Car finance claims: Will the chancellor stall car finance commission payouts

A long-awaited Supreme Court decision on hidden car finance commissions will be delivered next week but there are reports that the chancellor Rachel Reeves could intervene to protect banks from massive payouts.

The car finance industry and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are awaiting a Supreme Court decision that could pave the way for a major payment protection insurance (PPI)-style redress scheme for motorists.

The car finance saga relates to “hidden, unfair” commission that lenders and dealers took from customers before 2021.

Subscribe to MoneyWeek

Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE

Get 6 issues free

Sign up to Money Morning

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter

Sign up

According to the financial services consultancy Broadstone, the Supreme Court’s decision will have “major ramifications for the financial services market and could kickstart one of the largest and costliest redress schemes since PPI”.

Lloyds has already set aside more than £1 billion in potential redress. It is a significant provider of car finance through its Black Horse brand.

Other banks have also made provisions, with Barclays setting aside £90 million and Santander £295 million.

But according to The Guardian, Reeves is considering intervening if the ruling goes against the banks to limit redress to old cases and slash the potential bill for lenders.
Andy Agathangelou, founder of consumer advocacy group Transparency Task Force, told MoneyWeek: “This is the second time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has hoped to intervene, or should I say interfere, with the judicial process surrounding the car finance scandal. The first time was the failed attempt for HM Treasury to become a participant in the trial.

“This latest twist in the ongoing saga isn’t a good look for the chancellor because she seems happy to in effect take money out of the pockets of innocent, harmed consumers, and put it in the pockets of banks and car finance companies that have broken the law.”

A Treasury spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on speculation. We want to see a balanced judgment that delivers compensation proportionate to losses that consumers have suffered and allows the motor finance sector to continue supporting millions of motorists to own vehicles. It is now appropriate to let the appeals process run its course.”

What is the Supreme Court car finance case?

What is the Supreme Court car finance case?

The FCA was originally investigating motor finance complaints where a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) was involved.

But in October 2024, a landmark Court of Appeal ruling widened the saga to other types of "hidden" commission payments and raised the possibility of millions of motorists receiving pay-outs.

A Court of Appeal judgement involving lenders Close Brothers and FirstRand Bank ruled in favour of consumers, deciding it was unlawful for car dealers to earn a commission without informing the customer and securing their consent. The judgement related to fixed commissions as well as DCAs. Both lenders have appealed to the Supreme Court, which is set to reveal its judgement on the afternoon of Friday 1 August.

In an update published on its website in June , the FCA said it was considering how a possible motor finance consumer redress scheme would work, ahead of next month’s court judgment. For example, whether motorists would have to opt into the scheme or if they would be opted in automatically, and how the compensation rates would be calculated.

The regulator said: “It’s not possible to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment, but we're engaging with stakeholders now and providing this update because we want to be able to act as quickly as possible once the Supreme Court has made its judgment, so we can start to bring greater certainty for affected consumers, firms and investors.”

What is the FCA motor finance market review?

The FCA banned discretionary commissions for personal contract or hire purchase car finance agreements on 28 January 2021, as it was concerned that they created an incentive for brokers to increase how much people were charged for their car loan.

A discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) meant that the higher the interest rate, the more commission the broker received.

But, the City watchdog then became worried about the number of complaints that firms were rejecting about DCAs, which were later upheld when challenged through other channels.

The regulator said this suggests a significant dispute between some firms and consumers on whether firms had breached legal and regulatory requirements.

It launched the motor finance market review in January 2024.

The FCA has used its powers to pause all complaints about DCAs until 4 December 2025 as it reviews the sector and these sales more widely.

How would a car finance redress scheme work?

A car finance redress scheme could work in a similar way to the payment protection insurance (PPI) scandal. The FCA would set rules firms must follow and put checks in place to make sure they do.

The regulator said it would aim to deliver a redress scheme directly to the public, so they wouldn’t need to use a claims management company or law firm.

The FCA said in its update on 5 June: “We would aim to make any scheme easy for consumers to understand and participate in, without needing to use a claims management company (CMC) or law firm.

“Consumers should be aware that by signing up now with a CMC or law firm, they may end up paying for a service they do not need and having to pay up to 30% in fees out of any award they may receive.”

The regulator noted that it would be guided by principles such as comprehensiveness, fairness, cost effectiveness and timeliness when creating the compensation scheme.

“There may be tensions between some of these principles, which will require us to consider how to strike the right balance. For example, if we seek to make a redress scheme comprehensive and ensure a wide range of affected consumers are included, it may mean consumers have to wait longer for redress because there are more claims to process,” it said.

Another issue to decide upon is whether the scheme would be “opt in” or “opt out”. The latter means customers are automatically included unless they opt out, which could be simpler for consumers; but for firms, it could be more expensive and take longer to implement, particularly if customers have changed their address.

Darren Richards, head of Broadstone’s insurance, regulatory and risk advisory division, says the decisions behind the design of a redress scheme are “complex”, for example “the opt-in and opt-out approaches will change the volume of complaints dealt with”.

He adds: “The FCA also warns that the redress approach may differ from decisions made by the Financial Ombudsman Service, which some firms have taken as a benchmark for their planning.”

In terms of next steps, the FCA says it will confirm within six weeks of the Supreme Court judgment whether it is proposing to introduce a redress scheme. If it is, it will set out timings for a consultation, which could be quite quick.

The redress scheme should be up and running next year.

The FCA added that any scheme must be fair to consumers who’ve lost out, while also ensuring the integrity of the motor finance market, so it works well for future consumers.

It warned: “If many firms were to go out of business or withdraw from the market, this could reduce competition and could make it more expensive for consumers to borrow money to buy a car in the future. Where firms fail, customers may not get any redress, as motor finance isn't covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.”