01254 82288001254 822880
July 17, 2025 
Daniel Lee
The truth is out — and it’s damning.
The BBC Radio 4 documentary has done what regulators failed to do for years: reveal the scale, depth, and intent behind the motor finance commission scandal that has cost consumers billions in additional interest payments.
This exposé doesn’t just point the finger at lenders and dealerships.
It also exposes how the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) and the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) were made aware of the problem as far back as 2015 — but instead of taking action, they seemingly tried to shut it down.
👉 Read our breakdown of how motor finance commission worked
Long before the scandal made its way to headlines and courtrooms, both the FCA and FOS were alerted by consumers and representatives about what was happening.
A whistleblower — having been told by a dealership about what had happened to his mother’s finance agreement — provided detailed evidence of:
But what did the regulators do?
When presented with evidence, the FCA did not launch an immediate investigation. Instead:
This is not a case of being unaware. This is a case of being willfully passive — or worse, deliberately silent.
The Financial Ombudsman Service, which had the power to intervene in individual complaints and spot systemic issues, also failed to act.
In fact, after initial communications with the whistleblower, FOS also ceased further dialogue.
When both the regulator (FCA) and the dispute resolution body (FOS) are made aware of a systemic practice causing financial harm, they have an obligation to act.
Instead:
This documentary now confirms what many suspected: the regulators knew — and they tried to sweep it under the carpet.
As more and more complaints and claims started being submitted, the regulator was forced to act.
The evidence is now overwhelming and the scale of the scandal has the potential to eclipse PPI, with the regulator now admitting that up to 99% of all motor finance agreements sold to consumers between 2007 to 2024 having been subject to some form of undisclosed commission.
Let’s cut to the chase, commission is only in place to incentivise dealerships to propose certain finance agreements to consumers, generally more expensive than the consumer actually qualified for.
We’ve uncovered dealership documentation, commission brackets, finance interest inflation, and FCA breaches that mirror exactly what the BBC documentary has now confirmed.
The only difference is it has now been broadcast to the nation.
This scandal is not just about lenders offering commission (bribes) and dealerships taking it.
It’s about a regulatory ecosystem that, when given the opportunity to protect consumers, chose silence.
But now — thanks to brave whistleblowers, persistent campaigning and increasing legal pressure — the lid has been blown off.
If you have had motor finance between 2007 to 2024 it is likely that you may have:
We’re helping consumers fight back.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) continues to show an alarming pattern of questionable decisions that raise the issue of whether we’re dealing with repeated incompetence — or something even more troubling: systemic corruption.
In the latest example, FOS investigator Natalie Bradbury has delivered a decision so fundamentally flawed that it warrants serious scrutiny of both her personal competence and the wider FOS approach to complaint handling.
We represented a consumer who expressed serious concern over the affordability of her motor finance agreement.
Our own thorough assessment confirmed her position — the agreement was clearly unaffordable when all of her financial obligations were properly considered.
Among the core obligations was a mortgage, held in joint names, making our client contractually and legally responsible for the monthly payments.
Despite this clear contractual obligation, FOS investigator Natalie Bradbury made the extraordinary decision that:
Our client was not liable for, nor contributed to the mortgage payments — despite being named on the mortgage and therefore legally bound to them.
Even more astonishingly, Natalie extended this logic to claim that:
Because the client wasn’t liable for the mortgage, she also must not be contributing to the utility bills.
Let that sink in. An investigator at the Financial Ombudsman Service suggested that an adult — living in a mortgaged property that she’s jointly liable for — does not contribute to the mortgage or bills, and therefore those financial commitments should not be factored into affordability.
This is not only a misinterpretation of financial reality, but also a complete failure of regulatory logic and legal understanding.
Let’s be clear:
This type of flawed reasoning leads to systemic injustice, and denies victims of mis-selling the redress they are entitled to.
This isn’t just a mistake — it raises serious concerns:
In any case, the outcome is the same: consumers are being failed by the very organisations that are meant to protect them.
Unsurprisingly, this decision has been formally appealed.
We believe this decision to be not just wrong — but dangerous.
It sets a precedent where clear financial obligations can be casually dismissed by an investigator with no proper basis for doing so.
