Martin Lewis issues important update on car finance claim
The Money Saving Expert said he expected an update in July after the UK's Supreme Court heard a case at the start of April, which many hope the outcome will determine whether they receive compensation.
Financial providers have been accused of using discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) to increase interest rates on motor finance.
Did you get a car, van, motorbike on finance pre 28 Jan 21? Millions are owed £1,000s due to a NEW hidden commission scandal.
Watch full show at https://t.co/Rg3IsM8atz
Free complaint tool at https://t.co/nivrD7gRYd pic.twitter.com/zd4QhlPAWt — Martin Lewis (@MartinSLewis) February 8, 2024
Around two-and-a-half million people have now put DCA claims in.
Addressing the scandal on his Martin Lewis Money Show on Tuesday (20 May), Mr Lewis said: 'The people in the know are telling me the decision will be in July.'
What is the car finance mis-selling case?
The majority of cars sold in the UK are bought with finance agreements. These loans enable drivers to pay a deposit and then spread the cost of a new vehicle over several years.
It was discovered that car dealers, acting as loan brokers, earned a commission based on the interest rate charged to the buyer for Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) and Hire Purchase agreements. These cover about 40% of all car finance agreements.
Recommended reading:
The higher the interest rate charged to the consumer, the more commission the dealer made.
Car dealers were incentivised to make loan agreements with higher interest rates.
The practice, known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), has left many drivers paying hundreds and even thousands of pounds more for their vehicles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
UK urged to reverse ruling on litigation funding, introduce 'light-touch regulation'
LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Britain should urgently reverse a landmark ruling that threw third-party funding of lawsuits into disarray, an influential advisory body recommended on Monday in a report which was welcomed by funders and industry critics alike. The Civil Justice Council (CJC) also called for "light-touch regulation" of the litigation funding sector, which is currently self-regulated, particularly where funding is provided for class action-style lawsuits or to consumers. Monday's report comes after Britain's funding industry was dealt a surprise blow in 2023, when the UK Supreme Court ruled that agreements used to fund many mass lawsuits were unenforceable as they did not comply with rules on so-called damages-based agreements. The CJC said the government should pass legislation to overturn the Supreme Court's decision "as soon as possible", citing the importance of funding for access to justice. Britain's previous government, which asked the CJC to review the sector, said last year it would reverse the Supreme Court decision, before the current government put legislation on hold pending the CJC's report. The Ministry of Justice said in a statement that it welcomed the report and would "outline next steps in due course." The CJC – which advises the government and judiciary on the civil justice system – called for some regulation, including requirements for funders to have adequate capital and provisions to prevent conflicts of interest. It also recommended that class action-style cases need court approval of funding agreements, to allow the court to consider whether the funder's return is fair, just and reasonable. The report rejected, however, the introduction of caps on funders' returns, which the CJC said could not properly take account of the risks of funding cases and was unnecessary for consumer protection if courts had to approve funding deals. Neil Purslow – chair of industry body the International Legal Finance Association, who also founded litigation funder Therium – welcomed the CJC's recommendation to legislate to reverse the Supreme Court ruling. Seema Kennedy, executive director of Fair Civil Justice, which has called for greater regulation of litigation funding, said the CJC's call to regulate the industry was "long overdue". She said: "Proper oversight is essential to protect consumers, ensure transparency, and restore public confidence in a sector that currently operates without sufficient safeguards." Litigation funding is increasingly used in Britain, with the CJC citing figures that funders in England and Wales had assets of 2.2 billion pounds ($3 billion) in 2021. English courts have repeatedly recognised the need for funding to bring mass lawsuits, where the case's total value is often in the billions but payouts to individual consumers can be as low as double figures. The CJC report comes after court approval of a 200 million-pound settlement in a case against Mastercard, despite the opposition of funder Innsworth, which stands to receive around 68 million pounds.
