Member Info for klishen

The FCA received over 1000 responses to their consultation. Major lenders have provided strong pushback united in their concerns including the legal basis, timescale and broadness of eligibility, the enormous admin cost implications and how compensation is calculated. Add to this the possible facilitation of spurious claims from those who have suffered no harm.

In response to this heap of feedback all the FCA have to say is that they are prepared to “tweak” their scheme. Needless to say, unless there is a monumental shift in the direction of addressing industry concerns (and taking for granted enough CEOs act in shareholder interests), a concerted legal battle looks inevitable.

And the more protracted this battle, the worse it could be for the FCA. While litigation is ongoing, the redress scheme would suffer delay and potentially lumber the FCA with burgeoning admin and legal costs defending their scheme. In a sense, the tables would be turned. Delays in the scheme would give industry some relief from the enormous costs foisted on it to justify its innocence from the FCA presumption of unfairness by default (unfairness, as arbitrarily defined by the FCA). And just how long could this go on for?

Anyway, as CBG’s business continues to evolve and grow, with its ludicrously low tnav, there is much to look forward to in 2026. No doubt, there will many more unexpected twists and turns in this saga, but hopefully eventual closure too with the industry and consumers alike treated fairly and able to move on, and of course long-suffering shareholders rewarded! In the meantime, nice to see the sp doing so well recently.

All imho. GLA and a prosperous new year!

Just skimmed through the APPG report ( https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6593eab94313f005693f93c4/t/690887696f8ef37377fd2365/1762166633482/APPG+on+Fair+Banking+Report+-+Car+Finance+-+Scandal+Assessing+Redress+%28November+2025%29.pdf ).

So laughable and “nakedly” biased. Written by a journalist engaged by the APPG over many years and sponsored by a CMC with 4m claims on its books so plenty enough skin in the game there!

The report goes to many lengths stressing the multi-faceted harm and incontrovertible loss suffered by the consumer (“victims”). Both lenders and the FCA come under ridiculous attack (p20, FCA “… appears to have nakedly taken the side of lenders”).

Much of the arguments are in direct contradiction to what the lenders have stated. Here’s one striking example. Both Lloyds and Santander UK emphasised the threat to the wider UK economy the redress scheme in its current form posed, but this is what the APPG Report says on p21, “It is now widely accepted that the billions of pounds that flowed from PPI had a material, significant and positive impact on the UK, boosting GDP with the cash from payouts going first into the pockets of local people and from there into the tills of local shops and businesses.”

Now there’s a thought. Imagine how happy all those millions of victimised consumers will be after receiving their windfalls. And how grateful these same millions of voters will be to the Govt and in turn how grateful the Govt will be to the FCA! Clearly this battle is blatantly political at this stage with the FCA wilfully ignoring the law of the Land. We’ll see what unfolds.

Anyway, on p20 I think the crux of the report is stated “… Redress under the FCA scheme for the 4m claims would total £1.9bn, against £6bn if those same claims were assessed through the courts.” And of course, the implicit assumption is that ALL the “victims” would succeed in their court claims. Simply a case of the FCA eating the CMCs lunch and they don’t like it!

I won’t be able to watch the Martin Lewis show tonight, but I look forward to the feedback. No doubt many more grateful victims will be walked through the user friendly compensation process!

PS. Only 2 weeks today from the end of the consultation process. Not a peep of news, although today is the cut-off for firms to request extension of the deadline for them to respond to motor finance complaints, so maybe we’ll hear about this soon.

Gla. All inho. Dyor.

Like some others here, I have also added recently and today in the surest conviction that the proposed FCA redress will ultimately be rolled back considerably and the current lid on the price is going to be harder to maintain as consultation evolves and news starts to leak.

I am still not sure which would best characterise the FCA’s aggressive redress proposal - Is it a trump-style “tariff” negotiating tactic or some kind of genuine political hostility towards the Motor Industry which they mean to extort to the maximum? If this proposal was ever to survive in its current form, it would be a blueprint for attack on any part of British Industry. Time will tell.

Anyway, here is another gem from the FCA. They plan new rules eliminating public disclosure of short sellers to retail investors. So, we will lose sight of who may be attacking our positions and manipulating the share price (which on this bb many of us rely on Knot’s excellent analysis). Of course, this will not apply to Institutions who will still have access to private data.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/uk-stop-disclosing-identity-stock-market-short-sellers-ft-reports-2025-10-27/

Gla, dyor.

Omitted to say £800m extra provision.

