March 11, 2025

Daniel Lee

The Financial Ombudsman Service Charges Affect Vulnerable Consumers

The Financial Ombudsman Service Charges: A Disaster for Vulnerable Consumers

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.

The Unseen Consequences of the New Charges

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.

A Response to the Motor Finance Mis-Selling Scandal?

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.

The Disadvantage for Vulnerable Consumers

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.

The Huge Benefits of Professional Representation

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:

Expert Knowledge: Professional representatives understand financial regulations and common law, ensuring that complaints are structured correctly and presented with strong supporting evidence.
Persistence Against Lender Rejections: Unlike individual consumers who may abandon their claim at the first hurdle, professional representatives continue the fight for justice, ensuring cases are pursued all the way to a fair resolution.
Less Stress for Consumers: Dealing with a complaint against a financial institution can be daunting, with responses from lenders often referring to regulations and court cases that everyday consumers will have little knowledge of. Professional representatives remove this burden, allowing consumers to focus on their wellbeing while experts handle the case.

A Step Backwards for Consumer Rights

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.

Financial Ombudsman Service charges affect vulnerable consumers

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

The Resignation of Abby Thomas: Has Rachel Reeves Pressured the Financial Ombudsman Service?

The recent resignation of Abby Thomas, the Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), raises serious concerns about political influence and the integrity of consumer redress in the UK.

A Crucial Moment in Time for the FOS

At a time when the FOS is set to play a critical role in handling motor finance commission complaints, her sudden departure must be scrutinised—particularly in light of the actions of Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

Reeves has already faced accusations of attempting to interfere in the Supreme Court’s upcoming motor finance commission case, with a clear view to obstruct justice to millions of UK consumers.

Now, with the departure of Thomas, further questions must be asked: has the Chancellor applied undue pressure on the Ombudsman to take a softer stance on motor finance providers? If so, this is nothing short of a blatant attempt to protect the financial institutions that have, according to the Court of Appeal, acted unlawfully by failing to disclose bribes offered and paid to motor dealerships.

The Role of the FOS

The FOS has been receiving tens of thousands of complaints against motor finance providers, with cases currently on pause pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

If Thomas has resigned due to external influence or pressure to influence the FOS’s approach to consumer protection, this is a clear sign that the government is working to shield financial firms rather than ensuring consumers receive fair outcomes.

Government and Finance Industry Collusion

Motor finance firms and their lobbyists have pushed the narrative that upholding these complaints will harm the industry, lead to increased borrowing costs, and cause lenders to exit the market.

However, this has already been debunked by industry insiders, who have confirmed that full disclosure of commission has not deterred customers from purchasing vehicles.

The only real impact will be that lenders will no longer be able to exploit consumers by charging inflated interest rates to fund secret commissions paid to dealerships.

Calls for Reeves to Resign

Rachel Reeves must now answer for her actions. If she has sought to interfere with the Ombudsman’s independent decision-making or placed pressure on financial regulators to protect lenders rather than consumers, she is no longer fit for office, if indeed she ever was.

Any attempt to obstruct justice in favour of powerful financial institutions is a direct betrayal of the millions of consumers who have been misled and overcharged.

Her actions suggest a government that is more concerned with protecting the interests of the financial industry than with ensuring fairness and accountability. If there is even the slightest truth to these allegations, Reeves must resign immediately.

The British public deserves a government that stands up for them—not one that bows to corporate pressure at the expense of justice.

Abby Thomas resignation Financial Ombudsman Service

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

The Motor Finance Industry’s Claims of Damage Debunked

The Motor Finance Industry’s Claims of Damage Debunked: Commission Disclosure Doesn’t Deter Consumers

In recent months, the motor finance industry has claimed that the fallout from the commission scandal—particularly the court rulings on the non-disclosure of commissions—would harm the sector, increase the cost of motor finance, and reduce consumer confidence. This resulted in the Rachel Reeves falling hook, line and sinker for the industry message, going as far as to seek to involve the government and deny justice to the tens of millions of motorists who have been affected by this latest financial mis-selling scandal.These dire predictions, however, have been thoroughly debunked, with real-world evidence now confirming what many have argued all along: full disclosure of commissions does not deter customers from purchasing vehicles.

