Overcoming Criticism

The culprits of the mis-selling scandals have often pushed the message not to trust CMCs, often maliciously tagged ‘ambulance chasers’. This message has been drip fed into society by the media, funded by the banks themselves. While some criticise CMCs for their fees, this ignores their essential role. Without CMCs, many victims would remain unaware of their rights or unable to navigate compensation claims. CMCs persistence has secured tens of billions in payouts and exposed widespread misconduct, holding both financial institutions and the FCA accountable.

What Needs to Change?

The FCA’s alleged failings, as suggested by MPs, underscore the need for reform. Recommendations include greater accountability, improved transparency, and a consumer-centric approach to regulation. However, until these changes materialise, CMCs remain indispensable in protecting consumer rights and securing justice.

FCA failings claims management companies

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Judgment

Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Court of Appeal Judgment

In a recent commentary, financial advisor Martin Lewis expressed concern that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and related cases has “gone too far.” However, his perspective overlooks critical legal and ethical nuances highlighted in the judgment. The ruling, far from being excessive, is a measured step toward ensuring transparency and fairness in financial transactions, particularly in motor finance arrangements.

Understanding the Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal judgment addressed whether the disclosure of commissions paid by lenders to motor dealers was adequate. The decision clarified that partial or buried disclosures, such as vague mentions in terms and conditions, do not satisfy the duty of transparency owed to consumers. Crucially, it found that motor dealers and brokers owe a fiduciary duty to consumers, requiring impartial advice when arranging finance, and that lenders can be held liable as accessories if they fail to ensure proper disclosure.

This is not an overreach. It corrects a systemic imbalance where consumers were often unaware of commission structures, always unaware of the amount of commission paid, and which incentivised dealers to prioritise profit over the consumer’s best interest. The judgment explicitly ruled that failing to disclose the scale or nature of commissions creates an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, particularly when commissions are disproportionately high compared to the borrowed amount.

Why Martin Lewis’ Critique Misses the Mark

Focus on Consumer Vulnerability: Lewis’ argument downplays the vulnerability of many consumers who depend on motor finance to access vehicles. The Court recognised that these individuals trust dealerships to act in their best interest. By reinforcing the fiduciary duty and disclosure requirements, the ruling prioritises consumer protection over industry convenience.
Cheaper Finance for UK Consumers: Lewis has fallen into the trap of believing the narrative of the finance sector, which has suggested the judgment could jeopardise the industry and lead to more expensive credit for consumers. However, the judgment forces lenders and dealerships to now be upfront and open about commissions paid. This may, and should, result in the payment of commissions being removed or reduced. As consumers ultimately pay the commission via the interest paid on finance agreements, the removal of commission would result in cheaper finance options available as a result of a more competitive, fair and transparent marketplace.
A Balanced Approach: The Court did not order the recission of the finance agreements included within the case. Recission would have had an earth shattering impact upon the finance industry, which it could be argued is long overdue. Instead, it allowed for the repayment of the hidden commissions that were unknowingly paid by the consumers via their finance agreements. This restraint reflects an intention to balance consumer rights with industry feasibility.

The Broader Implications

The decision strengthens the foundation for fairer practices across all consumer credit arrangements involving undisclosed commissions, not just in motor finance. Claims management companies and consumer advocates welcome this clarity, while lenders will need to adjust their practices to align with these higher standards.

In conclusion, while Martin Lewis raises valid concerns about potential litigation impacts, the Court’s judgment is a necessary intervention to rectify widespread unfair practices. It ensures that consumers are no longer kept in the dark about commission arrangements that could influence their financial decisions. This is not a case of the courts going “too far” but rather doing what is needed to restore trust in financial transactions.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Will the Court of Appeal Judgment in Wrench v FirstRand Increase the Cost of Credit?

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Wrench v FirstRand has brought significant implications for the motor finance industry, specifically focusing on transparency in commission-based lending practices. While there are concerns that this judgment may lead to higher costs for consumers, a closer look suggests that, in reality, this ruling could help keep credit costs in check. Here’s why the Court of Appeal’s decision is unlikely to drive up the cost of credit in the future.

Background: The Court of Appeal’s Stance on Transparency and Fairness

In Wrench v FirstRand, the Court of Appeal upheld the importance of financial institutions disclosing any commissions paid to dealers. The case centered on undisclosed commissions, where lenders paid car dealerships incentives without informing the consumer. This practice led to higher interest rates on loans. By reinforcing transparency, this decision pushes lenders to avoid inflating interest rates with hidden commissions, which could ultimately benefit consumers by reducing the extra costs associated with these loans.

