2.8 million Brits already seeking payouts from car finance scandal - are you owed cash?
This year motorists across the country could be in for a major windfall, with thousands of pounds potentially owed to them due to a car finance mis-selling scandal that's drawing comparisons to the infamous Payment Protection Insurance fiasco.
Many drivers have been left out of pocket for years. What's more, many of them don't even realise that they're owed cash. As a court case connected to the scandal nears its end, companies such as My Claim Group (MCG) can help you find out if you can claim.
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Find out if you are owed £1,000s
without spending a penny
You can start a claim with My Claim Group to find out if you are due a big payout. It's easy and takes just minutes to complete.
My Claim Group
Click here to find out if you're owed money
At the heart of the scandal were undisclosed "secret" commissions paid by lenders to car dealerships, which have led customers to unwittingly sign up for finance agreements with jacked-up interest rates.
The full scale of the scandal has only recently emerged, with a significant UK Supreme Court judgement expected later in 2025. This decision will determine the extent of the repayments car finance lenders will need to make to their customers.
Find out if you're owed thousands of pounds today
Can I claim back cash?
If you purchased a vehicle through Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) or Hire Purchase (HP) before 28 January 2021, you might be entitled to claim back thousands. My Claim Group is on hand to assist those affected, or who suspect they might be, in reclaiming their cash. You can check how much you could be owed via My Claim Group.
The company suggests that as many as 40% of HP and PCP deals from 2007 to 2021 may have involved these covert commissions, indicating that you may have overpaid and could now be eligible for compensation. MCG has already supported vehicle owners in lodging claims that could average around £4,000 each, with 1.2 million claims processed so far.
What's the story behind the scandal?
Prior to the regulatory shake-up in 2021, a significant number of car finance deals were built on "discretionary commission arrangements." These setups allowed car dealers the freedom to dictate the interest rates of their offered finance deals.
The juicier the interest rate, the fatter the commission pocketed by the dealer. This arrangement led to an undeniable conflict of interest. Dealers were economically encouraged to flog loans at inflated interest rates to unsuspecting customers, chasing a plumper payday, regardless of whether such deals were the best fit for the consumer.
This often went down without the customer being any the wiser to the commission model steering their terms. Consequently, many consumers were saddled with pricier loans than necessary, oblivious to the fact that their loan terms were skewed by the dealer's eagerness to swell their own profits.
When did the dodgy dealings end?
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) introduced a ban on discretionary commission models in January 2021. This move was intended to hike up transparency and offer greater protection to consumers. It emerged that these questionable lending practices had been going on since as early as 2007, leading to a sweeping probe into the history of the lenders' methods.
A pivotal moment occurred in October 2024 when the Court of Appeal declared that the non-disclosure of commissions on car loans was illegal. This ruling broadened the scope for mis-selling claims, establishing a precedent that any hidden commission arrangements could now be a valid ground for consumer compensation.
This judgement triggered a wave of complaints, with the Financial Ombudsman Service recording an all-time high of 18,658 new car finance cases in the last quarter of 2024.
What's the current situation?
The scandal led to government intervention. In January 2025, UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves stepped in to intervene in the Supreme Court case to shield lenders from potential multibillion-pound payouts, voicing concerns about the wider economic implications and the possible impact on consumers' access to car loans.
At the same time, claims management firms like My Claim Group are urging consumers to lodge complaints. The Supreme Court is currently examining a crucial appeal by car loan providers, following earlier judgements that sided with consumers. The FCA has put a temporary halt on the complaints process until the court's verdict, expected later this year.
The result of this appeal will play a significant role in determining lenders' liability.
What can I do?
