Martin Lewis urges people to put car finance claim in before ruling due in July
Any compensation payout will be made automatically, but the consumer champion urged people to 'get ahead of the queue'.
The Martin Lewis Money Show Live returned to TV screens on Tuesday for an hour-long summer special where the consumer champion shared an update for millions of people waiting to hear if they are due a compensation payout of around £1,100 for hidden Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs).
The consumer champion told STV viewers how the Supreme Court is deliberating over an appeal it heard in April and an outcome is likely around July. He was asked if it was still worthwhile putting in a claim as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has previously said any compensation would be automatic.
But the financial guru advised it was a good idea to make a climax now so that all the administrative work is in place before any ruling is announced, though he also said it was fine to wait until the decision is made. He did, however, urge people to use a free online claims service - there's one on MoneySavingExpert.com here.
Lisa contacted the programme and asked: 'It would be great to get an update on car finance, I believe I could be eligible due to having cars on DCAs but never got round to putting my claim in. I have now read that if you are due any payout, you will be contacted and repaid automatically, without filling anything in. Is this right?'
Martin responded: 'Yes, basically around 2.5 million people have put DCA claims in. Discretionary Commission Arrangements, that's effectively where car dealers charge higher interest than they needed to and they got more commission for doing so and the regulator (FCA) is investigating that.
'The most important thing to understand is car finance claims are currently on hold because the Supreme Court is looking at a case right now, it's already heard evidence on it and we're waiting for a decision, now no-one knows when that will come - we just don't know.'
However, Martin added that the 'people in the know are telling me they're hoping it will be July, so I'm going to say July-ish is the probably rough time span'.
But he also advised that until then 'nothing else happens'.
Martin went on to explain how the FCA has said that if they are going to be payouts, nobody will need to claim them as they would be issued automatically.
However, he added: 'I would still suggest if you want to get ahead of the queue and make sure all the admin is done right and they have all your details and they're all up-to-date. I would still probably just go and put your claim in now, but only use a free service.
'But you don't have to, if you just want to wait, if you are eligible you should be paid out - if the Supreme Court rules saying that car finance and the way it was done should be paid out.'
Martin has previously estimated that compensation of around £1,100 could be due on around 40 per cent of all car finance deals made between April 2007 and January 28, 2021.
That means anyone who took out finance with the 'hidden DCA charge' to purchase a van, campervan or motorcycle during that period, may be entitled to a refund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump's mass firings of federal workers must remain on hold, court rules
A federal appeals court ruled on Friday night that President Donald Trump 's orders for mass removals of federal staff and several agencies will remain on hold. The Trump administration had requested that the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals freeze an earlier order from a lower court that put a stop to the mass firings at several agencies, CNN noted. The new court order is a significant step back for the president and his attempt to radically reduce the size of the federal government. The widespread firings, known as reductions in force (RIFs), have remained on hold since May 9, following the earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston stating that Trump needed congressional authorization for such a wholesale makeover of the federal government. The three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit stated in a two-to-one ruling that Trump's executive order in question 'far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' The majority found that the challengers could succeed on the merits of their arguments that the mass firings were illegal, and argued that the administration didn't manage to meet the other factors that would have prompted an emergency appellate intervention. The president had previously requested that the Supreme Court take on the case. That request didn't go anywhere initially. It's likely, however, that the issue will end up before the top court in the land once more. The case was put forward by unions representing federal employees, outside groups, and local governments. They challenged the executive order Trump signed in February, which called for a widespread restructuring of the government, along with directives from the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget to enact the president's policy. The offices asked that agencies send in plans for how they would implement Trump's order to slash the workforce. The challengers argued that both OPM and OMB were making the final decisions on the size of the firings for each agency. They put forward evidence that proposals for less radical cuts were being shot down, making the firings illegal. The lawsuit also took aim at the