The FCA burying themselves10 May 2026 22:55
Supreme Court 2025 : "320 ... Nevertheless, we agree with the FCA and Court of Appeal (para 20) that the mere fact that there has been no disclosure of the commission, or only partial disclosure, will not necessarily suffice of itself to make the relationship between lender and customer unfair for the purposes of the CCA. It is a factor to be taken into account in the overall balancing exercise required under section 140A."
CP25-27 Annex 1 (page 44) "2.10 Based on our wider work in the motor finance market, we've identified three types of loss (1) consumers pay more than they would in a transparent market, (2) consumer receives an unsuitable product and (3) erosion of trust." - Where in the consultation was an "unsuitable product" defined or questioned ? Question 2,342.42. "Do you agree that you trust the FCA ?"
Supreme Court 2025 "270. Thirdly, at no time in the negotiation of any of these transactions did the dealer give any kind of express undertaking or assurance to the customer that in finding a suitable credit deal for the customer it was putting aside its own commercial interest in the transaction as seller. In the Johnson transaction the dealer did state in writing (in the Suitability Document) that it would seek the most suitable finance package from among its panel of lenders, and a similar statement was made orally to Mr Wrench. But neither of these statements involved the dealer undertaking to exclude consideration of its own continuing commercial interest in the transaction. On the contrary, in three out of the four transactions (ie excluding the Hopcraft transaction) there was disclosure that a commission might be paid by the lender to the dealer, but we do not treat that as typical, or essential to our reasoning. Rather the point is that there was no express undertaking or assurance by the dealer to put its commercial interest aside in seeking a finance package for the customer. Whether there was any implied undertaking is a matter of law, to which we will return."
"286. The outcome might be different in a case where the very nature of the service undertaken can only sensibly be provided by a person who puts their own personal interests aside. Then it would satisfy the necessity test for implication. But it is in our judgment inherent in the arm’s length status of the dealer at all times during the negotiation of the typical transaction that it retains its own interest as seller, ie that it continues throughout to pursue its own commercial interests, free of any undertaking, express or implied, to act selflessly in the finding and negotiation of a finance package. The customer is not bound to accept the finance package offered. It is simply something which the dealer proffers in his own self-interested desire to get the whole transaction past the finishing post. "
I could post this type of stuff all day long.....
"we agree with the FCA".... lol..... Popcorn...munch...munch...
Sign In
Follow the stocks
