Martin Lewis issues important update on car finance claim
Now, finance guru Martin Lewis has issued an important update when it comes to car finance scandal claims.
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
Reuters
6 hours ago
- Reuters
Tariff strike-down widens the US omni-crisis
WASHINGTON, May 29 (Reuters Breakingviews) - The Trump administration's norm-bending ranges from the dismantling of the global trade system to defiance of the co-equal legal apparatus of the U.S. government. An international trade court ruling on Wednesday striking down sweeping tariffs imposed on trading partners threatens to combine these crises. The White House poses levies as a fix for various ills central to its agenda, making this setback critical. The range of possible outcomes now widens significantly, depending in turn on whether legal appeals succeed, how the president responds to them, or if legislators step in. Investors and firms just getting to grips with recent chaos must contend with a new bout of unpredictability. For now, the trade court's ruling, opens new tab leaves the administration 10 days to stop collecting most tariffs imposed thus far, including a 10% global retaliatory duty and separate 'national security' levies imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China. President Trump still retains significant power to ratchet fees back up, and existing tariffs on steel, aluminum and cars are unaffected. The ruling also lays out that a 1974 trade law enables temporary levies of up to 15% for up to 150 days. The administration appealed on Wednesday evening, and the urgency of the matter probably ensures speedy proceedings - after all, the first hearing in this case was just two weeks ago. The Supreme Court, the nation's top legal body, has shown the White House some deference in the past, particularly over the conduct of foreign policy. However, President Trump's response to a case over a wrongfully deported man shows that consequences can continue after pushback. Regular attacks on federal judges set a worrying precedent. It's one that's difficult for investors to price. Stock markets brutalized by Trump's initial tariff barrage had recovered after a series of climbdowns. A trade deal struck with the UK offered at least a hazy blueprint for ending the whipsaw of changeable whims, even if further agreements will be harder. And revenue from levies, reaching an all-time high of $16 billion in April, was one of few sops to concerns about bulging deficits as bond markets squirm over the rest of the president's agenda. All of this is in the air. Negotiators in Europe and elsewhere, for the moment, face a muddled counterparty. Ad hoc attempts to rebuild tariffs will take time and invite a frenzied round of lobbying. Of course, Congress could resolve the legal issue by reasserting its trade authority. The powers Trump enjoys have been delegated to him and could be revoked. Legislation, opens new tab instituting a 60-day review process for new tariffs has budding Republican support in the Senate, where seven members of the president's party have signed on. In the battle between the judicial and executive branches, the best outcome would be for the legislature to break the tie. Follow @Rubinations, opens new tab on X
NBC News
7 hours ago
- NBC News
What's next as Trump vents fury at Vladimir Putin: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Elon Musk and Donald Trump bid farewell from the Oval Office on live TV. Meanwhile, Kristen Welker digs into Trump's latest social media salvos at Vladimir Putin and what they could mean for the Russia-Ukraine war. And senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley answers a reader question about a notable provision tucked into the House budget bill that passed recently. — Scott Bland Elon Musk's missed opportunity By Jonathan Allen Elon Musk stood next to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Friday, but the physical proximity belied a growing philosophical divide between two of the world's most powerful men, resulting in the tech mogul's abrupt announcement that he is departing Washington — without having achieved his goal of decimating the federal government. 'He came, he saw, he folded,' Steve Bannon, a senior White House adviser during Trump's first term who is influential with the working-class wing of Trump's MAGA base, said in a text exchange with NBC News. Musk, who stood with his arms folded across his chest as he and Trump took questions, sported a bruise near his right eye — an unmistakable metaphor for his tumultuous government service — that he said was incurred while playing with his 5-year-old son X. Trump took a more charitable view of Musk's tenure during a sprawling news conference in which he also declined to rule out pardoning Sean 'Diddy' Combs, who is standing trial on charges of sex trafficking and other alleged crimes; said he dislikes 'the concept' of former first lady Jill Biden being forced to testify before Congress about her husband's mental fitness; and predicted again that Iran is on the cusp of making a deal that would suspend its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 'He had to go through the slings and the arrows, which is a shame because he's an incredible patriot,' Trump said of Musk. Trump and Musk both contended that DOGE will continue to wring out savings by rooting out waste and fraud without Musk as its face. 'This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,' Musk said, vowing to reach the trillion-dollar mark in cuts by the middle of next year. At the same time he spoke of cutting government spending, Musk lauded Trump's remodeling of the Oval Office. 'I love the gold on the ceiling,' he said. Musk has argued that inertia throttled his efforts to reduce government spending — a conclusion that raises questions about whether he was naive about the challenge of the mission he undertook. 'The federal bureaucracy situation is much worse than I realized,' he told The Washington Post this week. 'I thought there were problems, but it sure is an uphill battle trying to improve things in D.C., to say the least.' The next steps as Trump vents fury at Putin By Kristen Welker President Donald Trump has ramped up the rhetoric attacking Russian President Vladimir Putin, but so far there's no teeth behind it. After months of cutting Putin slack on the world stage and clashing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump has undergone a stark rhetorical shift in recent days. He's taken to social media to blast Putin for having gone ' absolutely crazy ' and for 'needlessly killing a lot of people' including Ukrainian citizens 'for no reason whatsoever.' He has warned that 'what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!' Trump appears to now be warming to the belief many Western leaders have held for years — that Putin isn't seriously pushing for peace, outside of total Russian victory. In recent weeks, we've seen some of the biggest bombardments of the entire war, including a massive drone attack in Kyiv that came in the shadow of a prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine. None of this means Trump is buddy-buddy with Zelenskyy now, and he criticized the Ukrainian as 'stubborn' during Friday remarks in the Oval Office, even as he underscored his disappointment with Putin. Meanwhile, the issue of sanctioning Russia and sending aid to Ukraine obviously splits the GOP, and it doesn't necessarily sit well with the 'America First' wing of the GOP that Trump commands. But if Trump wants to act, as former Vice President Mike Pence told me he recommended during our conversation earlier this month, he has arrows in his quiver. Earlier this week on 'Meet the Press Now,' former U.S. ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told us that the only way to convince Putin to come to the negotiating table is to convince him he can't advance on the battlefield. While one might think the West is tapped out when it comes to sanctions, McFaul said there's a lot more on the table, including seizing more assets or banning Russia's 'shadow fleet' that ships oil from docking at Western ports. And just a few days ago, Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, an elder statesman in the Senate, called on Trump to be as 'decisive' in new sanctions against Russia as he's been in his push against Harvard University. So if Putin has run out of leash with Trump, then what's the president waiting for? Join us Sunday when we talk about this and a flurry of other important domestic and international issues with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock. ✉️ Mailbag: Congress and the courts Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question is on an under-the-radar provision in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill.' 'I heard that the bill contains language that takes away a judge's authority to hold someone in contempt when they don't comply with the court's orders. Is that true? I've seen a lot about the financial implications but nothing on this.' To answer this, we turned to senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley. Here's his response: The House bill does indeed include a provision that would limit the ability of federal judges to hold people in contempt for violating court orders. (Read it here.) The Republican-backed measure comes amid considerable pushback on the right against a number of judges who have not only blocked Trump administration policies but have also questioned whether the administration is complying with rulings and at least considered contempt proceedings. The provision in question would seek to limit the ability of judges to pursue contempt findings by withholding federal funds that could be used to enforce such a ruling unless the plaintiff posted a bond when seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction. But there is no guarantee the Senate will include the language in its version of the bill, in part because it may fall foul of rules intended to ensure budget bill provisions have a direct link to federal revenues.
Reuters
18 hours ago
- Reuters
Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers
WILMINGTON, Delaware, May 30 (Reuters) - The sweeping tax-and-spending bill that would enact President Donald Trump's policy agenda includes a provision that critics said would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders. The one-sentence provision in the 1,100-page bill prevents federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in cases against the government. "No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued," the provision says. It applies retroactively. "Security" refers to monetary bonds that can be used in private litigation when one party seeks to ask a judge to issue an injunction blocking the actions of another party, such as a company trying to prevent a rival from selling a product. If it turns out the injunction is later reversed, the bond helps cover the defendant's losses. The provision follows a White House memo in March that directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post a bond if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. The Trump administration said the measure would deter frivolous lawsuits. The Trump administration and the House Judiciary Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has attacked judges who ruled against his government but he has also said he would obey the Supreme Court. Judges often don't require bonds in cases against the government. In a case by two small toymakers against the Trump administration tariffs, the plaintiffs said the bond that had been requested by the government would be more costly than tariffs and would nullify the benefit of an injunction. The judge on Thursday set the bond at $100 and blocked the tariffs against the two companies. Federal courts have been a major check on Trump in his second term, as plaintiffs in dozens of cases have gotten judges to block White House policies. Bonds were not required in the vast majority of those cases, so if the House bill provision became law, judges would be unable to enforce contempt orders. While no judge has issued a contempt order, several federal judges have said Trump administration officials appeared to be defying court orders and are at risk of being held in contempt. Judges use contempt to bring a party into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail. Once the party complies, the penalties cease. In 2022, when Trump was out of office, he was held in contempt and fined $10,000 by a New York state judge for each day that he failed to produce documents that were subpoenaed in a civil probe of his private business practices that was led by New York's attorney general. Trump eventually complied after paying $110,000. The House passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on May 22 by a one-vote margin, without any votes from Democrats. The bill is now heading to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 vote margin. Several Republicans said they will seek to modify the bill. Twenty-one Democrats from the House wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson on May 20 and urged him to strike the provision from the bill. "This provision would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance," said the letter. Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, said judges could comply with the provision by setting bonds at a nominal amount and old cases could be reopened, but he said it would be time-consuming and burdensome. "You know what the government is going to do in the meantime? It's free to ignore those orders," said Kashdan, whose organization has sued the Trump administration over a voting policy.