involvement of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The agencies covered by the previous ruling by Illston, halting the firings, include almost every cabinet department, such as the departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, Interior, State, Labor, and Treasury. The 9th Circuit said on Friday that Congress, not the president, gave agencies the power to enact widespread firings. Bill Clinton appointee, Senior Circuit Judge William Fletcher, said in the majority ruling that the 'kind of reorganization contemplated by the Order has long been subject to Congressional approval.' Fletcher was joined in the majority by a Joe Biden appointee, Circuit Judge Lucy Koh. Dissenting from the ruling was George W. Bush appointee Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan, who wrote that 'the President has the right to direct agencies, and OMB and OPM to guide them, to exercise their statutory authority to lawfully conduct RIFs.' 'We are gratified by the court's decision today to allow the pause of these harmful actions to endure while our case proceeds,' the groups challenging the president's orders said in a statement, CNN noted.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
Tariff strike-down widens the US omni-crisis
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The Trump administration's norm-bending ranges from the dismantling of the global trade system to defiance of the co-equal legal apparatus of the U.S. government. An international trade court ruling on Wednesday striking down sweeping tariffs imposed on trading partners threatens to combine these crises. The White House poses levies as a fix for various ills central to its agenda, making this setback critical. The range of possible outcomes now widens significantly, depending in turn on whether legal appeals succeed, how the president responds to them, or if legislators step in. Investors and firms just getting to grips with recent chaos must contend with a new bout of unpredictability. For now, the trade court's ruling, opens new tab leaves the administration 10 days to stop collecting most tariffs imposed thus far, including a 10% global retaliatory duty and separate 'national security' levies imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. President Trump still retains significant power to ratchet fees back up, and existing tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are unaffected. The ruling also lays out that a 1974 trade law enables temporary levies of up to 15% for up to 150 days. The administration appealed on Wednesday evening, and the urgency of the matter probably ensures speedy proceedings - after all, the first hearing in this case was just two weeks ago. The Supreme Court, the nation's top legal body, has shown the White House some deference in the past, particularly over the conduct of foreign policy. However, President Trump's response to a case over a wrongfully deported man shows that consequences can continue after pushback. Regular attacks on federal judges set a worrying precedent. It's one that's difficult for investors to price. Stock markets brutalized by Trump's initial tariff barrage had recovered after a series of climbdowns. A trade deal struck with the UK offered at least a hazy blueprint for ending the whipsaw of changeable whims, even if further agreements will be harder. And revenue from levies, reaching an all-time high of $16 billion in April, was one of few sops to concerns about bulging deficits as bond markets squirm over the rest of the president's agenda. All of this is in the air. Negotiators in Europe and elsewhere, for the moment, face a muddled counterparty. Ad hoc attempts to rebuild tariffs will take time and invite a frenzied round of lobbying. Of course, Congress could resolve the legal issue by reasserting its trade authority. The powers Trump enjoys have been delegated to him and could be revoked. Legislation, opens new tab instituting a 60-day review process for new tariffs has budding Republican support in the Senate, where seven members of the president's party have signed on. In the battle between the judicial and executive branches, the best outcome would be for the legislature to break the tie. Follow @Rubinations, opens new tab on X
NBC News
7 hours ago
- NBC News
What's next as Trump vents fury at Vladimir Putin: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Elon Musk and Donald Trump bid farewell from the Oval Office on live TV. Meanwhile, Kristen Welker digs into Trump's latest social media salvos at Vladimir Putin and what they could mean for the Russia-Ukraine war. And senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley answers a reader question about a notable provision tucked into the House budget bill that passed recently. — Scott Bland Elon Musk's missed opportunity By Jonathan Allen Elon Musk stood next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday, but the physical proximity belied a growing philosophical divide between two of the world's most powerful men, resulting in the tech mogul's abrupt announcement that he is departing Washington — without having achieved his goal of decimating the federal government. 