Motor finance: Concerns raised that some firms' records may be ‘patchy at best'
'We will be interested to see how the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) addresses this point in its consultation.'
On Sunday, the FCA said it will consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme.
The regulator said many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans.
The FCA said it will propose rules on how lenders should consistently, efficiently and fairly decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much. It estimates that most people will probably receive less than £950 in compensation.
The consultation will launch by early October and if the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026, the regulator has said.
Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA said: 'We're going to have to work through those issues in the consultation where one or the other party doesn't have all the details.
'That is one of the challenges here.'
Mr Rathi told the BBC: 'My message to the industry is – work with us, help us find solutions to some of these issues and don't try and haggle on every single point. If we want to get this up and running, get trust back into this market, let's get moving now and sort this out in the consultation.'
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) can already look at complaints going back to 2007.
The FCA has said that people who have already complained do not need to do anything.
Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much for their motor finance lender should complain now, it has said.
The regulator has said that people do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
12 hours ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis gives major update on car finance scandal with £950 payouts owed
Martin Lewis has issued a major update in the landmark car finance mis-selling case that could see millions of drivers paid substantial compensation. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has confirmed it is launching a consultation on a compensation scheme which it says could cost finance lenders up to £18 billion. A Supreme Court ruling on Friday (1 August) found that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, a decision which means most of the claims will not go ahead, but only the most serious claims will be eligible for compensation. But many cases in a separate strand of the car finance mis-selling case, which was not part of the Supreme Court ruling, are still likely to receive payouts. The FCA is now urging those who believe they may be affected and have not already complained to do so now. Mr Lewis has launched a tool through his Money Saving Expert service to help people do this. Both he and the financial regulator are also warning people against signing up to a claims management company to support their complaint at this stage. This is because the redress scheme will like be automatic and require lenders to get in touch with those affected directly. If an agreement has already been made with a claims firm when this happens, the individual may have to pay up to 30 per cent of their compensation to them, despite the firm not needing to do any work. Here's everything you need to know about the situation: Am I eligible for the car finance compensation scheme? Mr Lewis explains that there are 'two strands' of the car finance mis-selling case. Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs), which Mr Lewis says will be the main form of compensation to come out of the consultation, were not involved in the Supreme Court case, he said. 'The one most people have complained about wasn't involved in the Supreme Court decision, although it was on hold just in case anything in that decision caused a wobbler for DCAs,' Mr Lewis added. DCAs were banned in January 2021, so anyone with a personal contract purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP) deals before then, is likely to have unknowingly agreed to one. 'It is when you went to a car broker or dealer and it increased the amount of interest that you were charged to increase the amount of commission without telling you,' Mr Lewis explained. Those who had PCP or HP deals are 'likely to get compensation under this scheme'. But Mr Lewis notes that those who had 0 per cent interest, or whose commission was very small, are unlikely to receive compensation. But he says that for most people, the compensation will be in the hundreds of pounds. The other strand of the mis-selling case is the one element of the Supreme Court case which was upheld by the court - with the other two being dismissed. This refers to commissions which were 'manifestly unfair', Mr Lewis explained, adding that it is harder to define because it was done on a case-by-case basis. Factors in the payout may even include how vulnerable you are - and whether it is therefore seen as more unfair for the commission to have been so high. As this is done case-by-case and it is not a blanket issue like the DCA cases, it is unclear how the compensation scheme will work for these, Mr Lewis said. How much could I be compensated? The FCA estimates that most individuals making claims will receive 'less than £950 in compensation per agreement'. The final cost of a compensation scheme will depend on the final design which it takes, the FCA added in its statement earlier today. The first payments are forecast to be made in 2026. For DCA cases, the maximum you could receive is all of the commission you paid, Mr Lewis said. It is more likely you will be paid the higher interest rate you were charged minus the standard interest rate. A simple interest - meaning the interest is calculated on the original amount of the loan - of roughly 3 per cent per year will be added on top of the payout, Mr Lewis added. 'The very high likelihood is that many people who had a discretionary commission arrangement where they were charged more interest than they should have been will get back a chunk of that in the hundreds of pounds at some point in 2026,' he said. But the expert warned that the industry could 'fight this hard', before he urged industry members to accept the 'fair compromise'.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Woodford fined £46m and banned from top City roles: Ex-fund manager branded 'not fit and proper' by watchdog
The financial watchdog has fined Neil Woodford and his company £46million and banned the disgraced fund manager from holding top City jobs. The former star stock picker 'made unreasonable and inappropriate investment decisions' before his fund collapsed and left thousands of investors trapped, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) found. In a damning verdict, it yesterday hit Woodford with a £5.9million charge and his company with a £40million penalty. And the regulator said the money manager's 'lack of competence, capability and reputation' meant he was 'not a fit and proper person' to hold senior management roles or control retail investor funds. It comes six years after more than 300,000 investors were left with around £3.7billion stuck in the Woodford Equity Income fund in one of the UK's biggest retail investment scandals. The FCA said Woodford 'did not react appropriately as the fund's value declined, its liquidity worsened, and more investors withdrew their money'. The regulator accused Woodford of holding a 'defective and unreasonably narrow understanding of his responsibilities'. Campaigners have urged the Government to strip Woodford of the CBE he received in 2023 for services to the economy. But in a statement through his lawyers, Woodford said he will fight the decision and blamed the regulator and the fund's manager Link for the collapse and investor losses. The penalty and ban are dependent on the outcome of the appeal process. At the crux of the scandal was a lump of illiquid investments made by Woodford, meaning they were difficult to rapidly turn into cash. When investors started pulling out their money, it was the more liquid investments that were sold first to fund the withdrawals. But that was unfair to those who kept their money invested, because they were left with a disproportionate share of the remaining illiquid assets before being locked out of the fund. Woodford Investment Management (WIM) insisted that his new venture – a subscription service that costs up to £840 a year – would not be affected. A spokesman for WIM and Woodford said: 'We believe the appeal process will shed much needed light on the events leading to and following the fund's suspension, including the regulator's role in those events.'