Lloyds announce this morning an RNS they have increased their provisions, but caveat it with many redress scheme critical points which they will present to the FCA. Push backs beginning to move..

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/LLOY/motor-finance-update-pxhjss7ogbzguxt.html

Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling

•The Supreme Court's decision on August 1, 2025, clarified the responsibilities of lenders and brokers regarding commission disclosure. This ruling may limit the FCA's ability to impose blanket compensation requirements if lenders can demonstrate compliance with the Court's findings.

•The ruling may also influence how the FCA structures the redress scheme, potentially requiring more precise definitions and criteria to avoid legal challenges.

These challenges highlight the complexities involved in implementing the FCA's motor finance redress proposal, particularly in light of recent legal precedents.

GLA. dyor

As I expect extensive legal challenges are inevitable with this proposal, I asked Search Assistant AI what it thought. To me the proposal as it stands looks like a form of regulatory extortion and must be challenged vigorously at all costs.

Maybe others on this bb can try with tighter queries and more sophisticated AI engines.

Query: What potential legal challenges can the FCA motor finance redress proposal face regarding the rebuttable presumption’s principle and its definition of unfairness and its use of FSMA section 404 considering the supreme court motor finance ruling on 1st august 2025??

The FCA's motor finance redress proposal may face legal challenges related to the rebuttable presumption of unfairness, particularly in how it defines unfairness in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, which clarified that lenders do not owe a fiduciary duty to customers. Additionally, the application of FSMA section 404 could be contested if it is perceived as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's findings on commission disclosure and the nature of the relationships involved in motor finance agreements.

Legal Challenges to the FCA Motor Finance Redress Proposal Rebuttable Presumption Principle

Rebuttable Presumption Principle

• The rebuttable presumption principle allows a party to assume a fact is true until proven otherwise. In the context of the FCA's proposal, this could lead to challenges regarding how unfairness is defined and applied.

• Critics may argue that the FCA's approach could unfairly burden lenders by presuming they acted unfairly without sufficient evidence. This could lead to disputes over the fairness of the presumption itself.

Definition of Unfairness

• The Supreme Court ruling emphasized that the relationship between lenders and customers must be assessed for fairness under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The FCA's definition of unfairness may face scrutiny if it does not align with the Court's interpretation.

• If the FCA's criteria for determining unfairness are seen as too broad or vague, lenders may challenge the legitimacy of the redress scheme, arguing it lacks a solid legal foundation.

Use of FSMA Section 404

• FSMA Section 404 allows the FCA to impose rules for the protection of consumers. However, its application in the context of the redress scheme could be contested.

• Lenders may argue that the FCA is overstepping its authority by using FSMA Section 404 to enforce a compensation scheme that could lead to significant financial liabilities without clear legal backing.

Part 1 – a little more to come.

Remember that earlier this year the FOS introduced a fee of £250 for CMCs referring motor finance claims. Add to this that CMCs grab 20-30% of a successful claim.

This adds up to some serious discouragement for small or spurious claims. But never mind says the FCA: Opt-in to our redress scheme (and have a go at the lottery – why not, it costs you nothing?)

So the new liability estimate has been lowered to £8.2B, well that’s a start.

I haven’t read all 360 pages but from a quick scan a couple of things stand out for me.

Firstly, as per usual the FCA appears to have ignored the SC ruling stressing the fact-specific dependency of unfairness. And to justify this circumvention, at least in part, they have invoked section 404 FSMA. Unfairness has been re-defined as “inadequate” disclosure of 3 relevant arrangements: DCA, high commission arrangement or tied arrangement.

Secondly, a general approach of rebuttable presumptions applies when assessing liability whereby the firm is presumed to have acted unfairly unless they can prove (rebut) otherwise – a sort of guilty until proven innocent principle.

Now I suppose that any lenders with small enough liabilities may be willing to accept these principles for expediency, but not those with lots at stake.

I imagine some major push-back during consultation (and if required legal challenge) to this proposal and further significant reductions in liabilities.

All Imho, dyor.

Https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp25-27.pdf

A lot was resting on today’s delayed results. The impacts of major business restructuring (Winterflood sale etc) introduced many unknowns on top of the mighty uncertainty created by the FCA saga.

So, it was some relief to see the robustness of the results, strong capital position, and the headway made streamlining and repositioning their business to be optimally efficient, fit and ready to launch into their new growth vision. Nice job CBG!

Looking forward now to October, as clarity around the FCA redress unfolds and a new turbo charged beginning for CBG.

