logo
About £1bn in car loan compensation at risk because data deleted, lawyers warn

About £1bn in car loan compensation at risk because data deleted, lawyers warn

Yahoo26-05-2025
Consumers are at risk of losing £1bn of compensation over inflated car loans because high street banks and specialist lenders deleted their data, claims lawyers have warned.
Borrowers, banks and the government are anxiously awaiting a ruling from the supreme court that could spark one of the biggest redress schemes since the £50bn payment protection insurance (PPI) saga.
But some consumers could miss out because most banks typically purge customer data after six years. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) ordered firms to stop deleting car finance documents when it launched its initial investigation in January 2024. But the files relating to customers with contracts that ended more than six years earlier may have already been lost.
That could be a problem if the FCA sets up a compensation scheme where banks are ordered to contact borrowers who may be due a payout.
Claims law firm Courmacs Legal says that 465,000 consumer complaints on its books fall into this category, having been paid off before 2018. If all those claimants faced document deletion hurdles, they could lose out on £1.18bn worth of compensation – an average of £2,365 each – according to Courmacs' estimates.
'There is a real risk that millions of people will lose out because the banks which ripped them off will never write to them,' Darren Smith, managing director of Courmacs, said.
The Financing and Leasing Association, which represents leading car loan providers including Lloyds, Santander UK and Close Brothers, said: 'We have made clear to the FCA that consistent and fair outcomes cannot be delivered with patchy or absent data.'
The car loans scandal has been rumbling on for more than a year, but ballooned in October when a court of appeal judgment vastly expanded an FCA investigation into potentially harmful commission arrangements. It determined that paying a secret commission to car dealers, who had arranged the loans without disclosing the sum and terms of that commission to borrowers, was unlawful.
It sparked panic over compensation costs, with lenders including Santander UK, Close Brothers, Barclays and Lloyds potentially on the hook for up to £44bn, according to some analysts. Even chancellor Rachel Reeves attempted to intervene, warning supreme court judges ahead of the April hearing to avoid handing 'windfall' compensation to borrowers.
It is unclear whether the court of appeal ruling will be upheld. But consumer champion Martin Lewis said he was still concerned over how data deletion issues would be handled if there is compensation for discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), which were the subject of the FCA's original investigation.
DCAs, which were banned in 2021, allowed car dealerships to earn more commission by setting higher interest rates, providing an incentive to make loans more expensive for consumers.
'I do have concerns about it. I am worried about how it will play out,' Lewis said. However, he urged consumers not to panic. 'We have to hope that the regulator will be on top of firms who have destroyed data, [and] we are only potentially two months away from having some clarity of what's going on.'
While banks were urged during the PPI scandal to err on the side of consumers, even when there was no documentation, it is not yet clear how this will play out for car loans.
An FCA spokesperson said: 'If we decide to undertake a redress scheme, we will work with industry and other interested parties to ensure that it is as clear and straightforward as possible for customers to complain.'
Lloyds Banking Group, the biggest provider of car loans, said: 'We do not recognise these figures shared by Courmacs, and encourage people to contact their car finance provider directly to avoid paying claims management fees.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ailbhe Rea: Will Rachel Reeves Bring In a Wealth Tax?
Ailbhe Rea: Will Rachel Reeves Bring In a Wealth Tax?

Bloomberg

time5 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Ailbhe Rea: Will Rachel Reeves Bring In a Wealth Tax?

What's going on with Rachel Reeves and rumblings about a wealth tax in the autumn? It's been on the agenda for weeks now, as minds turn to how the Chancellor can plug the £20-25 billion or so hole in the public finances at the next budget. Reeves has ruled out increasing the three big revenue raisers (income tax, VAT and national insurance) but quite conspicuously didn't rule a wealth tax out when asked a few weeks ago, amid calls from the left of her party and former Labour leader Neil Kinnock to introduce an annual 2% tax on wealth above £10m.

Rathi hits back at claims FCA redress plan is unworkable
Rathi hits back at claims FCA redress plan is unworkable

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Rathi hits back at claims FCA redress plan is unworkable

FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi has pushed back against claims from the motor finance industry that the regulator's proposed redress scheme for discretionary commissions is too difficult to implement, saying lenders must stop 'haggling' and focus on delivering fair outcomes for consumers. Speaking to the Financial Times, Rathi directly addressed industry complaints that the Financial Conduct Authority's plans to compensate customers for car loans dating back as far as 2007 were 'completely impractical' due to patchy record-keeping. 'Now is not the time to haggle with us, but to help put things right for consumers,' he said. 'We know it is difficult. But you can't say the law has been broken and it is too difficult to even try to put things right.' His comments follow the FCA's announcement of a six-week consultation on an industry-wide compensation scheme, which could result in payouts totalling between £9 billion and £18 billion. The scheme is intended to address cases where customers were unfairly charged higher interest rates due to discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) — a practice banned by the FCA in 2021 but widely used prior to that. The proposal has prompted concern within the motor finance sector, particularly around how firms will access loan and commission records from as far back as 2007. Stephen Haddrill, director general of the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA), warned earlier in a statement: 'We have concerns about whether it is possible to have a fair redress scheme that goes back to 2007, when firms have not been required to hold such dated information, and the evidence base will be patchy at best.' Legal risk contained, operational risk rises The FCA's move comes on the heels of a Supreme Court judgment on three test cases — Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank, and Hopcraft v Close Brothers. The ruling narrowed the legal basis for many claims by confirming that car dealers did not owe fiduciary duties to customers. However, it upheld findings of unfair treatment in cases where commission payments significantly inflated interest charges and were poorly disclosed. The judgment gave the motor finance sector some legal relief, as it removed the risk of a broader wave of litigation. Shares in lenders such as Lloyds, Close Brothers, and Bank of Ireland rose following the ruling. But the court's backing for the FCA's interpretation of 'unfair relationships' has left the door open to regulatory-led redress, which Rathi is now urging firms to support. 'If industry works with us, then we can get this moving quickly,' Rathi said. 'If, however, people want to continue to litigate this and have cases going through the courts for many, many more years, then of course it is going to take longer.' Redress path unclear and costly The FCA has yet to decide whether the redress scheme will be 'opt-in' — requiring customers to apply for compensation — or 'opt-out,' in which lenders proactively repay customers unless they decline. 'An opt-out scheme might take longer because firms have to go and look for all the addresses and track down customers who may have moved,' Rathi said. 'An opt-in scheme may be quicker, but will be less comprehensive.' The regulator estimates most compensation payouts will be under £950 per agreement, but the overall burden for banks and car finance providers could be significant. Fitch Ratings has estimated that lenders may be on the hook for £5 billion to £11 billion, depending on the final scope of the scheme. The remainder would likely fall to non-bank and captive auto finance firms. "Rathi hits back at claims FCA redress plan is unworkable" was originally created and published by Motor Finance Online, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données

Watchdogs warn against finfluencers, but here's how they can help
Watchdogs warn against finfluencers, but here's how they can help

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Watchdogs warn against finfluencers, but here's how they can help

Regulators are warning consumers to be careful about taking financial advice from online influencers or so-called 'finfluencers.' The criticism is mostly justified but also ignores some of the benefits of following financial influencers and some of the problems with relying solely on the financial industry itself. There may be a more balanced perspective on social media financial advice that can help consumers. Warnings from the regulators A recently released report from the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) called Finfluencers recommended a worldwide strategy ranging from educational initiatives to enforcement actions aimed at cracking down on financial influencers. In the United Kingdom, it is now a criminal offence to encourage someone to invest in a security unless the person recommending it is licensed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or a specific exemption applies. A Swiss Finance Institute (SFI) research paper, also titled Finfluencers, concluded '(that) most finfluencers are unskilled or 'antiskilled,' producing negative … returns, while (only) a minority demonstrate skill.' The authors found that these less skilled financial influencers, whose investment recommendations led to lower returns, made posts that were more engaging and tended to attract more followers than the skilled finfluencers who may have been worth following. Closer to home, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) conducted a survey of retail investors who have made financial decisions based on the advice of finfluencers. They found these investors were more than 12 times more likely to have been scammed on social media and nearly five times more likely to trade their investments several times a week. (Frequent trading tends to lead to lower returns.) Respondents were also more than twice as likely to have had significant investment losses in the past and tend to be self-directed investors who have no professional support for financial advice. Self-directed investors or any investors who want an unbiased source to learn about investing basics should check out the resources on FAIR Canada's website. FAIR is Canada's only national, non-profit, investor-focused organization, independent of any government or regulator. Financial literacy increases overall wellness My own controversial take on finfluencers is that they have done a good job raising awareness about investing and other wealth building strategies for the masses. They have managed to reach people who may not have otherwise taken an interest in personal finance. Teenagers are learning about money and investing, even if the advice may not be great. Personal finance is becoming proactive and mainstream rather than just a responsibility for rich retirees. Studies show that financial literacy is good for both financial wellness and overall wellbeing. If TikTok and Instagram help reach an audience who would not care about their finances without financial influencers, is it all bad? The financial industry requires skepticism Most people in the financial industry are good people who care about their clients, but most businesses in any industry exist primarily to make a profit. There are concerning conflicts of interest in some areas of the Canadian financial industry that put profits ahead of people and that can lead to biased advice. Many financial advisers in Canada do not provide financial advice as their primary responsibility. They sell products and they and their companies are paid a percentage of the fees collected, whether the fees are explicit or embedded. Many advisers have no legal fiduciary responsibility to put their client's best interests first and most people are unaware of this. As a result, a consumer needs to take financial advice with a healthy sense of skepticism. It does not need to be this way, but it is, and the financial industry has been very protective of this flawed model. I think there is a benefit from having finfluencers to force discussions between clients and financial advisers that might not otherwise happen without them. One-size-fits-all does not exist The most important thing to remember is that there is no single strategy that suits everyone. So, whether you are reading a blog post from a bank financial adviser or watching a Facebook Live from a self-proclaimed money guru, you should consider the topic or advice to be general in nature. It may not apply to you at all. Some investors should not buy stocks. A registered retirement savings plan may be better than a tax-free savings account depending on the circumstances. Life insurance is an essential risk-management tool for a young breadwinner but may be a terrible way to pay tax on your estate. Should you follow finfluencers? There can be bad and biased advice on social media. Some of the finfluencer advice is blatantly bad and biased. Most of the financial industry advice is good but can also be biased. The best thing that you can do for your finances as a consumer is to absorb as much as you can from several sources to make good money choices based on you and your own goals. This applies whether you work with a professional or not but take everything with a grain of salt. Jason Heath is a fee-only, advice-only certified financial planner (CFP) at Objective Financial Partners Inc. in Toronto. He does not sell any financial products whatsoever. He can be reached at jheath@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store