Explainer-Is Britain on the cusp of another multibillion-pound consumer finance scandal?
LONDON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will on Tuesday hear arguments to overturn a judgment that could cost Britain's financial industry billions of pounds in fresh legal costs and potential customer compensation.
The Court of Appeal ruled in October that it was unlawful for lenders to pay commissions to motor dealers without a customer's informed consent, triggering speculation about the nature and scale of possible remedies for affected borrowers.
Lloyds Banking Group, Close Brothers and Santander UK have together already set aside more than 1.5 billion pounds ($1.9 billion) to cover potential compensation claims.
Some analysts say the fallout could be the costliest for banks since they paid almost 40 billion pounds in compensation to customers for mis-selling payment protection insurance.
WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDER?
Reviewing three earlier claims - two against South African lender FirstRand and one against Britain's Close Brothers - the Supreme Court will decide the extent of car dealers' legal responsibility to provide appropriate information to consumers when also acting as credit brokers.
Assuming a duty of care is owed, the court is also expected to rule whether commissions paid by lenders to car dealers were "secret" or insufficiently disclosed, and whether lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers' breach of duty.
If lenders are considered liable, and the relationship between lender and consumer is considered "unfair" under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the court will decide what kind of remedy errant lenders have to make.
The Supreme Court's judgment is expected in the summer.
WHO MIGHT BE IMPACTED?
The Financial Conduct Authority banned the payment of discretionary motor finance commissions in 2021, eliminating incentives for brokers to hike the interest rate customers pay on their motor finance loans.
But some customers say they were treated unfairly before the ban came into effect, prompting the FCA to launch a probe in January 2024 into historic potential misconduct.
If the Supreme Court rules lenders and brokers should have been more transparent about commissions, the regulator has said it will consult on the structure of a compensation scheme within six weeks.
More than 2 million people a year rely on the motor finance market to buy a car, FCA data shows.
HOW MUCH COULD BANKS HAVE TO PAY?
Only a handful of UK lenders have motor finance businesses large enough to be materially concerned about the ruling.
These include Lloyds, Close Brothers and Santander UK, which have already made provisions of 1.15 billion pounds, 295 million pounds and 165 million pounds respectively.
But analysts say other types of commissions paid by banks to credit brokers could face scrutiny if the court decides customers must consent to such payments.
Total 'worst case' industry costs could reach 30 billion pounds, ratings agency Moody's said in November.
RBC Capital has estimated a 'base case' impact on banks and non-banks of almost 18 billion pounds.
WHAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION?
The outcome of another legal dispute, Expert Tooling vs. Engie Power on March 21, could have a bearing on the motor finance ruling.
That case involved Engie supplying electricity to Expert Tooling via an energy broker. The Court of Appeal found that the commission paid to the broker should have been disclosed. However, it did not find Engie an accessory to the broker's breach of duty due to the lack of evidence of dishonesty.
Some lawyers say lenders will likely escape significant financial liabilities unless claimants can prove commission payments were concealed or hidden dishonestly.
Others are not so sure, citing key differences between the cases, including that the claimant in Expert Tooling vs Engie was a business, not a consumer.
WHAT NEXT FOR THE BANKING INDUSTRY?
Several major British banks have signalled an interest in recent months in mergers and acquisitions, but worries about a damaging consumer finance scandal have cast a pall over dealmaking.
Clarity over the ruling and any compensation scheme could unlock cash set aside to cover legal expenses and revive M&A activity, analysts and bankers say.
($1 = 0.7738 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
40 minutes ago
- Engadget
The Supreme Court lets Mississippi's social media age-verification law go into effect
The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice. The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court's precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand. "Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay." There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites , while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors. Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court upholds Mississippi social media age requirement law
A banner advertising Snap hangs from the facade of the New York Stock Exchange as Snap's initial public offering debuts in New York City in 2017. The Supreme Court Thursday refused to overturn a Mississippi law requiring age verification for social media users. File Photo by Monika Graff/UPI | License Photo Aug. 14 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to block a law requiring social media users to verify their ages before using popular sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. The high court's ruling stems from a Mississippi lower court ruling that would require people to be a certain age to use popular social media sites. Some social media site operators have argued that the Mississippi law, and efforts by other states to require age verification, violates the First Amendment clause that guarantees free speech. Weeks ago, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users visiting sites that contain sexually explicit content. In that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas said the Texas law did not violate the First Amendment because, he expressed, it is important to protect "children from sexually explicit material." Through a spokesperson, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch said the state is "grateful for the Court's decision to leave Mississippi's law in effect while the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues." NetChoice, a company representing Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and YouTube, among others, called on the Supreme Court to intervene after the Mississippi state court said the law requiring age verification could stand while its constitutionality was being considered. The Mississippi law requires users under 18 to verify their age, and mandates minors receive parental consent prior to accessing social media sites. The law's authors said it is designed to buffer the growing influence of social media on younger users.
NBC News
5 hours ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows Mississippi social media law requiring age verification for children
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block a new Mississippi law that imposes age verification and parental consent restrictions on social media platforms. In a brief order with no dissents, the court rejected an emergency request filed by industry group NetChoice on behalf of nine of its members, including Facebook, X and YouTube. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that NetChoice had, in his view, "demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits" when the case reaches a final conclusion but had not shown the need to block the law at an early stage of the litigation. The law, enacted last year, requires all users under 18 to verify their age and for minors to obtain parental consent to access social media sites. It is aimed at addressing growing concerns about the negative impact of social media on young people. NetChoice argued in court papers that the restrictions violate free speech protections under the Constitution's First Amendment. The group represented six additional platforms in the case: Dreamwidth, Instagram, Nextdoor, Pinterest, Reddit and Snapchat. Other states, including California, Georgia and Florida, have passed similar laws in recent years and were also challenged, but the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in. On a related issue, the court in June upheld a Texas law seeking to restrict young people's access to pornographic content online. The Mississippi law also required social media companies to make "reasonable efforts" to ensure minors are not exposed to harmful content. Companies could be hit with $10,000 penalties for violating the law. NetChoice's lawyers said in court papers that the provisions force companies to effectively censor speech because some users, whether because they are unwilling to verify their age or cannot get parental approval, will not be able to engage in otherwise protected speech. Mississippi is seeking to "fundamentally alter how its citizens can access fully protected online speech," the lawyers wrote. Defending the measure, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote in her own brief that it 'imposes modest duties on interactive online platforms that are especially attractive to predators.' A federal judge had twice ruled the law was likely unconstitutional, but the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 17 said in a brief order that it could go into effect in full.
