Member Info for hardup

67S

"You're being over simplistic. They are trying to apply points of principle to the evidence."

That is the judges job to apply points of principle to the evidence.

"He acts like his job is to educate them in law"

Sounds like a stitch up to me, surely the judges know what the law is? They should not be judges otherwise.

So if the tariffs were blatantly that biased against US before why did previous US administrations not take action? You only need to look at the gains the US Stock Market has made consistently year in year out to see that the US economy was in very good shape and leading all other world economies with the status quo. It doe's not add up to me.

"Morning 🌄 All,

The Worst is yet to come...."

Didn't you say the same when the SP was 40p?

After 29 trading days, buyback complete to date:

Total shares to date....................................................314,203,792

Aggregate cost to date..............................................£220,151,468.33

Average price paid to date.........................................70.0665p

Percentage of £1.7 billion buyback completed........12.95%

STP is a malodorous pikey.

Skier

"Think of it this way -- when you buy £10k of LLOY shares, your dealer (broker) always has a separate line-item showing their commission *before* you click buy (e.g. £10). They never hide it. There is no secret commission. That's the proper and open way to run a business "

From the FCA Handbook, CONC 4.5.4 R 01/04/2014 RP states

"At the request of the customer, a credit broker must disclose to the customer, in good time before a regulated credit agreement or a regulated consumer hire agreement is entered into, the amount (or if the precise amount is not known, the likely amount) of any commission or fee or other remuneration payable to the credit broker by the lender or owner or a third party."

So there is no requirement to state how much commission is paid unless the borrower specifically asks how much. How many borrowers ask this before signing on the dotted line accepting the terms of the loan. Not many, and if there are any that do ask, they would have been told.

The ambulance chasing firms are up in arms accusing the FCA of siding with the lenders.

"But law firms that file claims against lenders on behalf of borrowers still hit out at the FCA over its comments, saying the regulator was siding too closely with lenders.

Darren Smith, the managing director of Courmacs Legal, a company that says it is handling more than 2m motor finance claims, said: “On a day when millions of people’s bills are going up, it’s hard to understand why the FCA aren’t on the side of consumers, let alone trying to protect lenders who have duped them over many years.

“The regulator should be standing up for consumers, not protecting lenders who have taken them for a ride. People deserve their money back after being ripped off and they deserve it now.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/01/motor-finance-compensation-ruling-goes-too-far-city-regulator

So how much will this law firm make representing over 2 million motor finance claims. How much will it cost this law firm if the decision goes in favour of the lenders? I sincerely hope these ambulance chasing law firms get stung here!

That is more to do with making sure the US stays onside with Israel in fight against HAMAS.

After 28 trading days, buyback complete to date:

Total shares to date.......................................................308,345,262

Aggregate cost to date.................................................£215,921,070.69

.

Average price paid to date...........................................70.0257p

Percentage of £1.7 billion buyback completed..........12.7%

Article on Bloomberg UK reporting on the start of the SP court hearing quoting the FCA s saying a previous legal ruling on motor finance compensation goes to far. The link is a paywall but I managed to copy and paste below from the article before it closed me out.

"The UK’s financial watchdog said a previous legal ruling on motor finance compensation “goes too far,” as a closely-watched Supreme Court hearing on the multibillion-pound issue began on Tuesday.

At the start of a three-day hearing, the Financial Conduct Authority said a “sweeping” appeal court decision last year on the duties of motor dealers went further than expected. The FCA is waiting for a final ruling from the country’s top judges before implementing a redress program for borrowers that some analysts estimate could cost as much as £38 billion ($49.1 billion)."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-01/uk-watchdog-says-prior-motor-finance-ruling-goes-too-far?

67S

"Whose expectation is this, and where is this in print?"

I read it in an article that on average it usually takes around 3 weeks or more after the hearing for the SC to announce their decision in any case. I can't remember where.

If you put your money into one of the Money Market cash funds you will get around 3.5% to 4%, maybe more, on all of the balance.

Expectation is it will be around 3 weeks before the SC announce their decision. We then have to wait for the FCA to decide what action they will take over any redress scheme, they have said this will be within 6 weeks of the SC decision.

Supreme Court hearing this week, but it will probably be 2 or 3 weeks before they announce their decision publicly. Then have to wait for FCA to decide what steps they will take, they have said this would be within 6 weeks of the Supreme Court decision being announced.

You can invest your money in one of the cash money market funds and get a better interest rate while you wait.

Bloomers

"Just waiting for the sludge hardup, 67 to accuse skier and I of being the same person because we agree."

FFS dry your eyes you big 😭😭👶 If you're looking for sympathy you'll find it in the dictionary......it's in between 5hit and syphilis.

"The key phrase is "informed consent". It's a cornerstone of UK law."

So again the FCA is at fault here. Why did their regulations not reflect this requirement?

"He could neither agree nor disagree on whether to pay the commission, because he hadn't fully seen it. The buyer didn't (couldn't) give his "informed consent" to the commission payment."

The FCA regulations at the time were that the consumer was to be made aware that there was a commission charge included in the total cost of finance. And if the consumer asked how much then the dealer was required to say how much this would be. It was up to the consumer to ask how much this would be. How many consumers actually ask how much the commission element was? And it was not a hidden charge, they paid no more than what they were told the total cost of finance would be.

"A free-market economy must operate on full pricing transparency."

Then the regulator, the FCA, is at fault as the companies affected here were following FCA regulations that were in place at the time.