Member Info for knot

Liberty - the "FCA's own moral position" was imagined like a fiduciary. The MFC report challenges your thesaurus as well.

51. Curiously short. The factor which will cripple the redress proposal - the inability to implement section 32(1)b extension of the limitations act. This one issue is far more critical and damaging to the redress issue and the FCA than people realise. It also rests on Clydesdale, which the MFC can't challenge as flawed because that is the court process - hence it is inevitable unless the FCA cave in completely.

Point 8 in the MLA document highlights a slight issue when the FCA said "Nor do we have evidence that prices in this market are inherently too high" back in 2020.

Nice they picked up on 2(ii) panel of lenders, although (i) Plevin as the judge said was not applicable and above 50% is not unreasonable (check other business margins) so Plevin type cap is an olive branch to the FCA. Covered again in 31.

Point 9 raises a very interesting issue, which the FCA masked with extending the claims to 2024.... that was the reason I believe they did not stop at 2021. The abuse of the SC ruling by selective interpretation is hiding the 2021 issue.

26. " The lender will want to make the loan at the highest rate that the customer is willing to pay" - This is where term duration is also being missed - the elephant in the room. Stompy is here... he stomps on the FCA, lenders, customers, everyone.

Point 44-45 is not to be taken lightly as this is a far more critical aspect when the cost of finance as a whole is what the consumer is shopping around for. Consider section 56 tri-party and CCA definition of finance and credit. This simple fact is the equivalent of the SC ruling that dealers can't bribe themselves under section 56.

That overall analysis is also focusing purely on the issues as the law stands and sits (Clydesdale insecure) and I have covered a number of the details within Clydesdale that reason why Clydesdale will be rules against. Separate 32(1)b issues as well as others.

Conclusion to that report is I'm very happy to sit on my position and wait for sanity, I have the time. The short spreads will roll over (e.g. Walleye possible unwind) and the overhang of those shorts will dissapear, just depends on when and not if.

Usual errors, diclsaimer, etc, do your own thing, read, research, challenge.

Usual siding of popcorn...munch...munch...

Basher : "The August 2025 Supreme Court decision provided legal clarity, reinforcing the FCA's authority to establish a compensation scheme under the Consumer Credit Act. " - I gather you have not read the actual ruling because it nowhere states or implies that the FCA have more of a right to redress. If anything it points to the contrary because of the fact sensitive nature of an unfair relationship.

This will all get resolved in the courts becuase the FCA have dug a legal hole they are praying that an unchallenged redress scheme gets them out of. Beware of feeding AI models with limited prompts because they side with the judges and rulings without question and that answer would have assumed that Clydesdale stands and will stand without any issue. Separate to a whole host of other issues.

Liberty : " yes the SC did reinforce the FCA's ability to impose a redress scheme under the CCA" - point to the exact statement of paragraph which enabled this "reinforce" that is any different to the law prior to the ruling ?

The FCA had no choice on extending the claims deadline because it would have created a mess of claims processing out of alignment with redress and would have signalled the FCA doubt the viability of redress (that hole they are digging).

Goebbels knew very well that if you tell a lie long enough then everyone will end up believing it.

Guesses, misingformation, usual, do your own thing.

Sunny day to feed the ducks popcorn....munch...munch...

"I will be happy if you can provide evidence that I am wrong" - I will use your own words :

"Nothing in the SC ruling overrules the the need for lower courts to abide by a plausable decision of an ombudsman."

I suggest you read my earlier posts because you clearly don't understand quite a lot of the details.

Puzzled popcorn...munch...munch...

Big problem with that analysis is that the FOS were resting upon the court of appeal ruling and since the supreme court ruling they face incrasing prospects of some of those awards being challenged and reversed. The FOS still have to act within the law, they are not a law unto themselves and are not in a position to regularly award in excess of what a court would award when the legal position is quite clearly agains the decision the FOS makes. The FOS are there to implement what the courts have already stated and in the prior awards they have used the court of appeal and Clydesdale to make those generous rulings, however they are fundamentally unsound since the supreme court ruling. Then again considering we are ditching jury trials because we can't redirect the funding away from welfare, I guess we are in strange legal territory all round.

Usual guesses, errors, etc.

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

Not sure you could have imagined this completely insane situation if you tried.

https://www.cityam.com/fca-pressed-to-investigate-treasury-over-budget-briefings/

Will make for a very interesting battle if it does proceed to any actions by the FCA because the redress scheme is already a pending liability for the FCA.

Get extra popcorn in... munch...munch...