Lowering or Eliminating Hidden Commissions

One main concern from lenders following this decision is that it could lead to increased credit costs. However, removing undisclosed commissions may actually decrease the total cost of credit. By eliminating the hidden incentive structure that allowed dealers to inflate interest rates in exchange for commissions, lenders can adopt a more standardized approach to interest rates. This change ensures consumers are only paying for the actual cost of the loan without the added burden of hidden commissions.

Without commission-driven interest rate hikes, consumers may find motor finance agreements to be more affordable and predictable. This shift helps ensure lenders retain the same profit margins by focusing on transparency and efficiency rather than inflating rates to cover third-party commissions.

Enhancing Consumer Trust and Confidence

The court’s decision aligns with a broader trend towards transparency in financial services, enhancing consumer trust and confidence in the lending market. When consumers feel confident in the fairness of the terms offered, they’re more likely to engage with financial products. Increased consumer engagement can help lenders maintain high loan volumes, potentially offsetting any impact on revenue from eliminating undisclosed commissions.

Furthermore, the shift toward transparent, commission-free lending could mean fewer complaints, claims, and legal battles in the future—benefiting both lenders and consumers by reducing administrative costs.

Impact on Market Competition

With the removal of hidden commissions, lenders will need to rely on competitive interest rates and value-added customer service rather than relying on commissions to drive dealership loyalty. This shift could encourage healthy competition among lenders to offer the best possible terms to consumers, likely driving down interest rates over time and helping consumers secure financing at lower costs.

As the market adjusts to transparent practices, both lenders and dealerships will need to innovate in ways that attract customers based on service quality and competitive rates, rather than hidden incentives.

Summary

The judgment in Wrench v FirstRand aligns with the growing emphasis on transparency in finance, removing hidden commissions that have historically inflated interest rates for consumers. By fostering transparency, the ruling has the potential to streamline costs, encourage fair competition, and maintain affordable access to credit rather than increase it. The decision is a step toward a fairer lending environment where consumers benefit from clearer terms, fostering trust without necessarily raising the price of credit. As the market adapts, both lenders and consumers are likely to find that transparent, commission-free lending contributes to a healthier and more affordable motor finance industry.

Wrench v FirstRand impact on credit costs

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd Case Analysis

The Background and Implications of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd: From County Court to Court of Appeal Judgment

The case of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd is one of the recent decisions in a wave of motor finance mis-selling cases, reflecting the growing scrutiny on undisclosed commission practices in the UK’s finance sector. Here, we’ll explore the journey of this case through the judicial system, from the County Court’s initial ruling to the Court of Appeal’s significant judgment on 25th October. This case, along with similar judgments, continues to shape consumer rights in finance and establish precedent for future claims related to motor finance mis-selling.

Background of the Case: A Focus on Undisclosed Commission

The Johnson v FirstRand case centers on the issue of undisclosed commissions, a practice in which lenders pay dealers a commission without informing the consumer. This type of commission, often based on the terms of the finance agreement, has led to increased costs for consumers without their knowledge. In Johnson, the claimant argued that FirstRand Bank had failed to disclose the commission paid to the dealership, an omission which allegedly led to financial harm due to inflated interest rates associated with the finance agreement.

Undisclosed commission claims have increased following landmark judgments that highlighted the lack of transparency in motor finance agreements. Many consumers affected by undisclosed commissions argue that they entered into these finance agreements without understanding the full financial implications, as the commission was not transparently disclosed.

The County Court Ruling: Upholding Consumer Rights

At the County Court level, the ruling focused on the legality of undisclosed commissions and whether the lack of disclosure affected the consumer’s consent to the terms of the finance agreement. The County Court ultimately ruled in favor of Johnson, finding that the undisclosed commission arrangement between FirstRand and the dealership constituted a significant failure of transparency, which undermined the fairness of the agreement.

