Member Info for knot

Second day with a chunky 700k / £2.8m buy.

Anything burning ?

Curious activity.... popcorn....munch...munch...

My read on the Lloyds statement is they are happy with what the FCA have "done", don't see any downside and the "by various parties" heavy reference to legal action. Lloyds and all lenders have a very clear fiduciary duty to operate within the law and agreeing to a new definition of the limitations act is not really something that a fiduciary can undertake. Even the court of appeal could not create a new fiduciary definition reversing decades of well established law. I read it that "any litigation" does not rule out by who, "various parties" is both sides may take the FCA to court, "legal proceedings" including or excluding judicial review. The "legal processding" may also consider investors taking Lloyds to court for a breach of fiduciary duty if they agree to something which may not quite be fair. They may need some time to formulate a full and sound response or identify who the lead party / parties will be. Watch for what the FLA says. The other view is they could not really write a lot because they were laughing so much.

I have my beliefs. Have your own. My view is just my guess. Read, think, evaluate.

Meanwhile, Trumb being Trump.... dragging the market around.

Usual unknown popcorn...munch...munch....

Up pops another interesting carve out issue of the multitude of complexity for the scheme.

PS26/3 1.22 "Further, claims for high value loans (higher than 99.5% of other loans that year), are

excluded as they are not suitable for a mass market scheme such as this. Consumers who took out these high value loans can still complain to their lender and, if not satisfied, the Financial Ombudsman."

Read the "as they are not suitable" bit with an open mind as to what the FCA mean.

Chapter 4 page 65 - "sophisticated" - p66 Table 3 : 2008 £38k through 2024 £82k.

The FCA were careful not to say everyone buying a car below 99.5% the value of all cars is not sophisticated. The principle issue is that a "sophisticated" individual as per the Medsted 2019 ruling can't argue about a commission because they are experienced. What the FCA miss is that there is no definition of sophistication and the attachment of a value to that criteria is completely wrong, which the FCA are trying to avoid by stating "We are not persuaded by arguments that high value agreements or luxury vehicles should be excluded from the scope of the scheme because their owners would be sophisticated in the relevant sense."

The FCA therefore include a professor of economics as not sophisticated if they buy a £30k vehicle if your wondering how the FCA view the scheme in relation to Medsted 2019.

FCA p65 " By their nature, the very highest value agreements are not mass market."

If it was over £82k in 2024 for example due to "accessibility adaptation" then it's included, which could be argued to actually be discriminatory.

Who knows what who's thinking about what those who dont know know they don't know.

Getting tired of the nonsense.... but not the popcorn....munch...munch...

Comprehensive Analysis of Flaws in the FCA Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme (CP 25/27)

Abstract

This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of the legal, regulatory, economic, and procedural flaws inherent in the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme as outlined in Consultation Paper CP 25/27. Through systematic examination of the consultation documentation, associated technical annexes, relevant case law, and stakeholder criticisms, this work identifies fifteen distinct flaws across five thematic categories: legal foundations, remedial design, procedural safeguards, market impacts, and implementation risks. Each flaw is analyzed with reference to primary sources, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents, providing a rigorous foundation for assessing the scheme's vulnerability to judicial review and its effectiveness in delivering consumer redress.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Legal Foundational Flaws 2.1 Retroactivity Concerns and Principle of Non-Retroactive Liability 2.2 Limitation Period Analysis and Concealment Argument under s.32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 2.3 Interaction with Existing FOS Jurisprudence and Post-Hopcraft Legal Landscape

3 Remedial Design Flaws 3.1 APR Adjustment Remedy Suitability for Non-Standard Loan Structures 3.2 Market-Rate Assumption Transparency and Evidentiary Basis 3.3 Hybrid Remedy Formula Lacking Theoretical Justification 3.4 Failure to Address Consequential and Non-Pecuniary Losses 3.5 Inadequate Detail on Early-Settlement and PCP Calculation Procedures

4 Procedural and Consumer Protection Flaws 4.1 Opt-Out Design and Informed Consent Concerns 4.2 Claims Management Company Fee Structures Undermining "Free" Redress 4.3 Absence of Mechanisms to Prevent Duplicate Recovery 4.4 Treatment of Linked Ancillary Products 4.5 Fraud and Scam Risks in Mass Communication Campaigns

5 Market and Systemic Impact Flaws 5.1 Potential Consequential Market Impacts on Future Consumers 5.2 State Aid and Subsidy Control Considerations 5.3 Proportionality Assessment Deficiencies

6 Implementation and Enforcement Risks 6.1 Administrative and Litigation Cost Underestimation 6.2 Lack of Sunset Clause and Mandatory Review Mechanisms 6.3 Judicial Review Vulnerability and Absence of Appeal Routes

7 Conclusion

8 Recommendations for Scheme Revision

9 Bibliography of Primary Sources

Work in progress... needs a few more itterations.... distraction from the popcorn...munch...munch...