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Pitiful justice from the FCA: It took far too long to put Woodford in the stocks, says ALEX BRUMMER
How jolly good it is that financial justice has finally caught up with disgraced investment guru Neil Woodford and his irresponsible and deceitful management of the collapsed Woodford Equity Investment Fund (WEIF). There is satisfaction to be drawn from the ban imposed on Woodford from holding senior management roles and looking after retail investors' cash. Moreover, Woodford personally will have to cough up £5.8million in fines and his eponymous investment firm some £40million. Yet the process of delivering verdicts for Woodford savers (including this writer), which started when Andrew Bailey was chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has been exasperating. It has taken six long years to reach this point, and one fears that there will be victims of Woodford's nefarious behaviour who will have missed out on seeing the regulator swing into action. And it is not over yet since Woodford, lawyered to the hilt, is taking the matter to the Upper Tribunal, the FCA's equivalent of the High Court. That means more delays. Much of the material in the voluminous decision documents relating to Woodford Investment Management and WEIF emerged at the time. It was known, for instance, that Woodford sought to cover up a lack of liquidity in his funds by transferring assets to the obscure Guernsey stock exchange. He also sought to shift the blame for what happened to corporate director Link. The FCA found them jointly culpable and Link, now controlled from Down Under, has already paid £230million in restitution for its error. The rules-based system under which the FCA operates needs to be preserved if retail investors and professionals, such as Kent County Council, are to be protected. What is intolerable is the bureaucratic faffing which has taken so long to put Woodford in the stocks. In the interim, Woodford still offers his services as a financial adviser. The FCA has also failed, thus far, to establish how it was that some 300,000 people who invested in Woodford funds were exposed through the Hargreaves Lansdown (HL) platform and its own fund of funds. HL is now owned by a consortium of private equity investors led by CVC. That is no excuse for escaping culpability and facing up to HL's responsibility for misleading savers. Musical chairs Often it is said that the main duty of the chairman is to fire the chief executive. At Diageo, Sir John Manzoni, who took over as chairman early this year, lost little time in disposing of one of the FTSE 100's small gang of women bosses, Debra Crew. Admittedly, at the time, Diageo's share price was in sharp retreat, falling by 30 per cent. Authoritative accounts suggest that Crew was ambushed. When she questioned the assertiveness of finance director Nik Jhangiani with Manzoni, she signed her own resignation letter. The latest results show that, were it not for the Trump tariffs – which cannot be blamed on Crew – the underlying picture was much better than thought with organic sales up 1.7 per cent at £15.1billion. The vital North American market was still robust with sales up 1.5 per cent. This is despite the trend of Gen Z turning away from alcohol. Where does this, one wonders, leave Murray Auchincloss, chief executive of BP, in another part of the corporate forest? New chairman Albert Manifold has ordered a review of the business and costs, and he hasn't even been seated. What that means for the sensible Auchincloss strategy, already under fire from activist Elliott, one shudders to think. Tech leakage No board of directors would dare turn down a bid premium of 104.9 per cent unless it came from the Ayatollah himself. So British scientific instrument maker Spectris has been able to sit back as private equity ghouls Advent and KKR fight it out for control, with the latter back in the driving seat. If the sharp minds at Advent and KKR were able to see the value, where were the British analysts and buy-side investors as Spectris languished in the lower reaches of the FTSE 250? And doesn't a Labour government, committed to a high-tech future for the UK, worry about the escape of British intellectual property overseas? It should do.