This is not what fair resolution looks like.
Natalie Bradbury’s decision is just one example in a growing trend of poor, misinformed, and biased complaint resolutions.
When investigators overlook mortgage liabilities and basic cost-of-living expenses, the integrity of the system is shattered.
We remain committed to challenging these flawed decisions, and to exposing the truth about the failings of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
If the FOS is unwilling to fix itself, then it’s time for regulatory reform from the outside.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
From 1st January 2026, the statutory compensatory interest rate will be cut from 8% to just 1% above the Bank of England base rate over the period of time that the consumer has been wronged.
Let’s call this what it is:
A calculated move, timed perfectly to benefit banks and lenders—and to strip consumers of their full and rightful compensation.
This isn’t about fairness, nor financial reform. This is about protecting corporate profits, reducing liabilities, and making it harder for wronged consumers to receive the compensation they deserve.
For decades, the standard compensatory interest rate applied to consumer redress has been 8%. This was designed to:
Now, under reforms led by the FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service, and undoubtedly influenced by the Treasury and the banking industry, this is being diluted to 1% above the BoE base rate—currently only 4.25%, and falling.
This change is not happening in isolation. Its timing speaks volumes.
From early 2026, compensation payments for motor finance commission mis-selling—worth potentially tens of billions of pounds—will begin being calculated and paid to affected consumers.
And now? Just as these payouts are due to be finalised, compensatory interest is being slashed.
The message is loud and clear: Protect the banks, minimise payouts, and move on.
The reduction in compensatory interest is not some trivial accounting change. It will mean:
It’s an insult to the very concept of justice.
This is not a neutral policy update. It is a deliberate weakening of consumer redress, timed to coincide with the motor finance fallout. And it reeks of:
We must stop dressing this up as “modernisation.” It’s corruption. Full stop.
This latest change is just one in a growing list of measures designed to chip away at consumer rights while shielding corporate offenders. In the past 12 months alone, we’ve seen:
If the government and regulator truly wanted a fair financial system, the answer would be clear:
But instead, consumers are watching their rights erode in real-time—while banks celebrate yet another handout in disguise.
This isn’t regulation. This isn’t reform. It’s state-sanctioned erosion of consumer rights.
The FCA, under the influence of government and industry lobbyists, has made it clear whose side it’s on. And it’s not yours.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has again demonstrated that its processes are either plagued by gross incompetence or systemic bias.
In yet another deeply troubling case, an investigator has rejected a legitimate complaint from a consumer who was sold a car finance agreement they could not afford — by choosing to ignore a fundamental piece of financial evidence: a mortgage.
We acted on behalf of a consumer who raised serious concerns that a motor finance agreement had been mis-sold on the basis that it was simply unaffordable. Our own affordability checks confirmed these concerns.
The consumer’s financial situation included:
Despite this, FOS investigator Ann Vaz saw fit to reject the complaint.
Needless to say, the rejection has been appealed.
Ms. Vaz dismissed the complaint on the basis that, although the client’s credit file showed an active mortgage, she did not see the mortgage repayments reflected in the few bank statements she had reviewed.
As such, she refused to factor the mortgage into the affordability calculation.
Let that sink in:
A legally binding mortgage, recorded on the credit file and known to exist, was simply disregarded because the investigator hadn’t seen it on the limited number of statements provided.
Had the mortgage been included — as it should have been — it would have clearly rendered the motor finance agreement unaffordable.
The consumer was obliged to make those payments, and their budget did not support the addition of a motor finance contract.
The Financial Ombudsman Service is bound by clear duties when handling complaints. These include:
In this case, the investigator failed on all counts.
By refusing to consider a credit commitment as significant as a mortgage — especially one documented on a credit file — the FOS has failed both in duty and in logic.
A mortgage does not stop being a financial obligation simply because it’s missing from a few bank statements.
This isn’t an isolated mistake. It is one of many similar cases in which the FOS has rejected well-evidenced affordability complaints based on flawed logic, partial reviews of documentation, and an apparent desire to minimise findings against lenders.
Every time the FOS ignores key financial evidence, it sends a clear message:
Consumers cannot rely on the Ombudsman to protect them — especially in motor finance cases.
