Beaches and borrowing: 10% of UK adults ‘putting summer 2025 holiday on credit'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Record
06-08-2025
- Daily Record
Housing developer demands multi-million pound refund over 'unspent' educational enhancement fund
Mactaggart & Mickel Homes Limited say they've given the local authority around £9m in the last 15 years towards the delivery of school enhancements. South Ayrshire Council is facing a multi-million pound claim from a housing developer over money the local authority set aside for educational facilities. Mactaggart & Mickel Homes Limited say they've given the local authority around £9m in the last 15 years towards the delivery of school 'enhancements.' But the firm claims that around £6m from the fund hasn't been spent - and they want the cash returned. South Ayrshire bosses say the money provided through the developer contributions process is ringfenced and therefore has no impact on the council's budgets. The financial wrangle stems from a 'substantial residential development' which was given the go-ahead at Greenan's Dunure Road back in 2010. At the time, Mactaggart and Mickel was required to enter into an agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. They had to pay South Ayrshire Council financial contributions towards the delivery of school enhancements. This was required 'to meet the educational needs of children residing in the Development,' as it was predicted the influx of families would place an additional burden on school rolls and infrastructure. Then, a separate Section 75 Agreement was entered into in 2021, when the council granted a second planning permission to allow the continuation of the Greenan development. That agreement contained 'equivalent provisions' to those in the 2010 agreement in relation to education payments. It also related to education infrastructure to 'mitigate' the impact of the development. Central to the housing developer's multi-million pound claim is expansion and improvement work over the years to Doonfoot Primary School and St John's Primary School. And proposed works at Kyle Academy is a bone of contention with the developers too. Mactaggart and Mickel say they have paid 'all education contributions' due under the agreements to the council and the total contributions over a period of nearly 15 years amounts to around £9m. Agents acting on behalf of Mactaggart & Mickel are Shepherd and Wedderburn LLP. They said in a supporting statement: 'The council has used some of those contributions to expand and improve the local Doonfoot Primary School. The exact amount is unclear. 'It is unclear to what extent the council has used other contributions to improve any other school attended by children from the development. 'In August 2024, the council still held £5.9m which, at that stage, had not been allocated to any identified future capital expenditure. In September 2024 Mactaggart & Mickel made a final payment to the council of £259,778.' Their statement continues: 'The available evidence strongly suggests there is no ongoing requirement to carry out any further school improvements as a result of the Greenan development. 'It illustrates that, each of the schools which could be improved using contributions from the development, has available teaching capacity and that children from the development are not causing capacity constraints that would require the schools to be expanded further. 'The agreement provides that, any contributions that have not been contractually committed, or spent, are to be repaid within five years of completion of the development. 'However, in view of the available evidence there does not appear to be any lawful basis on which the council could justify further expenditure on education infrastructure arising from the development. 'In these circumstances the council is requested to agree to modify the Section 75 Agreements to provide for the repayment to Mactaggart & Mickel of unspent education contributions together with accrued interest (by 30th July 2025).' The supporting statement goes on: 'In August 2024, the council held around £5.9 million worth of contributions received in connection with the Greenan development. 'None of the schools on which the council is entitled to spend those contributions is more than 80 per cent full because of the Greenan Development (either individually or in cumulation with other developments within the relevant catchment areas). 'There is no ongoing justification for the council's retention of funds to deliver an expansion of St John's Primary School since its most recently published occupancy level is less than 65 per cent of its capacity. 'And we have seen no evidence that any alternative facilities are required to meet the denominational primary educational needs of children from the Greenan development.' They also state that there was 'never any justification' for using any of the Greenan developer contributions towards the expansion of Kyle Academy - since the Greenan development is NOT within its catchment area. The statement adds: 'The request from the council's service lead for planning and building standards that funds held by the council could be 'utilised to reconfigure the layout of the school' is unreasonable, given the lack of any linkage between the development and the school. It is not clear whether the council has ever used funds from Greenan to make improvements to Kyle Academy.' The firm has engaged the services of James Findlay KC as they seek to recover 'any or all' of the circa £9m they have paid to South Ayrshire Council. Mr Findlay said in correspondence to council chiefs: 'It would appear that the council retains £5.9m of the total paid. I suggest that, as a first step, the council be asked to identify all sums ostensibly spent pursuant to the agreement and the basis of so doing in each instance. 'A more informed view can be taken as to the merits of seeking to recover all or any part of the relevant monies. 'At present, I suggest that the arbitration route provided by the agreement would appear to offer the most suitable avenue for determination of any disputed issues as to the propriety of any expenditure.' A spokesperson for South Ayrshire Council said: "South Ayrshire Council has received an application to vary an existing Legal agreement relating to the Greenan development in Ayr. "The developer Mactaggart & Mickel have requested the return of the unused Developer Contributions originally provided to reduce the impact of the development on Educational facilities in the area. "The developer purports that the Greenan development has not created the impact on educational facilities, predicted at the time of the original planning application and therefore the council no longer requires the developer's finance to upgrade school facilities. "The money provided through the developer contributions process is ringfenced and therefore has no impact on the council's budgets. "The application to amend the legal agreement will be considered by the Planning Authority in due course. "
North Wales Chronicle
04-08-2025
- North Wales Chronicle
Car loans: Why could drivers still get compensation after court ruling?