Research Summary – Self & Anor v Santander Cards UK Ltd & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1106

Case type: PPI mis‑selling appeal (Court of Appeal, Civil Division).

Key facts: Claimants received FCA‑guided redress offers from their banks, accepted the payments, and later sought additional compensation under sections 140A‑140B CCA, alleging the relationships remained unfair despite the settlement. The claims were pursued with the help of a regulated claims‑management company (Financial Recovery Solutions Ltd).

Held: The offer, acceptance, and payment constituted a valid, binding settlement (supported by consideration—the claimant’s forbearance from litigation). While parties cannot contract out of the court’s statutory jurisdiction to examine unfairness, a binding settlement extinguishes the claim, making the jurisdictional point irrelevant. Acceptance of an FCA‑calculated offer bars further claims for the same loss; no double recovery is permitted.

Something that might have been overlooked.... more popcorn....munch...munch...

"split between ‘old book’ and ‘new book’. " - The main probelm is the limitations act is what destroys the principle for the "old book" where the "new book" has the explicit requirement to disclose (via the IDD) the existence of a commission, as per the court "the cat is out of the bag". This in turn destroys the majority of the redress claims in the "new book". That's without getting started on the other issues.

The very basic one, which is how I think it will actually be resolved is very highly parallel to the supreme court issue that resolved under section 56 finance the broker acting as the lender and therefore can't bribe themselves. The quivalent is that the "cost of finance" as per the CCA is one figure which includes any other relevant costs, which was highly transparent to the consumer and very open to competition. The issue around commissions and Clydesdale argument about head office is a massive distraction, exactly the same as the supreme court ruling burying the bribe yourself in bribery arguments the CoA created. My view is that £300m is massively over stated.

I would challenge someone to come up with a valid legal path that the FCA can legitimately claim an IDD disclosure of the existence of a commission is a "deliberately concealed fact". They effectively stated this in the House of Lords of all places, muppets !

I'm curious about the burning shorts. burn, burn, burn.... a ring of fire..... a ring of fire....

Get a lot of popcorn ready, it will be amusing....munch...munch...

Setting aside the ramblings of an Nvidia aquaintance with a caps lock addiction. The current process is going to court, it just depends on which side launches the legal challenge first. This has always been my view, the FCA trapped themselves into madness. There is zero chance in my mind that pre 2014 can stand in any of the remotest sense of legal basis without the FCA trampling all over the law like a lost rambler wading through brambles. 2007-2014, we had an economic boom, once in a generation financial crisis, 400 year lows in interest rates and quantative easing. Within that there were several rule changes and the FCA did not even have legal authority back then. The insurance market was explicitly allowed not to even reveal a commission (tin foil hat pointer). Separate to the whole issue around paperwork, which goes back to a very basic legal principle of contract law, which the FCA are trying to competely void the whole economic basis that underlies all commerce - the written contract. The FCA are utterly delusional to think that pre 2014 has any hope whatsoever and quite obvious they think the same as well by trying to split it off, within the same consulation, which binds it into the same scheme regardless. The FCA seem to be in deep water and splashing around a lot hoping the lenders will throw in a life ring rather than a breeze block, the court case is going to be amusing.

Back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

Don't forget the Johnson case also rested upon a document error.

Whilst I'm trying to make sens of the madness...

The FCA consulted on one scheme.

They then create two schemes.

Where was the consultation specific to each scheme ? Was it the basic fact that insufficient data exists to have even a valid consultation on the 2007-2014 timeframe ?

Yep, going to run out of popcorn...munch...munch...

Absolute top part of the FCA document

"Approximately 90,000 consumers whose cases align closely with the Johnson case considered by the Supreme Court will receive redress of all commission plus interest."

So, 90k are in alignment with what a court would award, the other 14 million just a figment of the FCA's imagination by ignoring the law ?

Hillarious, I'm going to run out of popcorn...munch...munch...

From my reading into what the FCA have proposed I'm quite happy. It makes the court challenge quite easy to invalidate everything before 2014 and then on the back of that it may well invalidate everything prior to around 2019/2020 just for starters.