All imho, GLA.

Centrica and X-Energy recently signed a massive deal to build nuclear reactors in Hartlepool and are looking for other partners.

Last year, Centrica and Ceres (along with Bosch) launched a whitepaper about the role of hydrogen in decarbonising the UK.

So hopefully, with Centrica’s knowledge of Ceres SOFCs technology offerings, there is an exciting prospect they may engage Ceres to integrate its clean energy solution with their nuclear power generation.

We’ll see. I am waiting with anticipation for an announcement.

Any views?

GLA, dyor.

So, we may have to wait a while to see much yesterday’s brutal sell-off was justified after the Kroger CEO comments.

Does anyone know if Ocado’s automated robotics technology can be adapted to work, as like Walmart’s, as a micro-hub fulfilment solution attached to individual stores. Perhaps they have already implemented this?

If so, the Kroger e-commerce review could present a great opportunity for Ocado to reset their partnership. What could be better if Ocado can offer an optimal, integrated hybrid network of CFCs and ship-from-store fulfilment hubs.

Has Ocado the capability to offer this? Any views anyone?

AMGenerousDerby,

Here is the link to tomorrow's meeting. There is an option to watch live. An outline of meeting purpose is also posted.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/25101

Yes, it would appear the FCA has ignored the SC ruling that deemed lender’s liability is fact-specific and based on unfairness which can only be determined on a case-by-case basis considering many factors. There is no fiduciary duty and non-disclosure of commission details (DCA or otherwise) or even disclosure of very high commission rates does not necessarily make a relationship unfair.

And yet despite the SC ruling, the FCA in their response to Q1 seem to claim under the CCA that non-disclosure is a deliberate concealment and they can apply a systemic liability across the industry and expand the 6-year limitations window. And later the FCA went on to claim they have received extensive legal advice.

This whole matter seems so politicised I can’t imagine what happens next as the Aug 1st SC ruling seems to be offering little guidance to the FCA. But I am looking forward to seeing how the FCA’s position begins to unravel, starting with the Lords FCA meeting!

But ultimately, the SC ruling gives motor finance industry all the leverage it needs to fight back, as long and hard as it takes, against any punitive blanket redress scheme the FCA seeks to impose. I suspect there may well be an agreed broad-based redress scheme in the end, but only after major cooperation from the motor finance industry and on very fair and reasonable terms, far less than the liability levels currently touted by the FCA.

All imho. Dyor. GLA.

I assume this is the event to discuss the motor finance redress scheme as FCA CEO will be attending. No agenda posted as yet.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/25101

About this time last week, I was one of those looking forward to the market’s response to the SC ruling. The ruling was a major victory for common sense and the lenders, and the Gov was spared the grief of having to get involved. Ok, the SC decided that Mr Johnson was treated unfairly, but who could be surprised at that after reading about the circumstances. A blatant example of where the FCA should have put protections in place years ago.

Anyway, what could spoil the party, but a ham-fisted intervention by the FCA. This duly came with a redress proposal that posed a fresh threat to the motor finance industry, the Gov wanted to avoid. So, it is good to see that backlash to the FCA grandstanding and overreach has already started, and the House of Lords has questioned its practicality and summoned the FCA CEO to explain.

After looking around, reading articles and posts etc, I have formed the following possible picture.

I suspect that there will be very hard push back from the financing industry during the consultation period. As the SC ruling stressed the legal per case basis to determine if unfairness took place, this gives the industry plenty of leverage to challenge any attempt by the FCA to enforce a punitive one-size fits all type of redress scheme. Therefore, if any sort of blanket scheme that bypasses CMCs is possible, it is going to require massive levels of cooperation from the industry. The final scheme will likely be severely watered down both in terms of scope of time frame and levels of redress. Another possibility is this could also morph into another major crisis if the industry pushes back long and hard enough causing delays that balloon FCA admin costs or if the FCA tries to get heavy handed, say with section 404.

So I am looking forward to seeing if the scope and severity of the FCA redress scheme gradually unravels and seeing the effect on the CBG share price!

All imho. Only time will tell. Dyor.

I asked GPT-4o mini just how FCA might plan to decide redress. The response emphasises the per case basis need to find for unfairness. So just how can the FCA scheme work without potentially incurring any number legal per case challenges? All suggestions welcome. I suppose we will know more tomorrow.

Query: "Considering the Supreme Court ruling in the motor finance cases handed down on 1st August 2025, how will the FCA decide if a relationship was unfair within the meaning of section 140A of the CCA?"