Market does not trade a single share below 451.6p and then the after market auction clears 450.6p with 222k volume when only 164k traded. Compared to the 27th, 394k traded and 88k was in the auction. Looks like someone trying to push back down again.

Systematica showed up with a small decrease in todays short report (0.78% from 0.8%) and having a little guess they show an increase in a day or two. That said, they placed the initial 0.7% short at an average around 290p so if it is a short rather than a spread against something else the position may be in a bit of a hole. The rise over the last few days even with a spread may have been a bit painful.

Todays volumes otherwise in two groups, 458p and above resistance and then a minor 1p gap and volumes from 453p up. Average small volume trades dropping back a little so the Times effect wearing off, although it still added net longs to CBG and moved the elastic. Someone looks to be sensitive to 460p and day trading with a 5p margin target, possibly... who knows.

More of the usual guesses, errors and nonsense, do your own thing,

Where's that popcorn gone....munch...munch...

With 42% of todays volume 450p and above. 482k volume with 88k in the auction so relatively light volumes for the rise. Smaller trade distribution changed a little with slightly larger smaller trades, so wondering if that was the Times article effect. The shorts not having a good three days after their winning streak since 16 Oct was wiped out.

Citadel made the smart move closing out some around 31 Oct leaving reported shorts around 4.2m shares and only 482k traded (in the market - 394k excluding the auction) in full today for contrast as to the perspective of a 4.2m short with the liquidity that CBG has. I would guess that someone closed some volumes out or there is some squeeling going on with the Times buyers. Maybe someone has actually realised the redress scheme has zero prospects as it stands or just the budget circus relief rally.

Who knows indeed, maybe the court jester with tales of smoke filled rooms.

Guesses, errors and imagination all rolled up into one, do your own thing.

Rally the popcorn.... munch...munch...

Https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/27/crack-down-on-for-profit-litter-enforcers-england

Would that be an unfair relationship, bribery or a DCA type ban if the FCA had anything to do with it ?

Litter ally popcorn....munch....munch....

Asartara, this is a public site and I would hope that someone may have noticed some relevant points they may have overlooked. Virtually every media commentry I have read and heard has been superficial points that lack the real teeth of the matter. Johnson - non disclosure is document errors, commercial tie is the panel of lenders misdirection statement in the documentation, etc. The other 12 plus items in the critical list are likely more court challenge details rather than media click bait headlines. Either way I hope the information here is spread and the FCA get to see the headlights before they are run over.

I see Reeves has resorted to professional threats of desapration to try and avert a bond crisis.

Usual cold winter guesses, errors of errors and pass.

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

And.... just noticed another one for the list :

Supreme Courty ruling : "On the contrary, the documentation created a false impression that the dealer had access to a selected panel of 22 lenders and had selected the deal which was most suitable for Mr Johnson.”

Now, in the FCA redress consultation, did they reference any such document where the Supreme Court stated "the documentation created a false impression" - no document quoting a panel of lenders, no "false impression". That is another very large presumption made by the FCA that certainly does not align with any court that is not one hosted by a circus run by the FCA.

Even more guessing pocorn...munch...munch...

2. Clydesdale incompatibility reinforced, not weakened

Clydesdale [2024] EWHC 3237 (Admin) at paras 364–367 relied on a broad reading of s.56 CCA to attribute the dealer’s recommendation (and therefore its conflict) to the lender.

Hopcraft UKSC at para 340 expressly finds unfairness in Johnson only because of “concealment of the commercial tie” in addition to non-disclosure of commission amount and size. In the overwhelming majority of cases there was no such concealment of tie. More critically, Hopcraft at paras 299–302 rejects the dealer acting as the lender’s agent in a manner that transmits fiduciary/conflict duties. Clydesdale’s attribution reasoning is therefore incompatible with binding Supreme Court authority and cannot be relied on.

[note that the Johnson "non-disclosure" (not deliberately concealed) was based on the documentation errors.]

3. Additional point not previously emphasised – consumer responsibility

Hopcraft UKSC at para 336 places significant weight on Mr Johnson’s “almost wilful disregard” of the pre-contract documents and his failure to read them during the 14-day cancellation period. The Court treats this as a major counter-factor in the s.140A balancing exercise, only overridden by the exceptional concealment of the tie and the size of the commission.

FSMA Schedule 1C para 2(d) (FCA’s operational objectives) expressly requires the FCA to have regard to “the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions”. The proposed blanket presumption of unfairness for all DCA cases (CP25/27 para 4.19 and proposed COBS 20.2.19R) fails to factor consumer responsibility where documents disclosed the possibility of commission (as in most cases). This renders the presumption irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable.

