Major car finance compensation update due this week - what you need to know
Millions of drivers could soon find out if they are due compensation over claims of car finance mis-selling with a major Supreme Court decision due this week.
The Court of Appeal ruled in October 2024 that car finance customers must be clearly told how much commission would be paid, and they would need to consent to this - otherwise it would be illegal for the lender to pay any commission to the dealer.
The car finance firms involved in the case – Close Brothers and Motonovo – then appealed this judgment at the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upholds the original Court of Appeal ruling, this could mean people who have previously taken out a car on finance could be due compensation.
However, how much could be due, and who exactly would get the compensation, remains to be seen - but lenders have already put aside billions of pounds in the event of payouts.
Consumer rights experts including Martin Lewis have also warned that politicians could step in and overturn the ruling. The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment this Friday, August 1.
There is also a separate car finance investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) - which was launched before the Court of Appeal decision - and this is one is specifically about 'discretionary commission agreements' (DCA).
DCAs allowed dealers and brokers to increase the commission they earned by charging customers more through higher interest rates.
They were banned in 2021 but the FCA launched a probe in January 2024 to determine if customers should be owed compensation. The outcome of this FCA investigation has been put on hold until the Supreme Court ruling.
Martin Lewis website has said that if the Supreme Court rejects the Court of Appeal ruling, it is still likely the DCA claims will go ahead through the regulator.
MoneySavingExpert.com has previously urged anyone who thinks they may have been affected to put in a complaint now, in case a cut-off date for complaints is introduced retrospectively.
You should put your complaint in directly to the lender that provided the car finance - not the broker or car dealer where you got your vehicle from.
You could end up being eligible for compensation if you weren't told about commission and may have paid too much for your car finance, or if you had a car finance deal that contained a DCA. MSE has a free car finance tool to help you complain.
Car finance lenders have until December 4, 2025, to respond to complaints - but again, it is best to put your complaint in sooner rather than later.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
43 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump administration set to scrap landmark finding that regulates carbon emission
The Trump administration is set to announce a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government's ability to combat climate change. Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards. The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally make the announcement at an event in Indiana alongside Governor Mike Braun on Tuesday Donald Trump has long argued that climate regulations stifle US economic growth, and on his first day back in office in January ordered that the EPA submit recommendations "on the legality and continuing applicability" of the Endangerment Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" - meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act. In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk. The decision forms the core of the federal government's authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse in an episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion".Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said. In a previous statement on reconsidering the findings in March, Zeldin said that "the Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas."The new draft rule from the EPA will now go undergo a public comment period before being subject to an interagency review. If it is successful, the rule will immediately revoke rules governing tailpipe emissions from vehicles. What is climate change? A really simple guideThe EPA's move is likely to face legal challenges, and some experts have questioned whether the administration's decision will make it through the courts at all. But Richard Revesz, the former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Biden administration and a law professor at New York University, told the Washington Post that the announcement will still have an impact on US climate change policies until a final decision is made in the court system. "If the endangerment finding fell, it would call into question essentially all or almost all of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases," he said. (With additional reporting from Mark Poynting)
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Oil tycoon Shvidler loses appeal over UK's Russian sanctions
LONDON, July 29 (Reuters) - Billionaire oil tycoon Eugene Shvidler on Tuesday lost his appeal against British sanctions imposed on him over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine at the UK's Supreme Court, a ruling lawyers said makes it difficult for similar challenges to succeed. Russian-born Shvidler, who is a British and U.S. citizen, was sanctioned over his association with former Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich, plus his former position as a director of London-listed Russian steel producer Evraz (EVRE.L), opens new tab. Shvidler – whose net worth is estimated by Forbes magazine at $1.6 billion – appealed to the Supreme Court, with his lawyers arguing that others with greater involvement in business of importance to Russia were not sanctioned, citing BP's (BP.L), opens new tab previous joint venture with Rosneft ( opens new tab. The Supreme Court