Rachel Reeves ‘considers overruling' £44billion car finance Supreme Court decision in DAYS
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
CHANCELLOR Rachel Reeves may step in to overrule the Supreme Court's decision relating to the £44billion car finance scandal.
The Supreme Court is set to decide next Friday whether motor finance providers should compensate customers over undisclosed broker commission arrangements.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
1
The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans
Credit: EPA
But, the Government is looking at new laws to limit compensation claims against motor finance providers and making them less exposed to the scandal, according to The Guardian.
These laws would set clear rules on disclosing broker commission fees and could even apply retroactively to existing cases.
If passed, lenders like Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, and Close Brothers could face lower payouts.
The move aims to prevent the scandal from spreading to other financial products beyond car loans.
The move would be an exceptional step by the Treasury, which previously attempted to influence the Supreme Court proceedings in January.
It's believed Government officials have been discussing the practicalities with both the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Business and Trade.
In October, the Court of Appeal ruled that motor finance firms broke the law by not telling borrowers about broker commission terms.
This decision could lead to £44billion in compensation for millions of people.
Motor finance companies argue they believed their practices followed the rules but say the ruling requires much more transparency.
Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court heard the case in April.
Martin Lewis explains potential new Financial Conducts Authority ruling
The court will now announce its final decision on motor finance commissions on August 1.
The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents motor finance companies, warns that if the Court of Appeal ruling is upheld, it could harm the motor finance market.
They say it could lead to less lending, higher borrowing costs, and even company closures.
The Government rarely steps in on compensation cases, but the Treasury is worried this scandal could scare off investors and hurt UK businesses.
There are also fears that a huge compensation bill could damage the industry.
Back in 2013, the coalition Government pushed through the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act to "protect the national economy" from a £130million payout.
A Treasury spokesperson said they want a fair decision that gives consumers proper compensation for their losses.
They added: "We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles.
"It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course."
Paul Carlier, the whistleblower who first exposed the scheme in 2016, has accused the Treasury of acting dishonestly to protect motor finance firms at the expense of millions of customers.
He claims the FCA and Ombudsman have already covered up the scandal in previous years, depriving consumers of billions in redress.
Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force said: "This is at least the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal.
"It's not a good look for her, because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law."
The Financial Ombudsman Service is struggling with a massive spike in complaints about commission practices, now totalling over 60,000 – triple the number since May 2024.
The growing scandal could rival the infamous Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) debacle.
In March, the Financial Conduct Authority confirmed it had been granted permission to intervene in the case and had submitted its arguments to the Court.
Should the Supreme Court rule that motor finance customers have suffered losses as a result of widespread failings by firms, the FCA is expected to consult on the introduction of an industry-wide compensation scheme.
Under a redress scheme, firms would need to figure out if their mistakes caused customers to lose money.
If they did, the firms would have to pay the right amount of compensation.
The FCA would create rules for firms to follow and make sure they stick to them.
This scheme would make things easier for customers compared to making a formal complaint.
While waiting for news on the redress scheme, customers can still make a claim directly, but the FCA has advised against using claims management companies or law firms to avoid unnecessary fees.
WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHO'S AFFECTED?
By James Flanders, Chief Consumer Reporter
What is being investigated?
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) launched an investigation last year into whether motorists were unknowingly overcharged when they took out car loans.
The investigation by the City watchdog focuses on past practices where banks allowed car dealerships and brokers to set their own interest rates on loans.
Under a now-banned discretionary commission arrangement (DCA), dealerships and brokers had a financial incentive to charge higher interest rates, as their commission increased proportionally.
However, many customers were unaware of this practice.
A landmark ruling in October 2024, deemed it unlawful for car dealers, acting as brokers, to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer's consent.
This applied to both discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where dealers set interest rates, and non-discretionary commissions.
The Supreme Court is now preparing to rule on whether lenders should be held responsible for compensating drivers.
Who is eligible for compensation?
There are two criteria you must meet to have a chance at receiving compensation.
First, you must be complaining about a finance deal on a motor vehicle (including cars, vans, motorbikes, and motorhomes) that was agreed upon before January 28, 2021.
Second, you must have bought the vehicle through a mechanism like Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP), which make up the majority of finance deals and mean you own the vehicle at the end of the agreement.
Drivers who leased a car through a Personal Contract Hire, where you give the car back at the end of the lease, are not eligible.
