RE: Unavailable data12 Oct 2025 17:05
1️⃣ FCA’s stated position (from Consultation Paper CP25/27, July 2025)
The FCA says the redress scheme must be “fair, practicable, and proportionate.”
Because most of these finance agreements date back many years, record-keeping gaps are expected.
The consultation makes three key points:
Lenders remain responsible for assessing and paying redress to eligible customers even if customers or dealers no longer hold documentation, provided the lender reasonably can identify an in-scope agreement from its own data.
Where the lender has incomplete records, it must use reasonable evidence and assumptions to reconstruct what likely happened (e.g., apply standard commission models used at the time, average commissions, or representative interest rate spreads).
The FCA explicitly says lack of individual customer evidence should not, by itself, disqualify a consumer if the firm’s own data or industry averages can support a fair estimate.
In short:
🟢 Customers aren’t expected to produce their own records.
🔵 Lenders are expected to use their systems or recreate data “on a reasonable-assumption basis.”
2️⃣ When records are completely missing
If neither the lender nor the dealer has any usable records of a particular agreement, the FCA suggests firms may:
Use standardised assumptions (e.g., typical commission structures for that dealer or channel); or
Apply a default redress figure for that period and product type; and
Document and justify the basis used.
So there will likely be template calculations built into the final rules — the FCA doesn’t want firms rejecting claims solely due to missing paperwork.
3️⃣ Liability and burden of proof
Burden of reconstruction sits with the lender, not the consumer.
Consumers will typically just confirm basic facts (name, address, dealer, approximate date, vehicle, etc.).
Lenders must search their legacy systems, dealer-portal archives, and (if necessary) third-party data to verify whether the customer had a commission-linked agreement.
If the lender can’t reasonably confirm or deny and the consumer’s claim is plausible, the FCA indicates the benefit of doubt should lean toward the customer under the “fair and reasonable” principle.
4️⃣ What this means for Close Brothers plc (and peers)
They cannot rely on absence of customer records to deny liability.
They’ll have to reconstruct or estimate outcomes for any period where their own system data are incomplete.
This raises operational cost and adds uncertainty — one reason Close Brothers has said its £165 million provision may need to be materially increased.
_______________________________________
So the FCA are basically saying to everyone in the UK that you can apply for £700 even if you do not have any records!
And CBG will probably have to pay you!
What a joke!
CBG should not pay a single penny to anyone that does not have the full record
Sign In
Follow the stocks