'He came, he saw, he folded,' Steve Bannon, a senior White House adviser during Trump's first term who is influential with the working-class wing of Trump's MAGA base, said in a text exchange with NBC News. Musk, who stood with his arms folded across his chest as he and Trump took questions, sported a bruise near his right eye — an unmistakable metaphor for his tumultuous government service — that he said was incurred while playing with his 5-year-old son X. Trump took a more charitable view of Musk's tenure during a sprawling news conference in which he also declined to rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs, who is standing trial on charges of sex trafficking and other alleged crimes; said he dislikes 'the concept' of former first lady Jill Biden being forced to testify before Congress about her husband's mental fitness; and predicted again that Iran is on the cusp of making a deal that would suspend its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 'He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame because he's an incredible patriot,' Trump said of Musk. Trump and Musk both contended that DOGE will continue to wring out savings by rooting out waste and fraud without Musk as its face. 'This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,' Musk said, vowing to reach the trillion-dollar mark in cuts by the middle of next year. At the same time he spoke of cutting government spending, Musk lauded Trump's remodeling of the Oval Office. 'I love the gold on the ceiling,' he said. Musk has argued that inertia throttled his efforts to reduce government spending — a conclusion that raises questions about whether he was naive about the challenge of the mission he undertook. 'The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,' he told The Washington Post this week. 'I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.' The next steps as Trump vents fury at Putin By Kristen Welker President Donald Trump has ramped up the rhetoric attacking Russian President Vladimir Putin, but so far there's no teeth behind it. After months of cutting Putin slack on the world stage and clashing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump has undergone a stark rhetorical shift in recent days. He's taken to social media to blast Putin for having gone ' absolutely crazy ' and for 'needlessly killing a lot of people' including Ukrainian citizens 'for no reason whatsoever.' He has warned that 'what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!' Trump appears to now be warming to the belief many Western leaders have held for years — that Putin isn't seriously pushing for peace, outside of total Russian victory. In recent weeks, we've seen some of the biggest bombardments of the entire war, including a massive drone attack in Kyiv that came in the shadow of a prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine. None of this means Trump is buddy-buddy with Zelenskyy now, and he criticized the Ukrainian as 'stubborn' during Friday remarks in the Oval Office, even as he underscored his disappointment with Putin. Meanwhile, the issue of sanctioning Russia and sending aid to Ukraine obviously splits the GOP, and it doesn't necessarily sit well with the 'America First' wing of the GOP that Trump commands. But if Trump wants to act, as former Vice President Mike Pence told me he recommended during our conversation earlier this month, he has arrows in his quiver. Earlier this week on 'Meet the Press Now,' former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told us that the only way to convince Putin to come to the negotiating table is to convince him he can't advance on the battlefield. While one might think the West is tapped out when it comes to sanctions, McFaul said there's a lot more on the table, including seizing more assets or banning Russia's 'shadow fleet' that ships oil from docking at Western ports. And just a few days ago, Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, an elder statesman in the Senate, called on Trump to be as 'decisive' in new sanctions against Russia as he's been in his push against Harvard University. So if Putin has run out of leash with Trump, then what's the president waiting for? Join us Sunday when we talk about this and a flurry of other important domestic and international issues with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock. ✉️ Mailbag: Congress and the courts Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on an under-the-radar provision in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill.' 'I heard that the bill contains language that takes away a judge's authority to hold someone in contempt when they don't comply with the court's orders. Is that true? I've seen a lot about the financial implications but nothing on this.' To answer this, we turned to senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. Here's his response: The House bill does indeed include a provision that would limit the ability of federal judges to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. (Read it here.) The Republican-backed measure comes amid considerable pushback on the right against a number of judges who have not only blocked Trump administration policies but have also questioned whether the administration is complying with rulings and at least considered contempt proceedings. The provision in question would seek to limit the ability of judges to pursue contempt findings by withholding federal funds that could be used to enforce such a ruling unless the plaintiff posted a bond when seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. But there is no guarantee the Senate will include the language in its version of the bill, in part because it may fall foul of rules intended to ensure budget bill provisions have a direct link to federal revenues.