According to the financial regulator, on a typical £10,000 motor finance agreement, discretionary commission arrangements could have caused customers to pay an additional £1,100 in interest over a four-year term.
The FCA extended the deadline for lenders to respond to complaints, meaning borrowers whose lenders received other forms of commission may now also be eligible for compensation.
How can I make a claim now?
Consumer finance website MoneySavingExpert.com offers an email template to help you complain to your finance provider.
You can download this by visiting moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/reclaim-car-finance.
Alternatively, you can complain directly without using the template.
It's crucial for anyone who took out car finance to file a claim, even if a previous claim was denied.
In your complaint, ask whether you were overcharged due to your broker receiving a commission and request the company to rectify this if it occurred.
If you're unsatisfied with the company's response, you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) at no cost.
You have until July 29, 2026, or up to 15 months from the date of the company's final response letter, whichever is longer.
Avoid using a claims management firm, as they will take a portion of any successful claim.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
UK is stuck in a ‘debt doom loop', says top investor
One of the world's most prominent hedge fund investors, Ray Dalio, has warned that the UK is stuck in a 'doom loop', as it faces a worrying mix of higher taxes, rising debts and slower growth. Dalio, a US billionaire who founded hedge fund Bridgewater Associates in 1975, said warning signs over the size of debts in western countries were 'beginning to flash and flicker', but that the UK government's efforts to raise more funds via taxes risked driving its wealthiest taxpayers out of the country. 'The debt doom loop also is affecting capital flows,' the hedge fund founder told the Master Investor podcast with Wilfred Frost. He said the need to increase taxes was 'driving people away. They move for their capital reasons.' 'A deterioration in conditions, as the financial problems and the social problems worsen, [is] having the effect of causing people with money to leave. That's a problem because – I don't know the exact numbers in the UK, but they're analogous to the US – 75% of income taxes are paid by the top 10%.' 'So if you lose 5% of the population in that category, half of those people, you lose 35% or more of the tax revenue.' The warning comes as the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, considers tax rises in her autumn budget, with growing speculation that she could target some of the wealthiest people in the UK, to avoid putting further pressure on consumers. But some wealth experts have warned that could compound the effects of the abolition of the 'non-dom' regime, which was triggered by the former Conservative government and maintained by the current Labour cabinet. Those changes ended the arrangements that allowed wealthy foreign people to avoid paying tax on money they were earning outside the UK, and avoid paying inheritance tax on their global assets. Reeves is reportedly considering softening changes to the inheritance tax aspect of the non-doms clampdown. However, a widely cited report suggesting millionaires have been leaving Britain has been criticised for making unsubstantiated claims. The Financial Times said that the Wealth Migration Reports, published in association with Henley & Partners – a consultancy that markets schemes that sell passports and residency permits to the wealthy – had relied heavily on LinkedIn data to deduce someone's tax residence. Dan Neidle, the founder of the Tax Policy Associates thinktank, said: 'until an independent audit is carried out, the Wealth Migration Report should be treated as marketing material, not evidence.' Dalio, who officially retired from leadership roles at Bridgewater in 2021, said that ultimately, countries needed to move away from polarised politics and seek leadership from 'a strong middle', and prioritise lowering central government deficits to a 'sustainable' level of about 3% of GDP. 'They have to do it equally in spending cuts and taxation. Because no one of those [alone] is possible. And if that is done, then interest rates will come down or not rise,' the hedge fund founder said. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The UK deficit was recorded at 5.7% of GDP at the end of 2024, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which is about four percentage points higher than the average advanced economy and the third highest among 28 advanced European economies. Meanwhile, new figures released on Monday showed that the number of UK business now deemed to be in 'critical' financial distress had jumped to 49,309 in the second quarter of this year, a 8.6% rise compared with the first three months of 2025. The insolvency experts Begbies Traynor said businesses were struggling because of a worrying cocktail of volatile consumer spending, global economic turbulence and rising taxes on business. Julie Palmer, a partner at Begbies Traynor, said that 'with no end in sight to the current economic malaise, I fear the financial burdens companies are enduring at present are simply too high for many not to avoid collapse.'
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Will Rachel Reeves's sums ever add up?