It came after a landmark Supreme Court ruling over whether motor finance firms complied with rules related to commission paid by lenders to dealers selling car loans. The ruling on Friday was widely considered a victory for finance firms potentially affected, after it was judged that two key cases were did not break the law. Here the PA news agency looks at why consumers could still be able to make claims for compensation payments. What was the court case and why was it important? The UK's highest court was considering an appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling made in October last year, relating to three claimants who had each bought cars on credit. In each case, the car dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them, which the three claimants argued they did not know about. The Court of Appeal originally found that 'secret' commission payments, as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged the decision. If the case confirmed that these three cases were all still unlawful, then consumers who bought cars with similar finance deals could make claims to potentially secure compensation. Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. We'll publish the consultation by early October and finalise any scheme in time for people to start receiving compensation next — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 3, 2025 What was the result? On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). It upheld one of the three claims and stressed that it was still broadly considered 'unfair'. What does it mean for consumers? Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much could therefore still be eligible for compensation. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) watchdog said not all claims will receive payouts however. The FCA had launched its own process to look at discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) on motor finance deals in 2024 but had put this on hold until the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Some 80,000 open cases on this issue were effectively paused for the ruling. Who is eligible for compensation? The case specifically relates to people who took out car loans between 2007 and 2021. Consumer champion Martin Lewis said in a video posted to X that millions of people are still likely to be due payments. He told Sky News the consultation is 'likely to mean 40% of people who got a car finance deal between 2007 and 2021 will be due some form of redress'. How much could I receive? The FCA said it is consulting on a redress scheme which is expected to cost between £9 billion and £18 billion. This is expected to mean victims could receive up to £950 in compensation. The regulator stressed that it was 'hard to estimate precisely at this stage the total cost to industry of the scheme'. What will the compensation process be? Currently, a lot is still not known about who exactly is eligible and how it will take place. The FCA has said that those who have already complained do not need to do anything and advised that others with potential claims contact their car loan provider, rather than use a claims management company. The regulator added that its consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. What does that mean for car finance firms? The motor finance industry is expected to cover the costs of the compensation, including administrative costs. Over the past few years, lenders and motor finance firms have been setting aside money to cover potential compensation payments. Why has the sector reacted positively to this? On Monday, shares in lender Lloyds and Close Brothers moved firmly higher after the ruling appeared to be more favourable than expected. Lloyds told shareholders on Monday morning that further financial provisions are 'unlikely to be material' in order to cover likely redress payments. While there is still some uncertainty over the cost of redress for the industry, positive outcomes in two of the cases mean they are likely to face fewer claims than previously expected. AJ Bell investment director Russ Mould said: 'While this issue could still cause some damage, it looks unlikely to be a repeat of the PPI scandal which blighted the banking industry in the 2010s.'
Powys County Times
04-08-2025
- Powys County Times
Car loans: Why could drivers still get compensation after court ruling?
Millions of UK motorists could be eligible for payouts worth hundreds of pounds after regulators announced an industry-wide compensation scheme. It came after a landmark Supreme Court ruling over whether motor finance firms complied with rules related to commission paid by lenders to dealers selling car loans. The ruling on Friday was widely considered a victory for finance firms potentially affected, after it was judged that two key cases were did not break the law. Here the PA news agency looks at why consumers could still be able to make claims for compensation payments. What was the court case and why was it important? The UK's highest court was considering an appeal against a Court of Appeal ruling made in October last year, relating to three claimants who had each bought cars on credit. In each case, the car dealer made a profit on the sale of the car but also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them, which the three claimants argued they did not know about. The Court of Appeal originally found that 'secret' commission payments, as part of finance arrangements made before 2021 without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged the decision. If the case confirmed that these three cases were all still unlawful, then consumers who bought cars with similar finance deals could make claims to potentially secure compensation. Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. We'll publish the consultation by early October and finalise any scheme in time for people to start receiving compensation next year. — Financial Conduct Authority (@TheFCA) August 3, 2025 What was the result? On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). It upheld one of the three claims and stressed that it was still broadly considered 'unfair'. What does it mean for consumers? Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much could therefore still be eligible for compensation. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) watchdog said not all claims will receive payouts however. The FCA had launched its own process to look at discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) on motor finance deals in 2024 but had put this on hold until the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Some 80,000 open cases on this issue were effectively paused for the ruling. Who is eligible for compensation? The case specifically relates to people who took out car loans between 2007 and 2021. Consumer champion Martin Lewis said in a video posted to X that millions of people are still likely to be due payments. He told Sky News the consultation is 'likely to mean 40% of people who got a car finance deal between 2007 and 2021 will be due some form of redress'. How much could I receive? The FCA said it is consulting on a redress scheme which is expected to cost between £9 billion and £18 billion. This is expected to mean victims could receive up to £950 in compensation. The regulator stressed that it was 'hard to estimate precisely at this stage the total cost to industry of the scheme'. What will the compensation process be? Currently, a lot is still not known about who exactly is eligible and how it will take place. The FCA has said that those who have already complained do not need to do anything and advised that others with potential claims contact their car loan provider, rather than use a claims management company. The regulator added that its consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. What does that mean for car finance firms? The motor finance industry is expected to cover the costs of the compensation, including administrative costs. Over the past few years, lenders and motor finance firms have been setting aside money to cover potential compensation payments. Why has the sector reacted positively to this? On Monday, shares in lender Lloyds and Close Brothers moved firmly higher after the ruling appeared to be more favourable than expected. Lloyds told shareholders on Monday morning that further financial provisions are 'unlikely to be material' in order to cover likely redress payments. While there is still some uncertainty over the cost of redress for the industry, positive outcomes in two of the cases mean they are likely to face fewer claims than previously expected. AJ Bell investment director Russ Mould said: 'While this issue could still cause some damage, it looks unlikely to be a repeat of the PPI scandal which blighted the banking industry in the 2010s.'