If you suspect you've been affected by the scandal, head over to the My Claim Group website for more information and start the simple process to find out if you're due a refund.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Major driving laws and licences overhaul planned - what it means for you
Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones said the road safety proposals, set to be published in the autumn, will be the 'biggest shake-up to our driving laws for decades' A major overhaul of road safety laws could see the drink-driving limit slashed and older motorists forced to take mandatory eye tests. Justice Minister Alex Davies-Jones said the proposals, set to be published in the autumn, will be the "biggest shake-up to our driving laws for decades". Under the proposals, motorists could also get points on their licence for not wearing a seatbelt or tougher punishments for driving without insurance, while over 70s could be banned from driving if they fail compulsory eye tests. Concern about the number of people being killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads has been rising. It comes after thousands of Brits to get shock letter from HMRC after drastic new tax rule comes into force. Bereaved daughter Claire Eady who lost her 79-year-old mum in a car crash after she pulled out into oncoming traffic last year said the changes would save lives. Tragically, she said she believes her mum would still be here today if mandatory tests were forced on people. 'My mum's been killed in a car crash, and it was just something that you never think they're going to say,' she told the BBC. "I don't think my mum ever would have thought she needed to stop driving because there were too many things that depended on her being out in a car.' Under the shake-up over 70s could be forced to take an eye-test every three years to renew their licence and a driving ban for those who fail. The UK is one of only three European countries to rely on self-reporting of eyesight problems that affect driving. An inquest into four deaths caused by drivers with failing eyesight saw a coroner call the UK's licensing system the "laxest in Europe" earlier this year. Ministers are also considering cutting the drink driving limit in England and Wales to match Scotland - a cut from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath to 22 micrograms. The government says it's impossible to say exactly how many drinks this is equal to as alcohol impacts people depending on factors such as weight, sex, and age. A maximum legal drink drive limit was first introduced in 1967. Police could also be allowed to rely on saliva tests instead of blood tests to check for drug-driving to make it easier to bring prosecutions under the plans. Former semi-pro footballer Shaun Whiter is among those who have campaigned against dangerous driving after a drunk motorist drove into him and crushed his legs, which were later amputated. I was very emotional during the month I spent in hospital," he told the BBC last year. "At my lowest point, I kept thinking, 'Why did it happen, why me, what am I going to do with my life now?'' But Mr Whiter, who lives in Hertford and is in his 30s, now raises awareness of road safety, from drink-driving to people being distracted on their phones. He often gives talks to young sports professionals. 'Some of them are still learning to drive, and I just want to protect them,' he said. 'If I can just put that thought in their head about being careful, I've done my job.' On Britain's roads last year, 1,633 people were killed and almost 28,000 seriously injured in traffic incidents, and numbers have remained relatively constant following a large fall between 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, the number of people killed in drink-driving incidents has risen over the past decade, reaching a 13-year high in 2022 and prompting concern that existing road safety measures are no longer working. A Labour source said: "At the end of the last Labour government, the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads was at a record low, but numbers have remained stubbornly high under successive Conservative governments. In no other circumstance would we accept 1,600 people dying, with thousands more seriously injured, costing the NHS more than £2billion per year." Motoring groups have hailed the plans to overhaul road safety laws as "much overdue" and "a step in the right direction". Edmund King, AA president, said: "The time has come for a bold and proactive approach to road safety. This strategy is much overdue as road deaths have plateaued over the last decade. We believe these new measures will not only modernise our approach to saving lives but also provide renewed momentum in making our roads safer for everyone." But he wants the plans to go further and is urging ministers to introduce limits on new drivers under the age of 21 transporting peer-age passengers for six months after passing their test. Ms Davies-Jones said: "This is the biggest shake-up to our driving laws for decades, and that's because this is what the public have been telling us that they want, they want us to be taking action, they feel like the time is right for us to review these laws." She said all the plans will be reviewed as part of a consultation with drivers and the public. On limiting new drivers from transporting their peers, Ms Davies-Jones said this isn't something the Government is "currently looking at", adding: "We do feel that this could potentially overly target younger drivers and unfairly discriminate against them." 'This is a sensible step and motorists overall' By Nicholas Lyes, director of policy and standards at IAM RoadSmart In 2023, there were almost 100 serious injuries or fatalities caused by defective eyesight. These tragedies are avoidable. Every driver has a responsibility to ensure they have good enough eyesight for driving, but vision problems can become more frequent as we age, hence the focus on over-70s. This is a sensible step and motorists overall – even those aged 70 and above – support it. For most older drivers who are safe and 'self-regulate', these proposals are unlikely to be controversial. However, the UK Government's strategy should be wholistic in focus, meaning we need to see measures to improve safety amongst younger drivers as well. We know that around a fifth of new drivers will crash within the first year of holding their full licence. We also need to ensure that the police on the frontline are given all the tools they need to enforce – not only to reduce the number of dangerous drivers on our roads but also to show a visible deterrent." 'No excuse for frightening pensioners who depend on their cars' By Dennis Reed, Director Silver Voices There is no excuse for frightening pensioners who depend on their cars, without any evidence that poor eyesight as a contributor to accidents is more common after the age of 70 than before. In fact, the Department of Transport last year produced evidence that only 10% of accidents resulting in casualties involve a driver over 70, which is less than the percentage of older drivers in the population. There may be a strong case for regular eyesight tests, perhaps every ten years, but this should apply across the board. It is nonsense to suggest that people can safely depend on their eyesight from 17 to 69, but not on their 70th birthday.I suspect there is a bigger problem with middle-aged drivers who have never had their eyes tested. This headline grabbing proposal seems designed to show that the Government will do something about road safety, while making older people scapegoats yet again. This is lazy policy making, and unless convincing evidence is produced, Silver Voices will oppose compulsory eye tests for pensioners as another example of age discrimination in society.