👉Listen to Politics At Sam And Anne's on your podcast app👈 It is arguably the number one issue facing the government - how do they get the economy thriving and growing again. Sam and Anne are joined by Sky News' Economics and Data Editor, Ed Conway, to weigh up the options on the table for Rachel Reeves. Ahead of a crucial budget in the autumn, the trio address: How will the chancellor fill the black hole in the public finances? Are tax changes on the horizon? Will there be more nationalisation? Plus, there is still some time to predict if Rachel Reeves will remain in Number 11 Downing Street, after a tumultuous year in office. Sam and Anne are getting a lie-in over summer recess, but they'll be in your feed with special episodes every Monday before normal services resumes on 1 September.
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26auto%3Dwebp%26quality%3D75%26crop%3D3%3A2%2Csmart%26trim%3D&w=3840&q=100)
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Realising the benefits of investing to achieve long-term goals
Tom Ham | Supplied Tom Ham, Group CEO at Calton, on moves to incentivise Cash ISA savers to go into investment Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Well, the UK Government is rushing to get everything off its desk in a mad scramble to get out the door for the summer holiday. The long-awaited draft legislation on Inheritance Tax changes for pensions and agricultural and business property has been released. Spoiler – neither are going away, so more on the technicalities of these soon. More exciting, however, is the new stuff being lobbed over the transom. There's the Pensions Commission, and a raft of reforms designed to funnel money out of cash savings and into investments. Here's some context to help separate the signal from the noise. The government is looking for growth and to inject capital into the UK markets. Fund flows into London-listed mandates have been declining for months, and new listings in the UK's IPO space have dropped to their lowest level for a half-year since records began in 1995. No-one wants to use the word bleak at midsummer, but this does not signal health or confidence. At the same time, global trends in personal finance show that people are holding a significant proportion of their wealth in cash. Vanguard reports this month that an estimated £1.7 trillion is sitting in cash savings across the OECD; the same report suggested that in the UK there is potentially £242 billion that could be turned towards both the government's and individual citizens' long-term financial goals. Do the markets have a right to people's money? Of course not. But we should ask why and how we might nudge this cash into investment and consider who might benefit. The savings cash-pile has accumulated because of policy, regulation and broad economic patterns on one hand, and financial education and behaviour on the other. Cynics might say the government has just identified a new reservoir of money to tap. Banks and building societies have pointed out that this money isn't inactive, it circulates through their lending activities too. That said, the Treasury has two motives for seeking to turn savers' money towards the market. First, the government – and surely everyone else – wants to reinvigorate the economy, to foster growth and instil confidence, though the jury is out on how much this will move the dial. Second, individuals holding money in cash accounts are not getting the same long-term return they might realise if they invested instead. This is a problem as personal savings, and taking responsibility for maximising them, become increasingly important as public finances deteriorate and defined contribution pensions are now the norm. To be clear, holding assets in cash isn't intrinsically bad – we frequently advise clients to do so. Your emergency fund of three to six months of living expenses needs to be in an easy-access account. As clients approach retirement, we increase the amount they hold in cash – often within pension or other investment wrappers – to protect from market events as they approach drawdown or the purchase of an annuity. At this stage we suggest having 12-18 months of living expenses available – not a small amount of money. But the Cash ISA is a subject of speculation. They are vastly popular because they are useful for short-term saving goals – easy to set up, easy to withdraw from, and a low-risk tax-wrapper shielding profits from Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax. If changes come, they will be to the annual tax-free allowance. Since ISAs arrived in 1999 the allowance for adult account holders has risen from £4,000 per annum to a grand £20,000. This can be shared amongst all members of the ISA family – the Stocks and Shares ISA, the Lifetime ISA and the Finance ISA, each with different rules, risks and rates of return. The most straightforward change to divert savings towards investment would be to reallocate the allowance across other types of ISA, stipulating a certain portion must go to an Investment ISA. However, this is when you slam into the two major barriers to investment – risk and cost. For example, opening a Stocks and Shares ISA involves declaring your awareness of the risk, being comfortable with it, and paying a percentage fee to your ISA provider. While you can make withdrawals from a Stocks and Shares ISA instantly, exposure to market falls means you are more likely to realise expected returns over a longer period – most experts advise a minimum five-year investment, but this is the kind of decision you might wish to seek more reassurance and advice on. So far, the Cash ISA remains untouched; it's now incumbent upon government and the advice profession to make the case for investment to help people with their long-term goals, and to show the benefits rather than be accused of making another cash grab.
