Category: Motor finance

Posted on

FCA publishes motor finance consumer redress schemes

On 30 March 2026, at around 4:45pm, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) published a press release, updated its webpage and published Policy Statement 26/3: Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme (PS26/3) (covering 584 pages).

But that was not all. The FCA also published (in addition to PS26/3):

– Technical Annex 1 (covering 181 pages);

– Technical Annex 2 (covering 45 pages);

– consumer research survey (covering 46 pages) and a technical report analysing the awareness of the relationship between vehicle dealerships and motor finance companies (covering 41 pages);

– an updated diagnostic report (covering 101 pages);

– motor finance redress scheme firm-led communications (covering 42 pages) and a supporting annex (covering 89 pages);

– two factsheets: one for customers invited to join the scheme and another for customers who have complained (each being 2 pages);

– analyst briefing slides (covering 25 slides); and

– a transcript of the analyst briefing call (covering 20 pages).

To try and avoid the need to read 1,178 pages, we’ve prepared a handy one-page summary of the key features of the consumer redress schemes (if you click the imagine you should get a bigger version). But the devil is, of course, always in the detail.

If you have any questions, please contact me, Jeanette, Leanna, or Paula, or any of your other usual Walker Morris contacts.

Posted on

FCA publishes press release on proposed motor finance consumer redress scheme

Earlier today, on 4 March 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published a press release on its proposals to introduce a motor finance consumer redress scheme.

Some key messages are:

– The FCA says that “if we proceed with a scheme, we are likely to make several changes“.

– If a scheme is made, the FCA expects “to publish final rules in late March” and the timing “will be outside market hours and we’ll confirm the date in advance“.  

– The FCA has not yet made any final decisions on any scheme.

– But the FCA proposes to “streamline the consumer journey to make it smoother for firms to operate“. These changes will include:

(a) removing the need to ask customers who have already complained if they want to opt out: instead consumers will be told within 3 months of the end of the implementation period if they’re owed compensation and how much.

(b) consumers receiving redress offers will be able to accept it straight-away; and

(c) firms will not need to communicate by recorded delivery: instead a range of channels will be acceptable to best meet a consumer’s needs while preventing fraud.

– The FCA is likely to introduce “an implementation period of 3 months, with up to 5 months for older agreements“.

– The FCA reminds consumers that there “is no need to use a claims management company (CMC) or law firm“.

Posted on

FCA and House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee’s letters on a proposed motor finance redress scheme published

It’s always interesting to see the exchanges between the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee (the Committee). They usually provide useful insights into the thinking of both the FCA and the Committee.

The letters which have been exchanged following the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Hopcraft & Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited; Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance [2025] UKSC 33 are very interesting. Here are the links:

– FCA’s letter dated 4 August 2025; and

– Committee’s letter dated 8 August 2025.

Posted on

FCA publishes letter to claims management companies inviting them to review financial promotions relating to motor finance claims

On 4 August 2025, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) published a copy of a letter dated 31 July 2025 that it sent to claims management companies (or CMCs) inviting them to review their financial promotions relating to motor finance claims.

This letter says that between 1 January 2024 and 30 June 2025, the FCA’s engagement with 14 CMCs result in 225 financial promotions being amended or withdrawn.

The FCA also identified a number of concerns including:

– exaggerated claim values;

– falsely implying that refunds have already been secured or are guaranteed;

– creating a false sense of urgency;

– indiscriminately suggesting the contact relates to knowledge of a consumer’s motor finance agreement; and

– signing up consumers without their consent.

CMCs have therefore been reminded to “avoid using clickbait-style promotions or language that suggests a guaranteed outcome before any investigation has taken place. Additionally, given the potential for a redress scheme to be introduced, firms should not use language that implies a false sense of urgency. Such messaging may place undue pressure on consumers and could be considered misleading under the FCA’s rules and the Consumer Duty“.

The FCA expects CMCs to ensure “that all financial promotions are clear, fair, and not misleading, and that they accurately reflect the nature and status of any potential claims”.

The FCA has asked firms to take the following action:

– review and revise financial promotions;

– avoid misleading outcome guarantees;

– remove false urgency; and

– monitor and update promotions regularly.

Posted on

FCA says it will consult on a proposed motor finance compensation scheme

Earlier today, on 3 August 2025, the UK Financial Conduct Authority published a press release and a statement setting out its plan to consult on a proposed motor finance compensation scheme.

The devil is always in the detail (particularly on a complicated topic like this) so we will need to wait to see what the FCA says (a consultation is likely to be published in October 2025 with a six week period for responses).

If a scheme is made then the FCA says it expects most compensation payments to be ‘no more than £950’ and for payments to be made ‘in 2026’.

But there are many points raised, and questions left unanswered, by the FCA’s announcement. And some parts of their announcement require a lot of work and buy in from Treasury.

The FCA has also published a transcript of a call with market analysts which took place at 5pm on 3 August 2025.

Posted on

UK Supreme Court hands down judgment in motor finance commission case

Earlier today, on 1 August 2025, the UK Supreme Court published a press release and its judgment in Hopcraft & Hopcraft v Close Brothers Limited; Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance [2025] UKSC 33 dealing with claims relating to commissions paid by lenders to dealers introducing customers entering into motor finance agreements.