Leader Live
7 hours ago
- Leader Live
Martin Lewis: How to cut council tax bills and get a rebate
On X, he said: "Moving or just moved house? One of the most important things you should do is check whether you're in the right council tax band. You only have six months to make a formal challenge, after that its much trickier. "(Renters can do this too, though courtesy would indicate you notify the landlord)." On his Money Saving Expert website, he posted: "Hundreds of thousands of homes across England and Scotland are thought to be in the wrong Council Tax band. This means it's important to check your property's in the right band – something our tried-and-tested system can help you do. Some homeowners and renters have unknowingly been overpaying Council Tax for many years, even decades, because their bands are too high, so payouts worth £1,000s are commonplace." Moving or just moved house? One of the most important things you should do is check whether you're in the right council tax band. You only have six months to make a formal challenge, after that its much trickier. Full help here... (Renters can do this… He then talks readers through the whole process of how to check and challenge their council tax bands, with the different English and Scottish rules. Millions of households have seen a jump in their annual council tax bills from April 1 with most local authorities in England increasing a typical band D bill by 5% – an increase of £109 to £2,280 from the 2024-25 figure of £2,171 – although some local councils have permission to impose hikes of up to 10%. Bills in Wales rose by around 4.5% to 9.5% and in Scotland the jump was least 8% – though this is the first increase in two years following a freeze in 2024-25. Find out the council tax band for a home in England or Wales by looking up its address or postcode on the site. For homes in Scotland, search on the Scottish Assessors website. You can also use this service to challenge your council tax band if you think it's wrong. You'll need to provide evidence for your challenge. The amount of council tax you pay is set by the value of your home, with the average value home being placed in Band D. If you think your property is in the wrong band it might be worth requesting a revaluation, however, be aware there is a risk it could be placed into a higher band rather than a lower one. It is also worth speaking to the council about what support is available for those who are struggling or on lower incomes. Recommended reading Martin Lewis on the 'staggering' £70 Mastercard payout Martin Lewis asks for help to stop AI scam that costs viewer thousands The free 'small bag' that's 50 per cent larger than regulations, but Ryanair allows it See below the full list of medical conditions exempt from paying council tax. The following conditions are classed as Severe Mental Impairments: Although the above is a list of conditions that are classed as part of SMI, a person will need a doctor's diagnosis to be able to apply for the council tax discount.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to review GEO Group's loss in immigrant detainee forced labor case
June 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if GEO Group can quickly appeal a judge's ruling denying the private prison operator governmental immunity in a class action claiming immigrant detainees were forced to work and paid $1 a day. The justices will consider, opens new tab whether the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct that it could not immediately hear GEO's appeal of that ruling because it was incremental and merely allowed the 2014 lawsuit to proceed. The issue is technical, but a Supreme Court ruling in favor of GEO could be an important victory for other federal contractors who are sued in connection with government contracts and raise immunity as a defense. The lawsuit in Colorado federal court accuses GEO of engaging in labor trafficking by threatening detainees at an Aurora, Colorado, facility with solitary confinement if they refused to participate in a work program. GEO operates more than a dozen federal civil immigrant detention centers across the country and has faced at least two lawsuits over a work program at a Washington facility. The company in its petition said the appeal issue has divided federal appeals courts and created uncertainty for federal contractors. The government is generally immune from legal liability arising from its performance of typical governmental functions, and that can extend to contractors in some situations. "The alternative is a legal backdoor through which activists can undermine policies with which they disagree by targeting contractors with lawsuits they could never bring against the government," the company said in its petition. Florida-based GEO and lawyers for the former detainees who filed the lawsuit did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GEO has said that work programs at its facilities are voluntary and that federal regulations permitted the company to pay detainees as little as $1 a day to cook, clean, perform repairs, and staff a barber shop and library. The plaintiffs in a brief, opens new tab urging the Supreme Court not to take the case said the immunity issue overlaps with the merits of their claims against GEO, which should first be reviewed by the lower court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January upheld rulings in separate cases requiring GEO to pay more than $23 million to the state of Washington and hundreds of immigrant detainees in the state for failing to pay the minimum wage to detainees who worked. The court rejected GEO's claim that it was entitled to immunity, saying the government did not dictate the wages GEO must pay to detainees or require it to operate the work program. The case is GEO Group v. Menocal, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24-758. For GEO: Dominic Draye of Greenberg Traurig For the plaintiffs: Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler Read more: GEO Group can't nix $23 mln verdict over immigrant detainee pay GEO Group must pay minimum wage to immigrant detainees, court rules GEO Group wins legal challenge to California ban on private immigrant prisons
