Member Info for LIBERTY2

There is a pause on the banks having to respond to these claims currently, therefore there should not be significant numbers being sent to the FOS where they state the costs have come from. It could be due to the credit card claims, or the customer in distress situations - which is more to the point the higher risk sub-prime environment that Vanquis operate in.

Some of the increased complaints costs could be due to the admin side of the commission claims however.

The FOS will be imposing a £250 fee on CMCs who file a claim which is then overturned by the FOS from April. This will act as a strong deterrent to weak, mass claims of all descriptions.

In the Wrench case there is a use of the DCA model - I would think the SC will give a definitive view on this practice whilst delivering the verdit as a whole. Especially with the FCAs involvement who will be seeking clarity.

‘’Oh, wait a second, the change made no difference, I am sure!!! Each customer would be focused on best interest rate / deal in the market and indifferent to the commissions paid out. ’’

For what its worth - from industry discussions following the new commission disclosure, there has been no material difference in the number of consumers proceeding with the agreement after being fully informed of the commissions to dealer - as expected.

The courts / FCA should be taking this into account when considering the aspect of a commission affecting a consumers decision on proceeding with a deal. This supports the FCA handbook at the time with regards to only having to disclose a commission if it will have a material impact of the consumers decision making.

In extension to that - I do not know why the SC would not give a definitive precedent on DCA in this current ruling, they will be aware further challenge will be brought if this element is still vague.

SG2025 - if the SC ruled in favour of the banks, in such a way as to also explicitly say DCA was allowed then the whole scheme gets scrapped.

More likely - if the SC rules that the car dealers do not owe a disinterested duty, and therefore commissions are allowed, this will still give FCA scope for a DCA investigation / comp scheme. In this instance yes, if Barclays launched an appeal to the CoA, its possible the FCA would delay.

Best get selling those Lloyds shares Chid - with a projection as negative as yours, holding them would constitute something between ineptitude and total lunacy.

Knot - ‘’ The most sensible ruling in my mind is to force the full disclosure (more than currently required) as to who is getting paid what and let the customer decide. Very simple approach and let the market work.’’

I can confirm that CBG implemented this structure after the CoA. The customer now receives exact commission amounts paid to the dealer in advance, and signs / dates the very clear and obvious document.

Thats the problem solved going forward, but its the past which will ultimately also be shaped by this ruling which is the undermining aspect of it.

He also notes that in the worst case scenario of the SC upholding the decision, a government intervention with legislative changes is possible, I would argue very likely given their clear position. So if it could be that even with a poor SC outcome, its not the end of the road for the matter being resolved in favour of the banks. Lets hope for sanity to prevail, but strap in for the ride anyway.

''- Possible outcome: if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal ruling, then the FCA would set up a redress scheme for all car finance (well the 99% affected by this).

This would be huge, have impacts on the economic competitiveness, and could be at PPI scales of redress, running into the £10s of billions. If so, it is not impossible we would see the Government intervene with legislation.''

Further to yesterdays conversation - this link provides a pretty clear summary of the matter and implications;

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/03/martin-lewis-car-finance-mis-selling-redress/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Martin Lewis' opinion, for what they are worth;

''The Court of Appeal ruling took everyone, including the regulator, by surprise – and was not something it was looking at. Even I have concerns the decision risks doing more harm than good. It has been appealed to the Supreme Court which is due to be heard on 1 to 3 April.''

''- Most likely outcome: many expect the Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling on Commission Disclosure complaints. If that happens then the redress scheme will only be set up for DCA complaints.

This is still huge, and the fact the payouts will be automatic means it would reach more people and likely be in the billions to low £10s of billions (depending on payout size – more on that in a moment).''

Correction - Vanquis results on Friday.

Half year results should be reassuring for the market, based on profit forecast from previous update. I'm optimistic that these, coupled with the 250 tailwind next week may see a solidified price going into April, £3.50+ would be nice. ISA season in April could see further interest, if the case looks like it may be leaning favourably.

Vanquis have their full year results tomorrow which will be interesting to see if they provide a provision figure for any potential compensation.

Randommix - it is to this effect;

FCA, Jan 24 - ‘’we think you have been a bit naughty with these DCA deals, even though you weren't directly breaking our rules we think the customer may have missed out on the best deal. We are going to investigate and maybe you will have to pay some back.’’

*Enter shock CoA ruling, Oct 24.*

FCA - actually the CoA now says ALL of your commission deals may be wrong and the customer may have missed out on the best deal. So even though you have followed our policy again, if the SC agree with them we might have to make you pay some more back.’’

Whatever the SC decides will not make or stop the FCA bringing any scheme, it will simply strongly guide it on its decision making.

Any redress scheme effectively gives a unified and more simplistic path to resolution for all parties, as opposed to millions of consumers trying to take banks to court individually. So in effect the FCA will broadly follow the courts opinion.

Randommix - the FCA investigation from Jan 2024 into DCA (discretionary commission arrangements), is fundamentally separate to what is on-going in the courts.

The FCA began the investigation to ascertain if the DCA model was unfair to consumers, because dealers were incentivised to charge higher interest rates, in order to obtain higher commissions from the lender.

