Member Info for BasherSmith

I must have missed this at some point, but on what basis is the FCA ignoring the six year cut-off for bringing claims under the Statute of Limitations Act, as mentioned by the House of Lords committee?

Posted by emayside on the other board. No doubt someone will comment.

The point is, the FCA are moving this forward under the Consumer Credit Act and as such it does not have to mirror the court ruling

This means the FCA can define “unfairness” more broadly than the court did, especially when systemic practices may have harmed consumers—even if they don’t meet the legal threshold of fiduciary breach.

The assumption that FCA must mirror the court judgment is flawed. The FCA’s role is regulatory, not judicial—it can act on broader consumer protection grounds.

The Consumer Credit Act gives the FCA discretion to define and address unfair relationships, even if the courts didn’t find a fiduciary breach.

I have no position in CBG currently because it is a nothing short of a gamble either way.

Nihar - Agree. What was the point of making that statement at this time? They must have known what effect it would have on the value of the company. Is it peddling a conspiracy theory to speculate on a preparation for an MBO ? Probably, but I can't help wondering!

"Our PCP claims experts assist customers with claims involving major lenders, including Black Horse Ltd, Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd, FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch), BMW Financial Services (GB) Ltd, Santander Consumer (UK) PLC, RCI Financial Services Ltd, Vauxhall Finance PLC, Close Brothers Ltd, PSA Finance UK Ltd, FCE Bank PLC, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Ltd, CA Auto Finance UK Ltd, Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd, Blue Motor Finance Ltd, NIIB Group Ltd, Toyota Financial Services (UK) PLC, Moneybarn No. 1 Ltd, Hyundai Capital UK Ltd, Startline Motor Finance Ltd, and many more."

That's 18 plus companies that all have to roll over and accept the FCA proposal. I can't get 8 people to agree to a venue and a date for lunch currently!

Good luck with that . I'll be amazed if one of them at least doesn't threaten or take some kind of legal action. If they do, then that's everything stopped for three to six months perhaps - and they are very likely to win!

I thought extortion rackets died out with the Kray Brothers.

Today's nonsense reinforces my views that Rathi will never get this scheme into operation. There are too many companies involved, each with their own legal departments, probably producing a variety of views. Really, how is he ever going to get any consensus from the companies involved, it will be like trying to herd cats, eventually everything grinding to a halt in a morass of objections and requests for clarification .

A likely outcome in my opinion, but what do I know, is that he will be moved aside and someone will be appointed with the job of sorting out the mess. That someone will have to quickly produce a compromise scheme watering down the current proposals in order to get anything off the ground. The end result will be a watering down of the financial impact. If you like reading history it's exactly what happened when they had to sort out the mess that Thatcher made with her Poll Tax.

I don't know whether I'm right or not, I'm blundering around in the dark like the rest of you and you may disagree with me, but I suggest it is a possibility.

Analysts at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods estimated that Lloyds would likely need to set aside £1.65 billion in total based on the FCA’s latest announcement. While that would imply Lloyds needs a further £500 million in provisions, it’s better than the £2 billion total KBW previously expected Lloyds would require.

The agency now expects most consumers will receive an average of £700 in compensation. That’s down from its previous estimate that most customers would get less than £950.

Just an idle thought. Looking at Mike Morgan's actions over the last year, he has sold off three peripheral units and embarked on a cost reduction campaign, whilst also amassing cash reserves. Why so much? Looked like overkill to me . The kind of thing you might do if you were deliberately making the company attractive to a bidder, which seemed crazy. It seemed so far fetched that I dismissed it.

However, somebody mentioned Management Buy Out today, which I had never thought about, and preparation for an MBO would be an even better fit .

Actually I don't care who owns the company as long as they give me £10 per share, or give me a dividend so that the nice amount of money I've made here is not dead, nor depreciating by 3.5% a year due to inflation.

I did say it was only an idle thought!

