What car finance ruling means for YOU - and why you could still get compensation
The Supreme Court has partially overturned a landmark ruling on car finance commissions. The move will have huge implications for banks that may have faced tens of billions of pounds in compensation payouts.
However, experts are poring over the ruling to assess what it means for the up to 23 million drivers who were expecting a payout.
The Treasury said: 'We respect this judgment from the Supreme Court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers.
'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.'
Like all these things, the ruling was far from straightforward and is still being pored over in detail. But essentially the judges largely sided with the finance firms in the case, with all other banks breathing a sigh of relief because of what it could have meant for them too.
It centred on commissions that were paid by finance firms to dealers when selling, in these cases, second hand cars. As the ruling said, there was 'either no disclosure to the customer of the existence of the commission or partial disclosure to the effect that a commission (of unspecified amount) might be paid'. The three customers involved claimed that the commissions amounted to 'bribes', or to 'secret profits' received by the dealers.
Essentially, the Supreme Court was looking at whether hidden commission payments to dealers - even when the interest rate on the finance deal was set in advance - were unlawful. It could have seen compensation paid to almost all people who had bought a car on finance. Some estimates had put the potential bill at up to £45billion.
However, in one of the cases the court did decide the level of commission was unfair, with all the interest to be paid back.
So is that the end of it?
Yes, and no. It reduces the number of people who could have potentially received compensation, and lowers the possible bill to banks and finance houses. But there is a separate - though linked - issue around how some dealers were paid bigger rewards if buyers were charged higher interest rates. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021.
Around 40% of all car finance deals arranged between 2007 and 2021 had this discretionary - rather than fixed - element to them. It is these cases that first led to concerns by regulators and which will now be of focus.
What happens next?
The Financial Conduct Authority launched an investigation into discretionary commission arrangements early last year. It had put the matter on ice until the outcome of the Supreme Court cases. It has acted swiftly by announcing it will confirm over the weekend if it will launch a scheme for victims of car finance mis-selling to get compensation. Whether there will be such a redress scheme and how it will work will be part of any consultation that takes place.
How might it work, and what might I get back?
These are key questions for any consultation, if such a scheme is announced. One option is for banks to go back through their records to assess which customers were affected, although this industry-led approach may well be seen as flawed. Another is almost like the PPI scandal, where firms would be forced to pay out to anyone where the discretionary commission applied.
There is a good chance it will be automatic - and free - which is why people are being warned about using claims management firms that may end up taking a big chunk of any payout.
Then there is the question of how much the compensation would be. It could that customers receive back the same amount as the dealer got in commission. Alternatively, it could be that the interest rate charged is compared with what it would have been had the commission not applied. The customer could then receive the over-payment, in other words the additional interest that was charged. Or it could be all the interest is paid back.
Consumer champion Martin Lewis, founder of Moneysavingexpert.com, estimated the level of refunds could now be anything from £5billion to £15billion, but 'rather than the up to £45billion if the Supreme Court had upheld all of it.'
He added: "My biggest message is while we wait is, don't do anything. Don't sign up to a claims form. You don't need to do anything right now. Take you hands, sit on them."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money - it may end up doing the opposite
What do we do about the non-doms? It's a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately. It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes. Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes. Then that all changed. Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: "I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025." The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings. If the numbers don't add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm. With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride. So, how worried should she be? The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy. However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave. While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers. Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater. Property sales Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London's most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average. Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers. This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans. "Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months," she said. "But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant. "It's not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It's also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they're not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they're not coming." Lack of options for non-doms But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live. This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn't live in those countries where they earned their foreign income. In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference. In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative. 3:06 The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets. Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained - and then arrived - were intent on staying in the UK. So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily. Have Labour crossed a red line? Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour. The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line. 1:57 Mr Adam said: "The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax. "So it's not then surprising that they didn't up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we've seen announced now, but it also means we don't have very much idea about how big a response to expect."