Daily Mirror
4 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
HMRC starts brutal VAT crackdown on people who 'should have known'
HMRC is set to target the construction industry in a VAT crackdown that's seen the taxman take on people they think 'should have known' HMRC is reportedly setting its sights on the construction industry in a VAT crackdown. It's been claimed that HMRC is "pursuing" compliant businesses for sums owed by others, amid an ongoing dispute between HMRC and fraudsters exploiting staffing agencies to swindle the taxman. HMRC's list of deliberate defaulters for the first half of 2025 includes at least six staff companies that have defaulted on a whopping £51m of tax. The fraudsters prey on innocent victims who require temporary workers and outsource their payrolls and pensions. These scammers set up what seem to be legitimate staffing agencies - but then conveniently forget to pay the VAT. HMRC has found it challenging to recover the outstanding tax because these staff agencies have few assets, according to reports. In other news, thousands of Brits to get shock letter from HMRC after drastic new tax rule comes into force. READ MORE: HMRC seven-year rule rule could land you with hefty tax bill if you don't act now Now, the taxman is turning his attention to firms using the temp workers. All HMRC needs to do is prove that a taxpayer 'should have known' that the transactions were linked with fraud. This crackdown all ties back to the so-called Kittel principle, which initially pondered the question of exactly what the taxable person 'should have known', reports Birmingham Live. The High Court, in its judgment, concluded that the right to deduct could only be denied where the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. HMRC argued that a taxable person's right to deduct could be denied if he knew or should have known that it was more likely than not that his purchase was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. HMRC states: "The test in Kittel is simple and should not be over-refined. It embraces not only those who know of the connection but those who 'should have known'. Thus it includes those who should have known from the circumstances which surround their transactions that they were connected to fraudulent evasion." The site added: "If a trader should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the transaction in which he was involved was that it was connected with fraud and if it turns out that the transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT then he should have known of that fact. He may properly be regarded as a participant for the reasons explained in Kittel. "The true principle to be derived from Kittel does not extend to circumstances in which a taxable person should have known that by his purchase it was more likely than not that his transaction was connected with fraudulent evasion." "But a trader may be regarded as a participant where he should have known that the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances in which his purchase took place was that it was a transaction connected with such fraudulent evasion," it adds.
Daily Mirror
6 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Should the drink-driving limit be reduced? Vote in our poll
As Labour considers reducing the drink-driving limit in autumn's road safety strategy, we want to hear your thoughts on the so-called 'biggest shake-up to driving laws in decades' The Government is considering lowering the drink-driving limit in what has been called the "biggest shake-up to our driving laws for decades" - and we want to hear your thoughts on the proposal. It comes as the number of people killed in drink-driving incidents has risen over the past decade, reaching a 13-year high in 2022. Under the road safety strategy, which is set to be published in the autumn, the drink-drive limit in England and Wales will reportedly be reduced from 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath to 22 micrograms - the current level for Scotland, according to The Times. Speaking about the plans to overhaul road safety laws, justice minister Alex Davies-Jones told BBC Breakfast: "This is the biggest shake-up to our driving laws for decades, and that's because this is what the public have been telling us that they want, they want us to be taking action, they feel like the time is right for us to review these laws." It comes after thousands of Brits are to get a shock letter from HMRC after a drastic new tax rule comes into force. She added: "We are looking at maybe reducing the drink-driving limit, which, again, we know that that [the younger] age demographic is those most likely to be caught under the influence of drink-driving." The road shake-up could also see Brits get points on their licence for not wearing a seatbelt or tougher punishments for driving without insurance, while over 70s could be banned from driving if they fail compulsory eye tests. The news has been welcomed by motoring groups, with many describing the changes as "a step in the right direction". Edmund King, AA president, said: "This strategy is much overdue as road deaths have plateaued over the last decade. We believe these new measures will not only modernise our approach to saving lives but also provide renewed momentum in making our roads safer for everyone." IAM RoadSmart director of policy and standards Nicholas Lyes added: "Given progress on reducing fatal and serious collisions has stalled in recent years, we welcome the UK Government's ambition to publish an updated road safety strategy with the reported measures being a step in the right direction." Meanwhile, a Labour source said: "At the end of the last Labour government, the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads was at a record low, but numbers have remained stubbornly high under successive Conservative governments. In no other circumstance would we accept 1,600 people dying, with thousands more seriously injured, costing the NHS more than £2billion per year." As the Government considers the major diving overhaul, we want to know if you think the drink-driving limit should be reduced. Vote in our poll HERE to have your say.