These dire predictions, however, have been thoroughly debunked, with real-world evidence now confirming what many have argued all along: full disclosure of commissions does not deter customers from purchasing vehicles.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence comes from Malcolm Beattie, of MB Motors in Ballymena. In a recent statement, Mr. Beattie confirmed that full transparency about commissions, including their disclosure to customers, has had no negative impact on his business. Consumers continue to purchase vehicles, even with commission details laid bare. This testimony is a clear rejection of the motor finance industry’s unfounded scare tactics and a vindication of the principle of transparency.

Full Disclosure: A Sensible and Ethical Practice

For years, the motor finance industry operated under a veil of secrecy, with commissions, paid by lenders to dealerships, being hidden from customers. This lack of disclosure allowed dealerships and lenders to profit at the expense of unsuspecting consumers, leading to millions being overcharged on motor finance agreements. However, as highlighted in the Court of Appeal’s recent judgments, this practice was fundamentally unfair and in breach of legal principles.

The Court of Appeal has reinforced that customers are entitled to full transparency when entering into financial agreements. This includes being informed about any commissions paid to dealerships for arranging finance. This ruling isn’t just legally sound—it’s common sense. Transparency fosters trust between businesses and their customers and ensures that consumers can make informed financial decisions.

The Motor Finance Industry’s False Narrative

Despite the clear benefits of commission disclosure, the motor finance industry has attempted to paint a bleak picture of its consequences. Industry representatives have suggested that revealing commissions would increase the cost of motor finance, reduce competition, and even force lenders out of the market. These claims are baseless and have now been proven false.

Malcolm Beattie’s experience shows that consumers are not deterred by full disclosure. If anything, transparency reassures customers that they are dealing with an honest and reputable business. Rather than harming the industry, disclosure can strengthen consumer trust and promote a fairer market for all.

A Long-Overdue Change

The arguments for commission disclosure have always been compelling. Consumers deserve to know how their money is being used and whether the terms of their agreements are influenced by hidden financial incentives. The fact that the industry has resisted this change for so long speaks volumes about its priorities.

The recent Court of Appeal judgment has made it clear that the days of hidden commissions must come to an end. This isn’t just about compliance with the law—it’s about doing what’s right for consumers. The industry’s efforts to resist transparency have only served to delay the inevitable.

Conclusion

The evidence is now undeniable: full disclosure of commissions does not harm the motor finance industry. Malcolm Beattie’s confirmation that customers remain undeterred by transparency is proof that the industry’s fear mongering was baseless.

This outcome validates the Court of Appeal’s decision and highlights the importance of fair and transparent practices in the motor finance sector. It’s time for the industry to embrace these changes, rebuild trust with consumers, and move forward with practices that put customers first.

Transparency isn’t the enemy of the motor finance industry—it’s the foundation of its future.

Motor finance commission disclosure impact

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Rachel Reeves Must Resign: A Call to End Corruption in Government and Finance

The recent actions of Chancellor Rachel Reeves, seeking to intervene in legal proceedings to block justice for millions of motor finance consumers, represent a shocking display of government corruption and undue influence by the financial industry. Her attempts to protect motor finance providers from the repercussions of their own unethical practices confirm a deeply troubling alliance between government and industry, prioritising corporate interests over consumer justice.

Justice Denied: Blocking Motor Finance Commission Claims

Motor finance providers have long benefited from undisclosed commissions paid to dealerships for arranging finance agreements. These hidden fees have caused significant harm to consumers, many of whom were left paying inflated interest rates without their knowledge. The Court of Appeal’s recent judgment rightly highlighted the injustice of these practices, holding motor finance providers accountable for their actions.

Rather than support the court’s decision to uphold consumer rights, Rachel Reeves has chosen to side with the financial industry, attempting to block justice for millions of consumers. This move undermines public trust in her ability to act impartially and raises serious questions about her suitability for office.

False Claims About Market Impact

Motor finance providers, emboldened by Reeves’ intervention, claim that the Court of Appeal judgment will increase the cost of credit and force lenders to exit the market. These assertions are not only unfounded but blatantly misleading. The judgment ensures greater transparency and fairness in motor finance agreements, which will ultimately benefit consumers and the market as a whole.

Here’s the truth:

No More Hidden Costs: Removing commissions paid to dealerships will make motor finance agreements cheaper, not more expensive. Consumers will no longer bear the burden of inflated interest rates designed to cover undisclosed fees.
A Healthier Market: Transparent practices will encourage competition and trust, fostering a market that prioritises fair treatment over profits driven by unethical behaviour.
Accountability Strengthens Stability: By holding providers accountable, the judgment reinforces the need for compliance and responsible lending, ensuring long-term sustainability in the industry.