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Why Rachel Reeves may want to rethink one of her pivotal policies
What do we do about the non-doms? It's a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately. It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes. Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes. Then that all changed. Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: "I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025." The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings. If the numbers don't add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm. With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride. So, how worried should she be? The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy. However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave. While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers. Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater. Property sales Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London's most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average. Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers. This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans. "Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months," she said. "But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant. "It's not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It's also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they're not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they're not coming." Lack of options for non-doms But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live. This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn't live in those countries where they earned their foreign income. In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference. In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative. 3:06 The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets. Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained - and then arrived - were intent on staying in the UK. So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily. Have Labour crossed a red line? Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour. The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line. 1:57 Mr Adam said: "The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax. "So it's not then surprising that they didn't up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we've seen announced now, but it also means we don't have very much idea about how big a response to expect." With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves ‘vastly underestimated' scale of private school parents' VAT rebellion
Rachel Reeves 'massively underestimated' the scale of parents paying private school fees upfront to avoid VAT, internal Treasury forecasts suggest. Experts who reviewed documents obtained by The Telegraph said that Whitehall was not expecting the hundreds of millions of pounds of school fees that were paid in advance last year, ahead of the tax raid coming into force on Jan 1 2025. A total of £515m flooded into the advance fee schemes of the top 50 independent schools alone, allowing parents to avoid paying the 20 per cent levy imposed by ministers. This money is used to pay school costs one or more years before they fall due. Internal Treasury forecasts obtained by The Telegraph suggest this vastly eclipsed government predictions. Ms Reeves, the Chancellor, announced last year that all fee prepayments from July 29 would be subject to VAT, as the Government tried to clamp down on the potential tax loophole. Treasury calculations shared with ministers last summer show they expected to raise £90m in VAT from fees in advance schemes made beyond that date. This would equate to tax on around £450m in upfront school fees after July 29 last year, since VAT is charged at 20 per cent. The documents obtained by The Telegraph reveal that the Government also considered trying to capture fee prepayments made from May 22 2024 – the date Rishi Sunak called a general election – but ultimately rejected this option. The internal Treasury advice said it expected doing so would raise an additional £30m in VAT, bringing the total forecast for money raised by charging the 20 per cent levy on fee prepayments to £120m. This would equate to parents handing over around £600m in fee prepayments across all 2,600 private schools in the UK. However, private schools' annual accounts suggest the total is likely to be significantly higher. Eton College alone received as much as £52.7m in upfront fees from parents ahead of the July 29 deadline. This would have handed the Treasury an extra £10.5m in VAT if the tax were applied to Eton's prepaid fees alone. Treasury officials said in the documents: 'As demonstrated by the small differences in the costings, not legislating back to an earlier date in time does not mean that we expect to lose significant amounts of revenue.' They added that it would be 'difficult to justify' trying to retrospectively tax fee prepayments 'given the legislation would be giving effect to the policy before the details… were known'. Tom Clougherty, executive director at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: 'It does appear that the Government massively underestimated the behavioural effect of introducing VAT on private school fees. 'Prepayment has clearly been far more significant than the Treasury anticipated when preparing the policy, but I suspect that is just one part of a wider picture. More children have been withdrawn from the independent sector, and more schools have closed, too.' Mairéad Warren de Búrca, managing director at Alvarez and Marsal Tax, said: 'I think they've just done what a lot of people have done, which is underestimate how much cash is available and also the lengths to which parents would go to to fund private education in the most cost-effective way possible.' The internal Government communications obtained by The Telegraph do not include forecasts about the potential use of prepayment schemes prior to May 2024. They instead show the Treasury drew up its own internal forecasts for expected revenue gain from both VAT and prepayment schemes, and that these were later analysed by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The documents reveal Treasury officials defended targeting parents who paid fees upfront, saying: 'It is unfair that those who are financially able to pre-pay should benefit over those who cannot.' A Whitehall source said the Government had always predicted a huge rise in the use of fees in advance schemes by the richest parents trying to avoid VAT, and that ministers were confident they could recoup most of the money. HMRC has said it will now 'carefully scrutinise' prepayments amid concerns that some schools may have abused the financial mechanisms to avoid VAT. The Government is expected to target schools that set up fees in advance schemes in a hurry ahead of the VAT start date, or those that used them more like 'deposits'. For prepayments to be treated as genuine, they must contractually apply to a specific service at a specific price – rather than a vague lump sum to be sorted out at a future date. It is expected to spark lengthy legal battles between both HMRC and private schools, and potentially between parents and private schools over who is liable for unpaid VAT. Tax experts said it could lead to parents suddenly being told they are on the hook for tens of thousands of pounds in tax several years down the line. A government spokesman said: 'The Office for Budget Responsibility has already factored in the increased use of pre-payment schemes in its revenue forecasts. 'Removing tax breaks for private schools is expected to raise £1.8bn a year by 2029-30. 'This funding will help us recruit 6,500 new teachers and improve standards in state schools, which educate 94 per cent of children.'