Again saving me typing - direct from grok - a different aspect of Clydesdale being flawed.

Even more guessing pocorn...munch...munch...

Last bit cropped

The FCA therefore has no lawful basis on which it can rationally "appear" to it that the s.404(1)(a) condition is satisfied. The proposed rules are ultra vires and vulnerable to judicial review on that ground alone. Clydesdale [2024] EWHC 3237 (Admin) does not assist the FCA: it pre-dates Hopcraft and its attribution reasoning via s.56 CCA is incompatible with the Supreme Court's finding that the dealer has independent commercial incentives.

This is a copy paste from my custom grok project that contains all the court cases and some other files, which saves a lot of reading at times. Curiously with a bit of a contradiction to the quote in the podcast on principles and section 404....

Usual guessing pocorn...munch...munch...

Conclusion: The proposed redress scheme is ultra vires section 404 FSMA 2000 because the FCA cannot lawfully conclude that there "may have been a widespread or regular failure... to comply with requirements" (s.404(1)(a)) where the Supreme Court in Hopcraft [2025] UKSC 33 has authoritatively held that dealers act pursuant to their own commercial incentives and are not fiduciaries or agents of the lender in a manner that transmits a conflict of interest to the lender.

Exact legislative provisions:

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, section 404(1) (as substituted by Financial Services Act 2010 and current on 21 November 2025):

"If—

(a) it appears to the FCA that there may have been a widespread or regular failure by relevant firms to comply with requirements applicable to the carrying on by them of any activity;

(b) it appears to the FCA that, as a result, consumers have suffered (or may suffer) loss or damage in respect of which, if they brought legal proceedings, a remedy or relief would be available in the proceedings; and

(c) the FCA considers that it is desirable to make rules for the purpose of securing that redress is made to the consumers in respect of the failure (having regard to other ways in which consumers may obtain redress),

the FCA may make consumer redress rules."

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/404

The only potentially applicable "requirements" relied on by the FCA in CP25/27 are FCA Principles 6, 7 and 8 and certain CONC rules. All are requirements imposed "by or under" FSMA and therefore capable of being "relevant requirements" within the meaning of s.404.

However, the subjective threshold in s.404(1)(a) — "it appears to the FCA that there may have been" a failure — is not met post-Hopcraft. The Supreme Court held (paras 299–302, 339–340) that motor dealers are not subject to fiduciary duties to customers and pursue their own commercial incentives. This directly removes the foundational premise on which the FCA asserts widespread breaches of Principles 6 and 8 (conflict of interest) and CONC disclosure rules (which are predicated on the existence of a conflict requiring management or disclosure).

The FCA's own consultation paper CP25/27 (paras 2.10–2.38, 3.5–3.27) rests the s.404(1)(a) condition exclusively on the existence of discretionary commission arrangements creating a conflict of interest for the dealer that is attributable to the lender. Hopcraft destroys that attribution. Once the dealer is acting for his own commercial benefit and not as the lender's agent/fiduciary, the mere existence of a DCA cannot, without more, constitute a breach of Principle 6 or 8 by the lender.

The FCA therefore has no lawful basis on which it can rationally "appear" to it that the s.404(1)(a) condition is satisfied. The proposed rules are ultra vires and vulnerable to judicial review on that ground alone. Clydesdale [2024] EWHC 3237 (Admin) does not assist the FCA: it pre-dates Hopcr

03:50 : "scheme can only be established if there is an actionable breach of requirements. Rules such as the FCA principles for businesses are not actionable by customers. So a breach of those principles does not allow the FCA to establish a scheme." - Check's notes, yes Clydesdale lent on those principles to double standard a ruling mixed with a dose of appeal court imgination of a non existant fiduciary and you have a ruling, to which the FCA are implementing a scheme based on a breach of principles by the back door. Ah, slight problem. - New critical failure point 14 for the list.

"very different from how a court would approach loss under section 140b of the consumer credit act" - yes, that would be one way of saying creative imagination of cherry picking an award.

"very difficult for consumers to understand what they would be entitled to under the scheme" - ah, the complicated solution for unsophisticated consumers who will not be able to verify anything.

"APR calculations are incredibly complex" - really ?

Ducks were happy...

Not impressed with that popcorn...munch...munch...

The level of concern I have for the position I have is, I'm off to feed the ducks at the local park.

Will listen to Dentons when I get back

Can't feed the ducks popcorn...munch...munch....