The time has come for real reform of the FOS. Consumers deserve better — especially when dealing with mis-selling and unaffordable lending.
We are calling for:
If you or someone you know has had a similar experience with the FOS, speak up. The more pressure placed on this system, the harder it becomes to ignore the truth:
The Financial Ombudsman Service is no longer a reliable defender of consumer rights.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has once again intervened—this time targeting consumer protection—to “support growth” in the City.
But her latest bid to shield lenders from accountability over the motor finance mis‑selling scandal raises further serious questions about her competency, her priorities, and even potential corruption.
In a startling move in January, Reeves tasked the Treasury to intervene in a Supreme Court case concerning undisclosed commissions in car finance deals, falsely warning that up to £30 billion in compensation might cripple the motor finance industry.
Despite this political play, the Court decisively rejected her bid—underscoring that consumer justice cannot be overridden by ministerial lobbying.
Reeves then extended her crusade by supporting reforms that would significantly reduce compensatory interest for consumers and cap claim time limits to 10 years—weakening redress once more.
Let this sink in: Consumers harmed by mis‑selling—a failing industry scandal facilitated by hidden dealer commissions—are being penalised in her name.
The so‑called Leeds Reforms, unveiled at Mansion House, are a sweeping rollback on post‑2008 protections:
It’s not progress—it’s reverse regulation, camouflaged as economic progress by a chancellor that is increasingly out of her depth.
Reeves claims these policies will “ripple into prosperity”. But citizens can’t eat bubbles or bail-out policies. When ministers weaponise the Treasury to shield companies from legal accountability, it doesn’t just raise governance concerns—it suggests corporate capture of democratic institutions.
These interventions are not simply “regulatory reforms”—they undermine consumer rights, delay justice, and shift risk onto everyday people.
Either way, it’s unacceptable.
The solution is clear:
If Reeves fails to defend public rights, she must step aside—and rebuild the system on foundations of fairness, not favouritism.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
In what is becoming a disturbingly familiar pattern, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has once again demonstrated either a profound lack of competence—or something more serious.
This latest incident centres on a complaint raised on behalf of one of our clients, relating to irresponsible lending by Mallard Leasing. The facts are simple, the evidence is clear, and yet the outcome is as outrageous as it is unacceptable.
Needless to say, the decision of the investigator has been appealed.
Our client took out a motor finance agreement, having a modest monthly income of approximately £1,200. Based on standard affordability criteria, the lending itself raised immediate concerns.
However, Mallard Leasing attempted to justify its lending decision by claiming our client was in receipt of a further £2,500 per month in rental income. According to them, this income came from a company which our client supposedly owned or controlled.
Here’s what the FOS investigator, James Woodington, either missed—or ignored entirely:
This is not a grey area. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of verifiable Companies House data and the most basic due diligence—something the FOS claims to pride itself on.
Despite our representations, Mr. Woodington attempted to accept the lender’s version of events, having clearly failed to carry out the checks that we subsequently did.
At no point did he appear to cross-reference the company status with Companies House records.
At no point did he address the fact that this “rental income” was linked to a dissolved company, and at no point did he question the credibility of the lender’s submission.
The result? A rejected complaint, and another consumer left without justice (for now!).
This is not an isolated case. When an Ombudsman investigator fails to validate a fact as basic as the operational status of a company, one must ask: Is this merely incompetence, or is it systemic bias?
Either way, the effect is the same:
We believe the public has a right to expect more. Investigators working under the banner of fairness and justice must be held to a standard higher than “accept what the lender says and move on.”
Where is the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principle in this decision? Where is the Consumer Duty the FCA has imposed on all regulated firms and their affiliates?
More importantly, how many other decisions has Mr. Woodington made under similarly flawed logic?
We will continue to hold the FOS to account—publicly and procedurally. This is not about one case or one client. It is about a culture that increasingly favours industry protectionism over individual fairness.
Consumers deserve a Financial Ombudsman Service that acts independently, impartially, and diligently—not one that rubber-stamps dubious lender narratives without scrutiny.
We will not stay silent. We encourage others with similar experiences to come forward and challenge the status quo. Because justice—especially in the financial sector—must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
