The Forum project in Gloucester behind schedule, council says
According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the new landmark is considered key to Gloucester's regeneration and the project is being driven by the council and developer Reef Group.At Monday's meeting, chairman Andrew Gravells asked about the financial situation of The Forum. "Is it working out as it was expected to, in terms of financial contributions and developer contributions?" he said.Mr Wilson confirmed there had been issues with the project.
"All I can say about that is it's behind schedule which is causing us a problem," he said."But as regards lettings etc, it's going better than expected. It's like all big projects. They are never quite complete to the date you are expecting to."As regards The Forum itself, we would have liked to have been able to be in a position to open it sooner than will be the case. "There are teething problems."
Mr Wilson added he was did not know how much more he could say about the issues.Mr Gravells wanted to ask another question but was unsure if he was allowed to.The monitoring officer asked what it was and whether it was commercially sensitive and Mr Gravells said he was advised to ask his question in writing."The word is snagging. I think I can say that," Mr Wilson said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Car finance mis-selling scandal: Millions of drivers denied payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of drivers have been denied payouts after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' 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. But lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error'. And intervening in the case, the Financial Conduct Authority claimed the ruling 'goes too far'. The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, opposed the challenge. Giving a summary of the long-awaited Supreme Court 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.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99 per cent of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Car finance scandal: could you still get compensation?
Does the Supreme Court ruling mean I won't be compensated? The upholding of the judgment could have paved the way for anyone who took out a car finance loan before 2021 to be in line for some form of compensation. Now it's been overturned, pending any further appeals or escalations, it could mean only those who are eligible to claim against the potential misuse of discretionary commission arrangements could receive compensation – pending further information from the FCA. This could still implicate a lot of people, but the scale is not expected to be as huge if it also included commission disclosure complaints. The Supreme Court, however, did uphold one complaint against the lenders, suggesting there could be scope for some individuals to successfully claim. It upheld a claim from a claimant over an 'unfair' relationship between a customer and a finance company. The size of commission was 55pc of the total charge for credit. As it was so high, the 'relationship' between the customer and finance company was deemed to be unfair. How much could I be owed? This is still unclear. In regards to the discretionary commission agreement arm of the scandal, those who signed up to multiple car finance agreements between 2007 and 2021 could be eligible for several payouts. The average mis-sold car finance payout, according to LawPlus Solicitors, is £1,500. The FCA has suggested that for a typical £10,000 four-year car finance deal, a customer could have overpaid £1,100 in interest. Exact amounts would depend on individual circumstances. A driver would likely receive the difference between the amount they paid at an inflated interest rate and the rate they should have been charged. Interest of 8pc on the overpayment would also likely be added, so the payout could be quite substantial. Should I use a claims management company? Thousands of drivers have been lodging compensation claims via claims management companies, which charge a commission fee upon the outcome. Scores of law firms are also offering 'no win, no fee' deals to manage claims. You do not need to use one of these companies to make a claim. Consumer rights expert Martyn James said there was 'no reason whatsoever for claims companies to exist'. He said: 'They are like vultures. This industry made millions if not billions from PPI claims, and now they are doing the same with car finance. They are out in force.' Regulated claims firms can take up to 30pc of the reward, up to a maximum amount of £10,000, excluding VAT, whereas those who go solo will receive 100pc of their payout. You may not even have to make a claim yourself, as the FCA is considering setting up a free redress scheme, which will force lenders to automatically compensate consumers. What should I do next? For discretionary commission arrangements, the best thing to do is wait and see what the FCA reveals in six weeks' time. It could be influenced by the Supreme Court's separate ruling, so it is best to wait for the next development. Do not use a claims management company, as the FCA could force banks to automatically compensate impacted consumers. In case an automatic redress scheme isn't set up, you could log a claim if you haven't done so already. In order to do so, you'll need to contact your original lender and ask them about the commission agreements secured on your deal. The FCA has put a pause on the deadline for providers to get back to you while it carries out its investigation. As it stands, lenders don't have to respond to your complaint about car finance until December 4 this year. If you're unhappy with the eventual response from the lender, you can take your case for free to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Millions set to miss out on car finance compensation after Supreme Court ruling
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, went to the UK's highest court to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' 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.' In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, the FCA said almost 99% of the roughly 32 million car finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Mr Johnson, Mr Wrench and Ms Hopcraft all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars, all worth less than £10,000, before January one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, with the car dealers making a profit from the sale of the car and receiving commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, with the three drivers taking legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. Ms Hopcraft, then a student nurse, bought her replacement car in 2014 through an agreement with Close, which paid the car dealership £183.26 in commission. Mr Wrench, described by the Court of Appeal as a 'postman with a penchant for fast cars', entered into two hire-purchase agreements for an Audi TT coupe and a BMW 3 Series, with FirstRand, in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paying hundreds in commission in total. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission due to the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birss and Lord Justice Edis said last year that while each case was different, 'burying such a statement in the small print which the lender knows the borrower is highly unlikely to read will not suffice'.