rejected Shvidler's appeal by a four-to-one majority in a ruling that Shvidler said "brings me back to the USSR". The ruling also maintains Britain's 100% record of defending its Russian sanctions in court. Shvidler said in a statement that no British companies or business people with ties to Russian state-owned companies have been sanctioned, adding that Britain's sanctions were "more about cheap virtue-signalling for purely political purposes". "There may be little public sympathy for me, as a wealthy US/UK businessman, but this judgment applies to all who face state power," he added. Britain's Foreign Office, which has overseen the sanctioning of more than 1,700 individuals or entities since Russia's invasion, welcomed the ruling "and the message it sends about the strength of the UK sanctions regime". Shvidler had said British sanctions have destroyed his business and disrupted his and his family's lives. His lawyers previously said he has no involvement in or influence over Russian politics and had not even been to Russia since attending the late Russian President Boris Yeltsin's funeral in 2007. But the majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the sanctions struck a fair balance between Shvidler's rights and the aims of the sanctions regime. In the majority's judgment, Judges Philip Sales and Vivien Rose said sanctioning Shvidler "sends a clear signal to people in Mr Shvidler's position that they would be wise to distance themselves from Russian business now". But Judge George Leggatt, in a strident dissenting ruling, said Britain's "flimsy reasons" for sanctioning Shvidler did not justify the "serious invasion of liberty" sanctions entailed. He noted BP's profitable joint venture with Rosneft, having two members on its board, and said it was irrational to only sanction Shvidler if "sanctioning an individual for working as a director of a company which had invested in the Russian extractives sector was thought likely to contribute to achieving the purposes" of British sanctions. BP declined to comment. Maia Cohen-Lask, a partner at Corker Binning, said the Supreme Court's ruling was "a huge blow not just for Mr Shvidler but for any person who has been sanctioned despite their lack of any links to the Putin regime". The Supreme Court also dismissed a separate appeal brought by Russian businessman Sergei Naumenko, whose 44 million euro ($51 million) superyacht was detained in London.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Liverpool minicab firm defeats Uber in Supreme Court
A Liverpudlian minicab company has won a David vs Goliath legal victory against Uber that means small taxi companies will not have to pay VAT on fares. The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that minicab drivers could trade directly with passengers, a legal position that means the vast majority of private hire trips will not incur the 20pc tax. Uber and other minicab firms in London have had to pay VAT on rides since the US company lost a High Court case in 2021. However, the situation was unresolved outside the capital, which is governed by different private hire laws. Uber had sought a legal declaration that all minicab operators should have to pay VAT, with the High Court ultimately siding with the US tech company on the matter. However, this was later challenged by Delta Taxis, a Liverpool-based minicab firm that has operated in the city since 1968. Delta warned that a victory for Uber would lead to a 20pc rise in fares and had positioned the battle as a 'David vs Goliath moment', accusing Uber of a 'cynical, heavy-handed attack against smaller, independent family-run businesses like ours'. The Merseyside company, which has around 2,000 drivers, had raised money for the case by crowdfunding along with Cardiff firm Veezu. They were also supported by Uber rival Bolt. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld Delta's successful Court of Appeal challenge, meaning that small firms can keep operating without paying VAT. The decision is the latest legal setback for Uber, which has suffered defeats over the status of its drivers as well as its business model in London. The legal arguments centred around whether minicab firms could employ an 'agency' model, in which a passenger's contract is with the driver, or a 'principal' model, in which the passenger's contract is with the business. Under the former model, fares are generally not liable for VAT, since individual drivers do not tend to meet the £90,000 annual revenue threshold for paying the tax. The Supreme Court ruled that operators outside of London could employ either model. Uber and other minicab firms in London pay VAT under the principal model. The US company has applied this policy nationwide and said it would continue to do so despite the ruling. 'Time to level the playing field' An Uber spokesman said: 'The Supreme Court ruling confirms that different contractual protections apply for people booking trips in London compared to the rest of England and Wales. The ruling has no impact on Uber's application of VAT, which has been upheld twice by other courts.' Bolt, an Uber rival, called for legal changes to overturn VAT charges in London. Kimberly Hurd, its UK boss, said: 'We welcome the court's decision to uphold the agency model, a framework taxi firms and customers across the country have relied on for 50 years. 'It's time for a modern, consistent regulatory framework that levels the playing field for all operators, regardless of where they are.' Uber and Bolt have separately challenged HMRC over how VAT is charged on fares. The companies have argued that the tax should only be applied to a business's cut of fares, which is between 15pc and 25pc, while HMRC had argued it should be the entire fare. HMRC has stopped collecting VAT from Uber after Bolt won a legal victory against the tax authority in March, pending a ruling in Uber's separate case.