Supreme Court Ruling on Motor Finance Cases

On August 1, 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling regarding motor finance cases, particularly focusing on the relationships between car dealers, lenders, and consumers. This ruling has implications for how the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will assess whether a relationship was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA).

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

1. No Fiduciary Duty: The Court ruled that car dealers do not owe a fiduciary duty to customers when arranging finance. This means that dealers are not required to act solely in the best interests of the consumer, which significantly impacts claims of unfairness.

2. Disclosure of Commissions: The Court emphasized that while dealers must disclose material facts, vague statements about commissions may not suffice. The specifics of what constitutes a material fact will depend on the circumstances of each case.

3. Partial Victory for Consumers: In the case of Johnson v FirstRand Bank, the Court upheld the claim under section 140A due to the undisclosed commission, which was substantial (over 25% of the vehicle's price). This lack of transparency contributed to the determination that the relationship was unfair.

FCA's Approach to Assessing Unfair Relationships

In light of the Supreme Court's ruling, the FCA will likely consider the following factors when determining if a relationship was unfair under section 140A of the CCA:

• Transparency of Fees and Commissions: The extent to which commissions and fees were disclosed to the consumer will be crucial. If significant commissions were hidden or inadequately explained, this could indicate an unfair relationship.

• Proportionality of Charges: The FCA will assess whether the charges (like commissions) were proportionate to the services provided. Excessive charges relative to the value of the vehicle or the service rendered may be deemed unfair.

• Consumer Understanding: The FCA will evaluate whether consumers were adequately informed about their options and the implications of the finance agreements. If consumers were misled or not fully informed, this could contribute to an unfair assessment.

• Commercial Ties: The nature of the relationship between the dealer and the lender, including any undisclosed commercial ties, will be scrutinized. Hidden relationships that could influence the dealer's recommendations may lead to findings of unfairness.

For some on this board, the timing of the SC announcement seems to have caused a little hysteria. Naturally, the most recent investors are more likely to be more anxious than say the likes of me, who got in early with an average below £3. Now, there is always the possibility the SC judgement sparks mayhem and requires an immediate gov response, even if they are in recession. But in any case, I believe we can all take comfort in CBG’s preparedness from proactively streamlining its business and boosting its capital reserves. I remain unspooked and confident in CBG’s future whatever the outcome.

Volatile trading may week kick-off Monday morning, but I am most intrigued by what may happen towards the end of the week approaching the hand down, where a sharp definitive move in either direction could signify leaked information.

Good luck all, Dyor.

PS. I thought I’d ask GPT-4o mini a simple question. The answer makes good sense to me. Any thoughts? Query: “I am an investor in Close Brothers. Why has the UK supreme court decided to hand down judgement on the Hopcraft case on a Friday after market close?”

Reasons for Timing the Hopcraft Judgment

The UK Supreme Court's decision to hand down the judgment on the Hopcraft case on a Friday after market close is influenced by several strategic considerations:

Key Reasons

Minimizing Market Disruption: By announcing the judgment after trading hours, the court aims to reduce immediate volatility in Close Brothers' stock price. This allows investors to process the implications of the ruling without the pressure of real-time trading.

Significant Financial Implications: The Hopcraft case involves potential multi-billion-pound consumer redress schemes related to motor finance commissions. The court likely recognizes the substantial impact this ruling could have on financial institutions, including Close Brothers, and wants to provide a clear context for the market.

Time for Analysis: Announcing the judgment after market close gives analysts, investors, and the company itself time to assess the ruling and formulate responses or strategies before the market reopens on Monday.

Legal Precedent: The court may also be setting a precedent for how significant rulings affecting publicly traded companies are communicated, ensuring that stakeholders have adequate time to understand the implications.

Implications for Close Brothers

Potential Financial Liability: Depending on the ruling, Close Brothers could face significant financial liabilities if the court finds in favor of consumers regarding commission practices.

Market Sentiment: The timing allows the company to manage investor sentiment and prepare for potential market reactions, which is crucial for maintaining shareholder confidence.

This strategic timing reflects the court's awareness of the broader financial landscape and the need to balance legal proceedings with market stability.

Nice to see a breach above 80p at long last, Vodafone CEO has already said she expects a return to revenue growth this year in Germany, their largest market. With that said, the German parliament recently approved a massive circa 1Trillion Euro spending plan to boost the economy over the next decade. So hopefully trading update this month will include some encouraging news from German operations and kick-start a long sustained turnaround!