The FCA are grasping and will likely try and resort to individual company actions when the parts of the 404 are ruled invalid, however that is when I'm guessing a reshuffle will happen in the FCA. Viceroy can smoke whatever they want and imagine rainbows and unicorns for all I care, it's nowhere near reality.

Back to the document crunching...popcorn...munch...munch...

Does not matter what they imagine, the law as it stands makes the 404 scheme unviable. By adding all of the clauses the FCA have self invalidated the principle under section 404.

Remedies exceed court powers: Scheme mandates commission return + interest (PS26/3) beyond Hopcraft remedy limits (para 338: commission only in proven unfair case). No court would order mass without individual proof (s.140B wide but fact-specific).

No legitimacy as unproven ambition: FCA follows law (Hopcraft/Clydesdale bind); cannot "stretch ambitions" (s.404 court-aligned only). Split concedes pre-2014 weakness—scheme cannot stand.

Lenders: full judicial review on s.404 ultra vires; defend individually on s.140A/Hopcraft; limitation strike-outs per Canada Square. Scheme collapses on every legal foundation.

That's just the start... think they are going to do well in court ? lol....

Get the popcornin for court....munch...munch

All flaws (exhaustive, court-aligned only):

Ultra vires s.404 threshold: No "widespread" rule breach proven for mass redress. Scheme assumes unfairness across 14m+ agreements without individual s.140A balancing (Hopcraft paras 337, 340: fact-specific only; consumer responsibility principle per para 336). Split concedes pre-2014 evidentiary weakness—fatal to s.404(1) "widespread" test. FCA cannot create new law (ambition unproven; follows courts).

Ignores Hopcraft SC limits on liability: Dealers have no fiduciary duty (paras 339-340: own incentives; documentation errors in motor IDD irrelevant to fiduciary analysis). Bribery/equity claims fail outright. Scheme cannot award on these (s.404 requires court-consistency). Clydesdale s.56 singular transaction reinforces (paras 351-368: "goods"/"transaction" broadly but not mass-presumed).

Retrospectivity from 2007 unlawful: Limitation Act 1980 s.32(1)(b)/(2) requires defendant knew it breached duty (Canada Square para 153; not met on "adequate" disclosure per CONC 4.5.3R). Record-retention rules (6 years post-agreement) mean no evidence for 2007-2014—FCA cannot shift burden (Hopcraft para 336: customers responsible for reading documents). Split admits this; pre-2014 limb void.

Mass presumption of s.140A unfairness invalid: s.140A requires fact-specific balancing (Hopcraft paras 330-337: size + non-disclosure + tie concealment in Johnson only; consumer failure to read weighs against). Scheme treats non-disclosure as presumptively unfair—contrary to Medsted (paras 42-46: existence known = no secrecy) and Plevin (fact-specific). Clydesdale confirms s.140A independent but not mass (para 368).

Misapplies CONC disclosure rules: CONC 4.5.3R requires disclosure where it "could actually or potentially" affect impartiality/decision (Hopcraft para 329). Scheme assumes breach without evidence of materiality—unlawful (Medsted half-way house: existence known suffices). Commercial tie non-disclosure not automatically unfair (Hopcraft para 333: suppression of truth fact-specific).

Evidential burden reversal unlawful: Lenders cannot disprove non-disclosure on pre-2014 records (HoL Transcript: "lenders are not required to hold records for more than six years"). This breaches court-consistency (s.404) and Limitation Act (Canada Square: concealment must be deliberate/known).

Consumer responsibility principle ignored: Hopcraft para 336: unsophisticated customer still bears duty to read; no prominence does not automatically render unfair. Scheme disregards this—contrary to FSMA consumer duty alignment.

Fraud/claims management exposure: HoL Transcript highlights duplicate claims, unverified identities, fish-and-chip shop operators running CMC. Scheme provides no verification mechanism—lenders bear unquantifiable cost (Limitation Act s.32 does not protect against stale/fraudulent claims)......

Question to grok in the redress project : Do a full analysis of this along with all of the attachments to detail all of the flaws within the proposed scheme. There are many flaws and issues, list them all https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps26-3-motor-finance-consumer-redress-scheme

Thought for 16s

The proposed scheme in PS26/3 is ultra vires FSMA s.404 and unlawful in its entirety.