Corruption in Plain Sight

Rachel Reeves’ actions raise serious concerns about the influence of the financial industry on government decision-making. Rather than supporting measures to address consumer harm, she has chosen to shield those responsible for widespread misconduct. This intervention is not just a betrayal of consumer trust—it is a blatant endorsement of corruption.

By attempting to block justice for motor finance consumers, Reeves has shown that she is more interested in protecting corporate interests than upholding the rights of the public. Her position as Chancellor is no longer tenable, and her immediate resignation is necessary to restore faith in the government’s commitment to fairness and justice.

A Call for Change

This situation highlights the urgent need for greater accountability and transparency within both the financial industry and government. The Court of Appeal judgment provides an opportunity to reshape the motor finance market for the better, ensuring consumers are treated fairly and hidden commissions become a thing of the past.

Rachel Reeves’ intervention is a stark reminder of the corruption that exists at the intersection of government and finance. We must demand better from those in power—leaders who prioritise justice and fairness over the interests of the privileged few.

It is time for Rachel Reeves to step down and for the government to show genuine commitment to supporting the millions of consumers who have been harmed by unethical motor finance practices. Justice must prevail, and corruption must no longer dictate the actions of those who claim to serve the public.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Rachel Reeves and Motor Finance Corruption

Rachel Reeves’ Controversial Intervention: Corruption at the Heart of Government?

In an extraordinary and deeply troubling development, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has
reportedly attempted to intervene in the upcoming Supreme Court hearing concerning motor finance providers.
This move has raised serious concerns about corruption at the highest levels of government and calls into
question Reeves’ priorities as one of the most powerful figures in British politics.

Her actions come at a time when the public expects accountability for the widespread harm caused by
undisclosed motor finance commissions—a practice that has left millions of UK consumers
paying far more than necessary for their vehicle financing. Instead of championing transparency and fairness,
Reeves’ intervention appears to prioritise shielding the interests of finance providers over the rights of
ordinary citizens.

The Hidden Scandal of Motor Finance Commissions

For years, car buyers across the UK have unknowingly paid inflated interest rates on their motor finance
agreements. This was largely due to undisclosed commissions, where lenders paid car
dealerships incentives to push higher-cost agreements onto unsuspecting customers.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has previously highlighted the significant consumer harm caused by
these practices, which often resulted in customers overpaying by hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

The courts have already ruled against lenders in key cases such as Hopcraft v Close Brothers,
confirming that failing to disclose these commissions breaches transparency and fairness standards. This
has opened the door for a wave of claims from affected consumers seeking redress for these unethical practices.

Rachel Reeves’ Role: Defending Finance Providers?

Rachel Reeves, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, holds a position of immense responsibility. She is tasked with
safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK and its citizens. Yet her reported intervention in the Supreme
Court case appears to contradict this duty entirely.

Rather than supporting efforts to hold finance providers accountable, Reeves’ actions suggest a desire to
protect the profits of lenders at the expense of consumers. This raises deeply troubling questions:

What motivated this intervention?
Is Reeves acting under pressure from powerful industry lobbyists?
How can the public trust a leader who appears to side with corporations over ordinary people?

Corruption and Influence: A Systemic Problem

Rachel Reeves’ actions are not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern that exposes how
deeply entrenched corruption can influence the decision-making processes of even the
highest offices of government. Consumers deserve better, and this episode highlights the urgent need for
transparency and accountability across all sectors of government and finance.

Rachel Reeves motor finance intervention

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Motor Finance Providers and Flawed Time-Bar Arguments

How Some Motor Finance Providers Are Attempting to Time-Bar Commission Claims, Contrary to a Supreme Court Ruling

Background: Canada Square v Potter

In the Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] case, the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for bringing a claim can be extended under Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 if the claimant can demonstrate that the defendant deliberately concealed a relevant fact. This ruling confirmed that time should not start running until the claimant became aware of the concealment, which in many cases involves undisclosed commissions in financial products.

The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for consumers, particularly those seeking compensation for financial mis-selling involving secretive commission payments, as is the case for up to 99% of motor finance agreements taken out since April 2007.