I put capitals in. Where TF have they gone?

first rand is only the start. rathi has said,

" i hope the finance industry doesn't drag its feet we really need to get closure on this and move forward."

what he actually meant was: " i hope the finance industry agree to this without giving me any trouble. if i can wrap this up quickly and hush up the **** up i made, there is still a slender chance they may let me keep my job."

getting a large number of companies each with their own distinctive interests to all fall into line at once looks pretty impossible to me. someone is going to take this back to court in my opinion. you ain't seen nothing yet.

Blade be careful. From tomorrow it will be possible to take an informed guess as to the likely maximum hit (if any) that CBG will have to face and thus form an opinion of the real value of the company . The first time for a long time.

This is a very low liquidity share with only a small number of shares available at any one time, as you might see if you do what I have just done a couple of times recently, selling out completely then buying back in at a lower price at the open, constantly being offered "deal at best" even for packets of 5000 shares. Even the rumour of a takeover would whoosh the price for instance, freely available shares would just not be there. Who knows where we are going or who is watching this with interest?

Sorry - 6 years back from 2021, not from the start of the agreement.

From the ft article.

At the time that DCA's were banned the FCA reckoned they were costing the consumers 165 million a year for the 14 years from 2007 - 2021. This is nowhere near £9 billion even with interest and admin. I also can't see why it's not six years from the start of the agreement, as per the Consumer Credit Act, not 14 years.

Very telling - "Costs to the consumer did not decrease after 2021."

Brilliant posts Liberty and Knot. Thank heavens we've got you.

Citywire Stock Talk: Close Brothers attractions being recognised.

Anyone have a subscription? Is this why the price has risen today?

"The FCA seems to have an agenda that ignores the SC decision."

I know what you are saying, I had the same uneasy feeling after watching the Parliamentary Committee hearing. However Ratty was being given a very easy ride from a Committee that seemed to assume that there will be a compensation scheme, in fact one woman's only concern seemed to be when her constituents were going to get payments, most of the members didn't seem to have a clue.

I think that when the FCA meet with the banks it will be a different matter. The banks would be crazy to just roll over and start dishing our money like PPI. I am hoping (expecting ) that any unfair proposals by the FCA will be threatened with legal action and that the scheme - because I think there will have to be a face saving scheme - will be whittled down to a fraction of the original proposal.

Rightly or wrongly I am staying committed to my original position and holding long-term. Close could easily afford to pay a 30p dividend now , but I don't think they will because of the optics involved, still the share price will rise considerably when they eventually do. I would really like the CEO to say something encouraging at the results or just tell us what liability the bank expects, but I'm not holding my breath. I still think that sooner or later a bid is coming, Close looks like a sitting duck to me. Takeover or not, the bank is worth a good deal more than £4.90 IMO.

Good luck all.

Don't cry before you're hurt!

"At that point the long list of potential Budget revenue raisers will start to populate the Treasury spreadsheet known as the "scorecard". Rumours will fly around. Indeed ministers are amazed at some of the speculation so far. For example, bank shares fell on suggestions the chancellor would enact a think tank report on windfall taxes, published when she was on holiday, that she has never even read. BBC"

HtTps://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/uk-motor-finance-ruling-could-fuel-ma-2025-08-18/

Close Brothers discussed as a potential target. Still throwing the £9 to £18 billion compensation around which I don't believe from moment.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, CBG is a sitting duck for a takeover in my opinion. At a very conservative £8.00 s per share and bearing in mind the cash in hand CBG would cost less than a billion. There are plenty of financial companies in the world who could buy CBG with their petty cash, never mind a share plus cash or all share offer. Takeover or not, it's win-win from this position.

Telegraph just now - Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, said: “The broad read across is that the extreme scenario of fiduciary duty and bribery have been rejected - therefore the worst case scenario is off the table for the banks.

“It allows the FCA to come up a redress plan that only punishes those that need to be punished. It’s a positive impact for Close Brothers in particular.”

As many will know Lloyds is also affected by the verdict and will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange this evening as LYG, thus possibly an indicator of what might happen on Monday.