Whole market pulling back on the US tech nerves and the budget prospects next week, which is reinterpreted as it being down to CBG and the lack of a dividend or buyback at the AGM.

CBG is likely also being used as the short side of hedged against other banks, which are a hedge not the equivalent of a naked short against CBG. On a 6 month spread basis CBG, NatWest and Lloyds are currently trading all within 1% of each other. If CBG was so bad, why are they inline on a 6mth basis with 2 other large banks, Barclays 9% up ralative with the change in July for them then following the index. 1 year basis CBG are 30% up over those same banks. The contrarian meanwhile is extending the sell signal so I'm bullish, lol.

Remember the shorts still have to buy back to close out and they need sellers to fold because the FCA circus is in town. The outcome to this process to me is far more clear than the supreme court ruling, however everyone is wanting a quick win. Time.

Nice day and sunny for some popcorn....munch...munch....

The cash build, even with uncertainty, is making CBG an increasingly attractive takeover opportunity. That build can't last beyond the final redress proposal because the final scheme would clearly define the upper limit of any possible liability before any court challenges move forwards to reduce the liability. To sit and build an even greater reserve at that point would be problematic in multiple ways.

The redress consultation as it stands does not even align with the FCA's own new 2021 handbook rules (see my point 13) and I struggle to understand how the FCA can propose a scheme that clearly runs against it's own rules (2021-2024) separate to the FCA retrospectively ignoring the new 2021 rule principle all the way back to 2007.

The close on the Friday before the supreme court ruling was 398.7p and todays low was 398p so that may well be an absolute gap closure. Shorts on the day before the ruling were 2.49%, so less than today (2.81%) although Walleye was up at 1.29% and since closed out to 0.89% and closing at a higher level, so they were likely not a naked short against CBG and more likely one side of a spread, which may continue to unwind over the following weeks / months in a similar manner to the build. CBG just being an opportunity as one side of a hedge due to the lack of any dividends or buyback that make the shares cheaper for a short side play in a hedge. The board on CBG under a takeover will likely be the first ones to be fired with the current level of super caution.

58% (138k) of todays volume below 403p, 24% (58k) traded at 401p. Earlier on 421p to 411p only took 3.6k shares with the tumbleweed blowing past in the market between 10:50 and 12:00 where only 2.8k traded.

On the last 5 days trade correlation with the other banks CBG was oversold today by around 2%. On 5 year basis CBG is up 9% against Vanquis and down against every other bank. Vanquis over the last year, outperforming CBG by nearly 100% to give a swing perspective. STB was trading below pre SC ruling level until the 7th Nov and now trading nearly 10% above. CBG is looking far more over sold short term and long term on the current price. Sit tight.

Guesses, more guesses and no idea what the board think they are doing.

Big dipper popcorn...munch...munch...

13. - FCA 2020/36 Page 5 - 4.5.3B(G)(4) / CONC 4.5.3BR(4) (introduced in PS19/26 and effective 28 January 2021)

"The credit broker is not, under CONC 4.5.3AR, required to provide to the customer an individually tailored illustration of how the commission, fees or other remuneration in CONC 4.5.3R may affect the amounts payable by the customer under the credit agreement or consumer hire agreement."

Grok : "The scheme therefore imposes retrospective liability for conduct that the FCA's own post-2021 rules deem compliant without any requirement for the very illustration the scheme presumes would have prevented the alleged loss." - "The two positions are legally irreconcilable" - "The redress proposal lacks legal coherence with the FCA's own Handbook and with binding Supreme Court authority on s.140A CCA 1974."

Heig Ho, we dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, just keep digging....

Confused popcorn...munch...munch....

The more I think about the whole process it's like a person who buys a car and then complains to the manufacturer that they over paid for the engine and want compensation. They clearly saw the whole car and knew the performance due to the engine but did not ask to look at the engine, ask questions about the car or even read the maintenance manual. Happy with the 14 day test drive and subsequent ownership until someone sat on their shoulder and whispered "oh, that's unfair, have you seen that engine".

The more I dig the more I find the FCA have been digging with a much bigger shovel and still appear to be digging.

Shovel the popcorn... munch...munch...

Weather the pause is extended or not will be very defining moment and await to see what the FCA does with the shovel. The context and possible frame of reference should be on the update with the sneaky 14 Nov 2025 included. What issues does the FCA face if they extend and claims keep ticking day by day and getting time barred.... 19 Nov 2019, tick, tick.

Shoveling the popcorn...munch...munch...