Millions Drivers Payment has been denied after Supreme Court Decided that the lenders are not responsible for the payment of the commission hidden among the lenders Car finance plans.
Two lenders, Furtrand Bank and close brother, went to the Supreme Court of Britain to challenge Court of appeal power As part of the finance system made before 2021, the motor driver was illegal, without a complete informed consent.
Three motor drivers were found in the judgment in October last year, who bought everyone Cars Before 2021, compensation should be obtained, as they were not clearly enough or told at all that the car dealer, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders to start a business.
But lawyers told for lenders Supreme Court The decision was an “egoistic error” at a three -day hearing in April. Intervention in the case, Financial conduct authority Claimed that the ruling “goes far”.
The three drivers, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Reinch and Amy Hopcraft opposed the challenge.
The Supreme Court verdict means that the large part of the claim will not move forward, leaving the door open for compensation only for the most serious cases. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said that if any compensation follows the scheme, it will announce within weeks.
Bobby Dean MP – A member of the Treasury Committee – welcomed the verdict and said: “Today is a good day for the consumer and a lesson for the industry is that honesty matters. If you attack the car loan on behalf of consumers, then you should be fully revealed about the commission you receive.
“The measure of rip-fad is really shocking. Some people are interested in thousands of pounds. It is now on the government and the regulator to ensure that people get compensation.”
Treasury stated that it will now “work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers”.
Summance of a long -awaited Supreme Court’s decision on Friday, Lord Reid, one of the five judges hearing the case, said: “For detailed reasons in a decision published today, the Supreme Court allows an appeal brought by the finance companies.”
In view of the ruling, Martin Lewis urged the drivers not to hurry to claim or sign up for the firms, saying: “I doubt [Financial Conduct Authority] Within weeks, we will announce a consultation on a prevention scheme for the cases of discretionary commission. You do not even have to claim it, may be automated. And with excessive commissions I suspect that more guidance will come at an equal time.
“If you now sign up for a firm of claims, you may have to give it a cut even if nothing happens. So sit on your hands for now.”
In a letter to the Supreme Court in December last year, FCA About 99 percent of about 32 million car finance agreements since 2007 said that a broker included a commission payment.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Reinch and Ms. Hopkraft used all car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for other hand cars, all were all worth less than £ 10,000 before January 2021.
In each case, only one finance option was presented to the motorists, in which car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender.
Dealers were paid, the Commission was affected by the interest rate on the loan.
The plans were banned by FCA in 2021, three drivers personally took legal action between 2022 and 2023.
Ms. Hopcraft, then a student nurse, in 2014 bought her replacement car through an agreement with Cloky, which paid the car dealership £ 183.26 in the commission.
Described by Mr. Wrench, the Court of Appeal, described as “Postman with a penchant for fast cars”, entered two rent-kharid agreements for an Audi TT coupe and BMW3 series, with Firesnds in 2015 and 2017, respectively, paid hundreds.
Mr. Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and he paid £ 1,650.95 in the commission as part of his finance agreement with Firstrand for the purchased Suzuki.
After the claims reached the appeal court, three senior judges ruled that the lenders were responsible for repaying the Commission to repay the motorists due to lack of disclosure about payment.
Lady Justice Andrews, Lord Justice Birs and Lord Justice Aids said last year that when each case was different, “to bury such a statement in small prints that lenders know that the borrower is not very possible, it would not be enough”.
A treasury spokesperson said: “We respect this decision from the Supreme Court and now we will work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers.
“We recognize issues that have been exposed in this court case. That is why we are already taking significant changes in the Financial Lokpal Service and Consumer Credit Act. These reforms will provide more consistent and estimated regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are clearly and clearly sold to customers.”