The UK’s Supreme Court is set to deliver a landmark ruling today that could have billion-pound consequences for banks and impact millions of motorists.
The essential question that the country’s top court has been asked to answer is this: should customers be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchase?
However, the Supreme Court is only considering one of two cases running in parallel regarding the mis-selling of car finance.
Here is everything you need to know about both cases, and how the ruling this afternoon may (or may not) affect any future compensation scheme.
PA file pic
What is the Supreme Court considering?
The Supreme Court case concerns complaints related to the non-disclosure of commission. This applies to 99% of car finance cases.
When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by the brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan).
These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments).
Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of three motorists who were not informed that the car dealerships they agreed finance deals with were also being paid 25% commission, which was then added to their bills.
The ruling said it was unlawful for the car dealers to receive a commission from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent to the payment.
However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, landing it in the Supreme Court.
Pic: iStock
What does the second case involve?
The second case is being driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs).
Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.
The FCA banned this practice in 2021. However, a high number of consumers have complained they were overcharged before the ban came into force. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) said in May that they were dealing with 20,000 complaints.
In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into whether motor finance customers had been overcharged because of past use of DCAs. It is using its powers to review historical motor finance commission arrangements across multiple firms – all of whom deny acting inappropriately.
The FCA also said it is looking into a “consumer redress scheme” that means firms would need to offer appropriate compensation to customers affected by the issue.
An estimated 40% of car finance deals are likely to be eligible for compensation over motor finance deals taken out between 2007 and 2021.
To find out how you can tell if you’ve been mis-sold car finance, read the following explainer from our reporter Megan Harwood-Baynes.
Read more from the Sky News Money blog
Pic: iStock
How does the ruling affect potential compensation?
In short, the Supreme Court ruling could impact the scale and reach that a compensation scheme is likely to have.
The FCA said in March that it will consider the court’s decision and if it concludes motor finance customers have lost out from widespread failings by firms, it is “likely [to] consult on an industry-wide redress scheme”.
This would mean affected individuals wouldn’t need to complain, but they would be paid out an amount dictated by the FCA.
However, no matter what the court decides, the FCA could go ahead with a redress scheme.
The regulator said it will confirm if it is proposing a scheme within six weeks of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Read more:
The scale of cheap Chinese imports flown into UK
Water firm faces £63m penalty over ‘excessive’ sewage spills
What impact could this have on lenders?
Analysts at HSBC said last year the controversy could be estimated to cost up to £44bn.
Alongside Close Brothers, firms that could be affected include Barclays, Santander and the UK’s largest motor finance provider Lloyds Banking Group – which organises loans through its Black Horse finance arm.
Lloyds has already set aside £1.2bn to be used for potential compensation.
The potential impact on the lending market and the wider economy could be so great that Chancellor Rachel Reeves is considering intervening to overrule the Supreme Court, according to The Guardian.
Treasury officials have been looking at the potential of passing new legislation alongside the Department for Business and Trade that could slash the potential compensation bill.
The Treasury said in response to the claim that it does not “comment on speculation” but hopes to see a “balanced judgment”.