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
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.'
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
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Chancellor's attempt to intervene in car finance scandal branded ‘disgraceful'
Rachel Reeves' efforts to intervene in the supreme court case on the car finance scandal were 'unprecedented and disgraceful' and send a 'really bad message' to consumers that the government is willing to defend wrongdoing by banks, Treasury committee member and Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean has said. While the supreme court largely sided with finance companies on Friday – helping lenders avoid a £44bn compensation bill – Dean said the chancellor had gone too far to show she was on the side of business. That included a controversial bid to intervene in the supreme court hearing in January, in which she urged judges to avoid handing 'windfall' compensation to borrowers. That attempt was ultimately rejected. 'I thought it was pretty unprecedented and pretty disgraceful,' said Dean, who sits on an influential parliamentary committee which scrutinises City firms, regulators and the Treasury. The chancellor had also been considering overruling the supreme court's decision with retrospective legislation, to help save lenders billions of pounds, in the event that it upheld the entirety of October's court of appeal ruling, the Guardian revealed last week. 'What message does it send to consumers that the industry can do wrong, the courts can support the claim that they've done something wrong, but the government is ready to intervene and defend the industry that's done wrong, instead of defending the consumer? I think that's a really bad message to put out,' Dean said. 'I feel like this government sometimes is too keen to demonstrate it is on the side of business, and is sometimes not understanding the rights of consumer,' he added. Reeves intervention efforts followed intensive lobbying by the car loan industry, which feared that the supreme court would uphold last October's shock ruling by the appeal court. That October ruling suggested commission payments paid by lenders to car dealers were unlawful, unless explicitly disclosed to borrowers. It could have opened the door to billions of pounds of compensation claims against companies including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander UK, Barclays and Close Brothers, and result in a redress scheme that rivalled the £50bn payment protection insurance saga. Lobby group the Financing and Leasing Association (FLA) – which represents car lenders – had warned the government that a big compensation bill could push some lenders into failure, while others would offer fewer or more expensive loans to claw back their losses. That could restrict options for borrowers who relied on credit. City bosses were also warning the Treasury that ongoing uncertainty over the scandal was deterring international investment in the finance industry, and was therefore putting the UK's economic growth at risk The FLA's head of motor finance Adrian Dally said that the lobby group was 'pleased' with the supreme court's ruling, and felt its concerns had been heard by Treasury and regulators. He confirmed the FLA had been speaking with the Treasury nearly every week in the wake of the court of appeal ruling in October, including about its concerns on the car finance case. However, he rejected suggestions the Treasury had prioritised the industry over consumers. 'We absolutely disagree with that because, ultimately, this [car finance] industry is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, and enables millions of people to get to work, to get to school, and that was put at risk by these court cases. And ultimately, we believe the industry's interests and the consumers' interests are aligned on this.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But Dean said government interventions set a 'really bad precedent if you're going to intervene on cases of consumer redress on the basis that it might damage industry, because then almost every consumer redress case would fall,' Dean said. Dean added that compensation schemes can give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, knowing will be protected when companies take advantage of customers. 'Obviously, the best industry is one where these redress systems are not needed in the first place, because people play by the rules.' The Financial Conduct Authority is due to confirm whether or not it will press ahead with a compensation scheme before the stock markets open on Monday morning. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'It is vital that consumers have access to motor finance to enable them to spread the cost of a vehicle in a way that is manageable and affordable. 'We respect this judgment from the supreme court, and we are working with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted, and we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act.'
The Independent
5 hours ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis advises patience after Supreme Court car finance ruling
Millions of drivers may be due compensation for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Money expert Martin Lewis advises patience, suggesting an automatic redress scheme could be implemented by the Financial Conduct Authority by the end of the year. The Supreme Court recently ruled that car finance lenders are only liable for hidden commission payments in the most "unfair" cases. While the Supreme Court allowed appeals from two lenders, it upheld one driver's claim, finding his case unfair and awarding him compensation. Lewis cautioned against engaging claims firms currently, as an automatic scheme would negate the need for their services and prevent unnecessary fees.
The Independent
6 hours ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis explains how millions could still get car finance payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of drivers potentially owed compensation over hidden commission payments in car finance schemes could still be able to claim – but they need to 'be patient' for a potential automatic repayment scheme, money expert Martin Lewis said. The founder of Money Saving Expert said motorists with 'secret commission payments' could potentially be reimbursed by an automatic redress scheme by the end of the year. It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that car finance lenders would only be liable for the hidden commission payments in the most 'unfair' cases. 'Nobody should be doing anything right now. You need to sit on your hands. 'People need to be patient. It is the sensible thing to do,' Mr Lewis said. 'While you may have a claim, we are potentially going to see the regulator put in an automatic redress scheme meaning you do not have to put in a claim to get your money. 'So if you were to sign up to a claim's firm on the back of this news, there is a chance you could get money paid to you, and the claim's firm could ask for 25 per cent of it even though it has done nothing.' Mr Lewis said payouts could come by the end of the year, but people should 'wait to see' exactly what the Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme would be. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found commission payments paid by buyers to car dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 – without the motorist's fully informed consent – were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April the decision was an 'egregious error', while the Financial Conduct Authority intervened in the case and claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, Lord Reed, one of five justices who heard the case, said: 'For the reasons set out in detail in a judgment published today, the Supreme Court allows the appeals brought by the finance companies.' He continued: 'However, we uphold Mr Johnson's claim that the relationship between him and the finance company was unfair, and we allow the appeal in his case only because the Court of Appeal made a number of mistakes in reaching its decision. Retaking the decision on a proper basis, we award him the amount of a commission plus interest.'
