
Explainer: Is Britain on the cusp of another multibillion-pound consumer finance scandal?
LONDON, March 27 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will on Tuesday hear arguments to overturn a judgment that could cost Britain's financial industry billions of pounds in fresh legal costs and potential customer compensation.
The Court of Appeal ruled in October that it was unlawful for lenders to pay commissions to motor dealers without a customer's informed consent, triggering speculation about the nature and scale of possible remedies for affected borrowers.
here.
Lloyds Banking Group (LLOY.L), opens new tab, Close Brothers (CBRO.L), opens new tab and Santander UK (SANS_pa.L), opens new tab have together already set aside more than 1.5 billion pounds ($1.9 billion) to cover potential compensation claims.
Some analysts say the fallout could be the costliest for banks since they paid almost 40 billion pounds in compensation to customers for mis-selling payment protection insurance.
WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDER?
Reviewing three earlier claims, opens new tab - two against South African lender FirstRand and one against Britain's Close Brothers - the Supreme Court will decide the extent of car dealers' legal responsibility to provide appropriate information to consumers when also acting as credit brokers.
Assuming a duty of care is owed, the court is also expected to rule whether commissions paid by lenders to car dealers were "secret" or insufficiently disclosed, and whether lenders are liable as accessories for procuring the credit brokers' breach of duty.
If lenders are considered liable, and the relationship between lender and consumer is considered "unfair" under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the court will decide what kind of remedy errant lenders have to make.
The Supreme Court's judgment is expected in the summer.
WHO MIGHT BE IMPACTED?
The Financial Conduct Authority banned the payment of discretionary motor finance commissions in 2021, eliminating incentives for brokers to hike the interest rate customers pay on their motor finance loans.
But some customers say they were treated unfairly before the ban came into effect, prompting the FCA to launch a probe in January 2024 into historic potential misconduct.
If the Supreme Court rules lenders and brokers should have been more transparent about commissions, the regulator has said it will consult on the structure of a compensation scheme within six weeks.
More than 2 million people a year rely on the motor finance market to buy a car, FCA data shows.
HOW MUCH COULD BANKS HAVE TO PAY?
Only a handful of UK lenders have motor finance businesses large enough to be materially concerned about the ruling.
These include Lloyds, Close Brothers and Santander UK, which have already made provisions of 1.15 billion pounds, 295 million pounds and 165 million pounds respectively.
But analysts say other types of commissions paid by banks to credit brokers could face scrutiny if the court decides customers must consent to such payments.
Total 'worst case' industry costs could reach 30 billion pounds, ratings agency Moody's said in November.
RBC Capital has estimated a 'base case' impact on banks and non-banks of almost 18 billion pounds.
WHAT MIGHT INFLUENCE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION?
The outcome of another legal dispute, Expert Tooling vs. Engie Power on March 21, could have a bearing on the motor finance ruling.
That case involved Engie supplying electricity to Expert Tooling via an energy broker. The Court of Appeal found that the commission paid to the broker should have been disclosed. However, it did not find Engie an accessory to the broker's breach of duty due to the lack of evidence of dishonesty.
Some lawyers say lenders will likely escape significant financial liabilities unless claimants can prove commission payments were concealed or hidden dishonestly.
Others are not so sure, citing key differences between the cases, including that the claimant in Expert Tooling vs Engie was a business, not a consumer.
WHAT NEXT FOR THE BANKING INDUSTRY?
Several major British banks have signalled an interest in recent months in mergers and acquisitions, but worries about a damaging consumer finance scandal have cast a pall over dealmaking.
Clarity over the ruling and any compensation scheme could unlock cash set aside to cover legal expenses and revive M&A activity, analysts and bankers say.