The County Court’s decision was rooted in consumer protection principles, emphasizing the duty of lenders and finance providers to be transparent in all financial dealings with consumers, especially in instances where commissions are involved. This ruling provided Johnson with a successful claim, setting the stage for FirstRand’s appeal.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal: FirstRand’s Arguments

Following the County Court decision, FirstRand Bank appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging the findings on both legal and procedural grounds. In the appeal, FirstRand argued that the original ruling misunderstood the scope and implications of commission disclosure and consumer consent. They contended that non-disclosure did not necessarily invalidate the entire finance agreement and that the relationship between the consumer, dealership, and lender was standard within the motor finance industry.

FirstRand’s appeal sought to narrow the interpretation of disclosure requirements, asserting that commissions are a customary aspect of finance agreements that do not inherently alter the terms for the consumer. This appeal echoed arguments used by other financial institutions facing similar claims, underscoring the industry’s stance that full commission disclosure is not a standard practice, nor is it legally required in all instances.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision: A Landmark Ruling

On 25th October, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, affirming the County Court’s decision in favor of Johnson. The Court of Appeal ruled that the lack of disclosure regarding the commission arrangement between FirstRand and the dealership constituted a breach of duty to the consumer. The ruling underscored the importance of transparency and the consumer’s right to full disclosure in financial agreements, particularly when commissions may impact the interest rates or financial terms of the loan.

The Court of Appeal’s decision reiterated that consumers must be informed about any commissions that could affect their financial obligations. This judgment highlighted that non-disclosure of such arrangements could render the finance agreement voidable, giving consumers the right to seek compensation if they believe the lack of transparency resulted in financial detriment. By upholding the County Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal set a precedent, potentially impacting thousands of similar finance agreements across the UK.

Implications of the Johnson Judgment on the Motor Finance Industry

The Johnson v FirstRand case has broad implications for both the finance and automotive sectors. This decision reinforces the requirement for full transparency in commission-based agreements, a principle that could lead to substantial shifts in industry practices. Motor finance lenders and dealerships may now face increased pressure to disclose all commission arrangements and provide consumers with a clear understanding of how these fees may affect their loan terms.

In light of this judgment, financial institutions may need to reassess their commission structures, opting for transparent and consumer-friendly practices to avoid potential claims. Consumers, in turn, are becoming more aware of their rights in finance agreements, leading to a growing wave of claims and inquiries related to undisclosed commissions.

Conclusion: The Growing Momentum of Consumer Protection in Finance

The Johnson v FirstRand case exemplifies the courts’ ongoing commitment to consumer protection, particularly in cases where financial transparency has been lacking. As one of several recent rulings addressing undisclosed commissions, this case contributes to a developing body of case law that holds finance providers accountable for fair and transparent dealings.

The ruling in Johnson reinforces that finance providers must prioritize consumer rights and adhere to stringent standards of transparency. This decision not only benefits consumers but also sets a higher standard for industry practices. For those impacted by undisclosed commission agreements, the Johnson judgment provides a path to seeking redress and highlights the judiciary’s willingness to uphold fairness in financial agreements.

Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd case analysis

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

The Compensation Claim Experts

High Court Defeat for Motor Finance Industry: Case AC-2024-LON-001124

Background and Key Issues

The High Court’s Findings

Delaying Justice Through Litigation – A Losing Battle

Wider Implications for Consumers and the Industry

Conclusion

A History of Mis-Selling

Regulatory Fines and Consequences

Leadership Failures: A Lack of Accountability

The Broader Impact on Consumers

What Needs to Change?

Financial Scandals and Regulatory Failures

PPI Mis-selling

Motor Finance Mis-selling

The Role of CMCs in Financial Justice

Overcoming Criticism

What Needs to Change?

Understanding the Court’s Decision

Why Martin Lewis’ Critique Misses the Mark

The Broader Implications

Will the Court of Appeal Judgment in Wrench v FirstRand Increase the Cost of Credit?

Background: The Court of Appeal’s Stance on Transparency and Fairness

Lowering or Eliminating Hidden Commissions

Enhancing Consumer Trust and Confidence

Impact on Market Competition

Summary

The Background and Implications of Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd: From County Court to Court of Appeal Judgment

Background of the Case: A Focus on Undisclosed Commission

The County Court Ruling: Upholding Consumer Rights

Appeal to the Court of Appeal: FirstRand’s Arguments

The Court of Appeal’s Decision: A Landmark Ruling

Implications of the Johnson Judgment on the Motor Finance Industry

Conclusion: The Growing Momentum of Consumer Protection in Finance

About YourMoneyClaim

Navigation

Contact Us

Customer Area