The Court decided that:

– for both the claims under the tort of bribery, and in equity, there needed to be a fiduciary duty between the dealers and the customers;

– in typical relationships like these, the dealers did not owe the customers a fiduciary duty sufficient to give rise to a liability in the tort of bribery, or in equity;

– the claims in tort and equity in all three claims would be dismissed;

– in Johnson, where there was also a claim under the unfair relationship provisions in Sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Court acknowledged that those provisions were “highly fact-sensitive“. There mere fact that there has been no disclosure, or only partial disclosure, does not necessarily mean a relationship was unfair;

– however, in Johnson there were three factors which the Court found to be relevant to support its conclusion that the relationship was unfair: (a) the size of the commission, (b) the fact that the dealer’s documents did not properly explain the dealer’s role and (c) it was questionable to what extent a customer could have been expected to read and understand the lending documents.

Posted on

FCA publishes a statement on key considerations for any consumer redress scheme for motor finance commissions

Earlier today, on 5 June 2025, the FCA published a statement entitled ‘Key considerations in implementing a possible motor finance consumer redress scheme’. 

The key points from the statement are:

– If the FCA proposes “an industry-wide consumer redress scheme“, it’ll set out rules on how to assess claims and calculate redress.  The aim of the scheme would be to make it “easy for consumers to understand and participate in, without needing to use a claims management company (CMC) or law firm“.

– The FCA has been “speaking with consumer groups, firms and industry trade bodies to get their views on important issues to consider if we do introduce a redress scheme“.  If the FCA decides to propose a redress scheme, it’ll consult on why and explain how it thinks a scheme could work. 

– Given the pre-consultation engagement, the FCA “may decide to have a shorter than normal consultation window (for example, 6 weeks)“.

– There will be seven key principles:

(1) comprehensiveness: the scheme should be as wide “as possible so consumers don’t have to go elsewhere, like court“;

(2) fairness: the approach (both on breach and redress) should be “fair to consumers and firms“;

(3) certainty: providing finality for both firms and consumers;

(4) simplicity and cost effectiveness: easy for consumers to participate and the cost of delivering the scheme should be proportionate for firms;

(5) timeliness: resolve the majority of claims “within a reasonable timeframe“;

(6) transparency: consumers should receive clear explanations of decisions and data on the progress of the scheme should be publicly available; and

(7) market integrity: support the ongoing, long-term availability of high quality, competitively-priced motor finance.

– The FCA acknowledges that there can be tensions between these principles and it will aim to get the balance right.

– Scope of a redress scheme: some features to consider are: (a) opt-in or opt out and (b) calculating redress must be “fair to consumers who’ve lost out” and “ensure the integrity of the motor finance market” (and the FCA acknowledges it has seen some “highly speculative figures by some CMCs and law firms“)

– The FCA continues to say that it’ll “confirm within 6 weeks of the Supreme Court judgment whether we’re proposing to introduce a redress scheme. If so, we’ll also set out timings for when we would issue a consultation“.

– If the FCA proposes to introduce a scheme, the final rules for any scheme would “be in 2026“.  The FCA is also keeping under review whether to make any changes to its Handbook.

Posted on

Advertising Standards Agency bans a diesel emission claims ad implying an association with, or endorsement by, the UK Government

On 16 April 2025, the UK Advertising Authority (the ASA) published a decision on whether a post on X (formerly Twitter) about claims relating to diesel emissions published by Cambridge Corporate Consultants Ltd t/a The Claims Guide (The Claims Guide) was misleading. The ASA decided it was. 

The post on The Claims Guide’s X post stated: “Owned a BMW, Citroen, Ford, Peugeot, Volvo, or Jaguar & Land Rover diesel car? Manufacturers are accused of cheating emissions tests […] Over £193 MILLION has been paid. Find out if you qualify”.

The post included an image of black text on a white background that stated: “Diesel Emissions Claims […] Make a claim Drivers can potentially make a diesel emissions claim if they owned or leased a diesel car Claims are expected to [sic] worth up to £10,000 each […] Eligibility is dependent on the exact make and model, so should be checked using the official reg checker” and “Check Your Car In Seconds. Get Up To £10,000 With A Diesel Claim”. The post linked to a page of the The Claims Guide’s website headed “Diesel Emissions Claims”. 

The ASA challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that The Claims Guide was associated or endorsed by the UK Government. 

The Claims Guide’s response was that “any implication of association with or endorsement by the UK Government was unintended”. 

The ASA upheld the challenge. It decided:

– the image had the same “typography, the black and white colour scheme, and simple layout” as the Government’s website;

– these elements (and others) were “distinctively associated with the GOV.UK website and therefore would give consumers the impression that the company “The Claims Guide” was officially approved, endorsed or authorised by the Government to help consumers make diesel emission claims”;

– this was reinforced by the reference to “the official reg checker”(when there was no such checker). 

The advert was therefore banned because it “implied that The Claims Guide was approved, endorsed or authorised by the UK Government, and that was not the case”.

This is a useful and robust decision from the ASA. It ensures the advert cannot be used again by The Claims Guide. But there are many similar adverts on social media, often linked to diesel emissions or motor commissions. Firms who advertise in such a way, or make other misleading claims, may therefore face engagement from the ASA along with their own regulator.