Time-Bar Arguments by Motor Finance Providers

Despite the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, many motor finance providers are still attempting to invoke the six-year time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 to dismiss claims. This tactic ignores the clear principles established in Canada Square v Potter, particularly the idea that consumers cannot be held to a time limit when they were unaware of the misconduct due to the provider’s concealment.

Refusal to Acknowledge Concealment: Providers argue that consumers should have discovered the commission payments earlier, even when these were actively hidden from consumers.
Rejection Without Investigation: Some providers seek to reject claims outright, citing time-bar rules, without properly considering whether the principles of Section 32 apply.
Delaying Tactics: By delaying or rejecting valid claims, providers attempt to discourage claimants from pursuing their cases further, thus causing further consumer harm.

Why These Arguments Are Flawed

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Canada Square v Potter leaves no room for misinterpretation:

Deliberate Concealment: If the amount of commission was not disclosed at the time the agreement was entered into, and the consumer only discovered it later (e.g., through litigation or regulatory scrutiny), the limitation period begins from the date of discovery.
Public Policy: The ruling upholds the principle that companies should not benefit from their own wrongdoing. Using time-bar arguments to reject claims contradicts this principle.
Fairness to Consumers: Many consumers only became aware of these issues following regulatory investigations or court judgments, meaning their claims are valid under Section 32.

What This Means for Claimants

Consumers with motor finance agreements that included undisclosed commissions should not be deterred by time-bar arguments from providers. The Canada Square v Potter judgment reinforces their right to pursue claims, even if the agreement was entered into more than six years ago. Claimants should:

Seek expert legal advice or assistance from regulated claims management firms.
Challenge any time-bar rejection by referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Act promptly to ensure their claims are not delayed unnecessarily.

A Call to Action for the Financial Conduct Authority

It is clear that motor finance providers are not treating complainants fairly, going so far as to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in Canada Square v Potter. It is now clear that the regulator must step in and provide a clear deterrent to motor finance providers that continue to cause significant consumer harm. Continuing to reject claims on time-bar grounds without proper consideration further undermines trust in the financial services industry. The Financial Conduct Authority must:

Enforce significant financial penalties for firms that handle complaints contrary to UK law.
Order that firms pay additional redress where complaint handling is deemed to be inadequate.
Consider a separate body to take over complaints from the outset, at a cost to finance providers that cannot be trusted to fairly handle complaints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Canada Square v Potter has set a clear precedent for extending the time limits on claims involving undisclosed commissions. Motor finance providers must adapt their practices accordingly and immediately cease attempting to use time-bar arguments to reject valid claims. Consumers are encouraged to stand firm and seek professional assistance to ensure they receive the compensation they deserve.

motor finance commission claims time-bar

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

«Prev 7 8910 11 Next Last

The Compensation Claim Experts

The Financial Ombudsman Service Charges Affect Vulnerable Consumers

The Financial Ombudsman Service Charges: A Disaster for Vulnerable Consumers

The Unseen Consequences of the New Charges

A Response to the Motor Finance Mis-Selling Scandal?

The Disadvantage for Vulnerable Consumers

The Huge Benefits of Professional Representation

A Step Backwards for Consumer Rights

The Resignation of Abby Thomas: Has Rachel Reeves Pressured the Financial Ombudsman Service?

A Crucial Moment in Time for the FOS

The Role of the FOS

Government and Finance Industry Collusion

Calls for Reeves to Resign

The Motor Finance Industry’s Claims of Damage Debunked: Commission Disclosure Doesn’t Deter Consumers

Full Disclosure: A Sensible and Ethical Practice

The Motor Finance Industry’s False Narrative

A Long-Overdue Change

Conclusion

Rachel Reeves Must Resign: A Call to End Corruption in Government and Finance

Justice Denied: Blocking Motor Finance Commission Claims

False Claims About Market Impact

Corruption in Plain Sight

A Call for Change

Rachel Reeves’ Controversial Intervention: Corruption at the Heart of Government?

The Hidden Scandal of Motor Finance Commissions

Rachel Reeves’ Role: Defending Finance Providers?

Corruption and Influence: A Systemic Problem

How Some Motor Finance Providers Are Attempting to Time-Bar Commission Claims, Contrary to a Supreme Court Ruling

Background: Canada Square v Potter

Time-Bar Arguments by Motor Finance Providers

Why These Arguments Are Flawed

What This Means for Claimants

A Call to Action for the Financial Conduct Authority

Conclusion

About YourMoneyClaim

Navigation

Contact Us

Customer Area