FSMA s.404(1) empowers a scheme only where FCA is satisfied of widespread or regular contraventions of rules causing loss, with scheme terms consistent with what a court would decide on individual claims (s.404(2)-(3); FSMA s.138E). The split (pre-/post-2014) and mass redress from 2007 fail this: Hopcraft SC [2025] UKSC 33 holds dealers owe no fiduciary duty (paras 339-340: "dealers... not subject to any fiduciary duty"; own commercial incentives); no bribery; s.140A unfair relationship is fact-specific (Johnson only: non-disclosure + tie concealment, paras 330-337, 340). Clydesdale [2024] EWHC 3237 confirms s.56 tri-party agreement is singular transaction (paras 351-368: contra plural "commissions"; antecedent negotiations narrow). Canada Square [2023] UKSC 41 requires actual knowledge of breach for Limitation Act 1980 s.32(1)(b)/(2) (para 153: not recklessness/exposure to claim). Medsted [2019] EWCA Civ 83 limits fiduciary scope where existence of commission known (paras 42-46: "half-way house"; no duty to disclose exact amount). Plevin [2017] UKSC 23 is fact-specific non-disclosure only. HoL Transcript confirms FCA overreach on 2007 retrospectivity/record gaps/fraud risks.

More details..... then more.. then more....

Popcorn away...munch...munch...

The FCA are mad

"By bifurcating due to evidential weakness on earlier periods (explicitly flagged in technical annex data gaps and record-retention limits), FCA concedes absence of that court-consistency threshold for the full cohort—rendering the pre-2014 limb (and any aggregated redress) voidable as ultra vires."

Bemused popcorn...munch...munch...

Utterly dilusional. Can't wait for the court case.

Popcorn...munch...munch...

Supreme court ruling replay.

Stochastic price movements break hedge correlations and are more of an unhedged risk, which may make for unwinding of positions ahead of a stochastic price move / jump.

The other element I have been wondering about is the situation of puts. If someone back at 500p bought a huge quantity of say 360p puts. When the price falls through that level the seller of the puts then has the propspect of being a forced buyer at 360p and the hedge would be to sell out the volume at 360p plus/munis the theta (time) value of the puts. This may then create a bearish feedback loop with the hedging strategy selling (short) volumes on the basis that the puts are going to be delivered. If your intention of placing the huge put volume was to sit on the other side to aquire cheap shares then you just play out the timing if there are other limited buyers in the market and pickup the shares. There may be a lot of games going on at the moment and as Buffet once said, you only find out who is naked when the tide goes out.

Meanwhile... my auto research around the whole legality of the scheme is going off in all sorts of interesting directions. If you have any research questions to place with the background of the redress scheme as a detailed legal context, post them and I will add them into the research queue, which then get integrated into the whole framework. Background deep dive task every 30 minutes. 7 done 24 to do today.

This is part of an example question output around opt-in / opt-out on the scheme, given there may be no knowledge of CMC involvement which is a relevant aspect that binds the consumer into a possible CMC liability.

--- Task Result (2026-03-30) ---

Assessment: Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 lists terms that may be regarded as unfair. Relevant provisions:

- Term 9: "A term which has the object or effect of automatically extending a contract of fixed duration where the consumer does not indicate otherwise, when the deadline fixed for the consumer to express a desire not to extend the contract is unreasonably early."

- Term 10: "A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract."

Still processing fos decisions... more popcorn...munch...munch....

Just reading that FCA statement and wonder if it will also include the FCA looking at the handling of FOS complaints, all the way back to 2014. The FCA on this one is also stepping on the toes of the TMS court case as well, which looks like trying to get ahead of damage control.

Back to the 49k files and popcorn....munch...munch...

I did wonder is that crackdown will actually have a different outcome with the head of the FCA giving broad, non sensiive to the facts, financial advice (should a regulator be giving "advice" or regulating ?) on a television program days ahead of the launch of an official scheme. I do wonder if the regulator looking at themselves would actually call out questionable behaviour and I then wonder how this would appear in a court case between the FCA and a claims company. The FCA being a government teflon entity is near on impossible to prosecute in this way because they are almost imune from all liability, which in turn makes them seemingly believe that they can act outside of the law as well. Maybe an inadequately disclosed deliberately concealed fact trusted with at 0% in a commercially tied, legitimate delaer self interest, business could maybe object on some strange not quite clear as an IDD type basis.

Roll on the evening circus... get the popcorn ready....munch...munch...

Within the current political environment and behaviour of the government I can't work out if I'm living in an open asylum. Only in the government can a judge create a fiduciary out of trust (and be overruled) and the FCA imagine something inadequately disclosed was actually a deliberately concealed fact (to be overruled) all the way back to 2007 when in 2019 they thought it might be wrong and took the whole duration of the 6 year limitation act to try and do something, which was mainly overruled in 2025.

At least the downside uncertainty will be fully defined, which is what would otherwise prevent a bid... popcorn...munch...munch....