The CoA ruling was much broader based and took the stance that ANY commission paid under ANY circumstances was wrong, and held the lender liable as the payer of said commission.

So to answer your question - the FCA will determine based on their investigation into DCA deals, if a redress scheme is required, this is on-going and started long before the CoA case. The CoA case opened the door to further claims related to the car finance sector (non-DCA). The question over disinterested duty - if the SC find the dealer does not owe a duty to the consumer, this will greatly aid in reducing the FCAs quantum in a potential compensation scheme.

It is a matter of one investigation has complicated the other. At this point in time I believe the chances of some form of compensation are high, but my opinion is it will be at a level which stings just enough, but doesn't bruise.

Time will tell - we can all only but hope.

To clarify on the previous comment; the CoA ruling was in relation to 'secret / half-secret commission' payments to dealers. The court matters are not directly related to DCA.

The FCA investigation which opened in Jan 2024 is related to DCA - they have now become intertwined as such, and I agree the court ruling has added complexity to interpretations.

Any lender which has paid a commission to a broker (car dealer), is liable under the current ruling, Vanquis / Moneybarn included. This is regardless of whether finance documents stated a commission was to be paid to the dealer, which Vanquis / Moneybarn did state I believe.

As you say, further clarity will be provided from the SC - we hope!

And hes back. Some signifcant corrections to Chids post so as to not mislead here;

''It was obvious to most all that claims would be upheld'' - the CoA overturned the previous courts verdict, as such in an unexpected way, to pundits / legal proffesionals on both sides of the matter. Therefore it stands to reason the SC may again overturn the CoA ruling, or scale back its interpretations - pointless getting into this, pie in the sky.

''Perhaps Lloyds will buy out CBG, they have a habit of buying debt ridden banks! '' - CBG net worth +£1.8bn. Average profit circa £150m p/a. Potential payout £0 to £650m (anaylst worst case scenario, very much an outlier opinion). Possible redress scheme, staged over several years. In any event, debt ridden not so much.

All the best.

The concluding paragraph from the FCAs own release;

''Throughout our work, we will continue to consider how to make sure affected consumers are appropriately compensated and the motor finance market continues to work well, with effective competition, for the millions of consumers who rely on it every year.''

A direct acknowledgement of sensible compensation, if due, whilst not sinking the industry which they already know were following their rules.

They will handle this correctly to avoid another ridiculous PPI situation.

In short - nothing has changed from that statement.

Since the FCA started the review in Jan 2024, the chance of a redress scheme was high. The CoA ruling made it more likely and potentially expanded the scope of it. The SC ruling will tip it again which ever way they find.

There has always been a strong chance of a compensation payout here - what has changed in the interim is mainly;

- Treasurys stance made it clear that they want to see a fair and proportionate compensation scheme (not a PPI bonanza), if one is due. The FCA WILL take this into account, especially in a climate where the exisitence of their organisation is 'under review'.

- FoS stance was made clear, through the sacking of their head, and implentation of the £250 fee to ambulance chasers if a case is referred and found in the favour of the bank. This action will serve as a strong deterrent to false or weak claims in the instance of a redress scheme.

- The fact that the firms were in broadly following FCA guidelines and rules at the time of these cases. This will be made very clear in the SC case which FCA are taking part in. The FCA will be in a very hot spot if they implent a harsh redress scheme in this instance - again refer back to their organisation being 'under review'. What you have seen with CBG offering up £165m is 'this is how much we will take on the chin for the greater good'.

Todays announcement offers nothing new or unexpected.

I think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is indeed a very complex matter, with as the FCA put it, nuanced angles.

I am optimistic that a sensible conclusion will be reached - somewhere between extremes lies the reality, as with most parts of life.

Why do you feel the wrong-doing has been placed on the lender, as opposed to the dealer?

If the dealer is acting as a credit broker as per FCA handbook, the dealer must be the informing party to the customer that they will receive a commission and therefore are not impartial.

The redacted document which is mentioned in Close Bros defence concerning commission payments from lender to dealer, was specifically stating the dealer must inform the customer that they will receive a commission from CB, and that this would impact their impartial status. The dealer was bound to agree to this as part of CBG T&Cs. I can only assume this document was redacted due to on-going DCA enquiry - I would imagine it will be used as evidence un-redacted in the SC.

The dealer themselves were bound by the terms of the FCA and also CB terms of business, why does the blame land at the lenders door I wonder? The CEO of FirstRand commented on this during a recent AGM - I feel they may work to reassert any potential blame to the dealers.

I understand that in a potential redress scheme it would be impractical to go after thousands of dealers, but thats beyond the point.

The ‘Disinterested Duty’ element is the part which opens to door the wrong doing on behalf of CBG. This will be what the defence will look to prove the dealer does not have to the car buyer.

As stated below, this was previously proven by the House of Lords (now Supreme Court) not to exist, the dealer does not serve any other entity.

This is what previous District Courts have also agreed on prior to the CoA.

It really does stack up that the CoA have just got this wrong.

Without this element, there are no claims.