($1 = 0.7738 pounds)
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Wales Online
15 hours ago
- Wales Online
ATOL protection - what to do if your travel company goes bust
ATOL protection - what to do if your travel company goes bust There are various measures in place to protect consumers Things can go wrong (Image: Liam McBurney/PA ) Berkshire-based travel company Great Little Escapes collapsed earlier this week, leaving thousands of holidaymakers in limbo. When a travel company goes bust, suddenly people who were looking forward to their escape abroad are left facing a confusing and stressful situation. When booking a holiday, the last thing on your mind is the possibility that your airline, hotel, or cruise company could collapse. Unfortunately, it happens - and when it does, the result can be both stressful and expensive. This is where end supplier failure comes into play. What happens when a travel company goes bust - end supplier failure Chris Payne, compliance expert at Total Travel Protection, explained: 'End supplier failure refers to the insolvency or financial collapse of a travel service provider - such as an airline, hotel, ferry operator, car hire company, or cruise line - that was supposed to deliver a part of your travel plans. If they cease trading, you may be left without the service you paid for." What to do if your travel firm goes bust The first thing you should do is check if you booked a package holiday - known as ATOL Protected. If you booked a package holiday through a UK travel company and received an ATOL certificate, you're in luck. The ATOL scheme, run by the Civil Aviation Authority, protects you if the travel company or one of its suppliers goes bust. Did it happen before travel? You should get a refund. Already abroad? ATOL will arrange for you to return home. ATOL only applies to air travel packages sold in the UK. Article continues below Did you pay by credit card? Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, if you paid £100–£30,000 using a UK credit card, the card provider is jointly liable for the failure of the supplier - even if you booked through an intermediary. You can claim a full refund from your card issuer if the service isn't provided due to insolvency. Look for ABTA protection. If you booked land- or sea-based travel (e.g., coach tours, cruises, rail), and the company is an ABTA member, you may be entitled to refunds or alternative arrangements under their protection scheme. ABTA does not cover flight-only bookings. Contact the insolvency practitioner. In cases where ATOL, ABTA, or the Consumer Credit Act doesn't apply, you can contact the administrator or liquidator handling the collapsed supplier's insolvency. They may be organising limited refunds or arrangements. Article continues below What if you're already abroad? Chris said: 'If your end supplier fails while you're away, you should reach out to ATOL or ABTA if applicable. Contact the UK consulate or embassy if you're stranded with no support.' More help and advice can be found at:


The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump toy tariffs: Supreme Court won't speed decision on challenge
More: Hasbro layoffs: Toymaker restructures due to tariff struggles and weak demand The company, which makes educational toys, won a court ruling on May 29 that Trump cannot unilaterally impose tariffs using the emergency legal authority he had cited for them. That ruling is currently on hold, leaving the tariffs in place for now. Learning Resources asked the Supreme Court to take the rare step of immediately hearing the case to decide the legality of the tariffs, effectively leapfrogging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Washington, where the case is pending. More: 'Two dolls instead of 30': Trump acknowledges prices will force consumers to cut back More: Second federal court blocks Trump tariffs, this time for Illinois toy importers Two district courts have ruled that Trump's tariffs are not justified under the law he cited for them, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Both of those cases are on appeal. No court has yet backed the sweeping emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.


The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- The Herald Scotland
Justice Jackson questions if `monied interests' are favored by court
Jackson's dissent came two weeks after she wrote that the court is sending a "troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the Trump administration. The court's six conservatives include three appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term. In a case involving the Trump administration, the Supreme Court on June 6 said Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency could have complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be "irreparably harmed" by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court's two other liberals - Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - also disagreed with the majority's opinion in the Trump case. But Kagan joined the conservatives June 20 in siding with the fuel producers. Jackson, however, said there were multiple reasons the court shouldn't have heard the case from among the thousands of appeals it receives. Those reasons include the fact that the change in administrations was likely to make the dispute go away. But by ruling in the fuel industry's favor, Jackson wrote, the court made it easier for others to challenge anti-pollution laws. "And I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said in her dissent. A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story Jackson said the court's "remarkably lenient approach" to the fuel producers' challenge stands in contrast to the "stern stance" it's taken in cases involving fair housing, desegrated schools or privacy concerns. In response, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the 7-2 opinion, pointed to other cases he said show the court is even handed. Those include its decision last year that anti-abortion doctors couldn't challenge the Food and Drug Administration's handling of a widely used abortion drug. More: Supreme Court revives suit against cop who fatally shot driver stopped for unpaid tolls "In this case, as we have explained, this Court's recent standing precedents support the conclusion that the fuel producers have standing," Kavanaugh wrote about the industry's ability to sue. "The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders," he wrote.