Understanding the Court of Appeal Judgment in Hopcraft v Close Brothers (2024)

In July 2024, the Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment in the case of Hopcraft v Close Brothers, which introduced critical standards for disclosure in the motor finance industry. This case highlights important consumer rights and imposes enhanced compliance obligations on credit brokers and finance providers in the UK.

Case Background

The case began when Mr. Hopcraft filed a claim against Close Brothers Ltd, a prominent UK finance provider, arguing that the car dealership involved in arranging his financing had failed to disclose an underlying commission arrangement. Acting as a credit broker, the dealership had received a commission from Close Brothers for facilitating the finance deal. Mr. Hopcraft asserted that he had not been made aware of this arrangement, suggesting it breached consumer protection laws under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

The case primarily questioned whether motor dealers must fully disclose commission arrangements with finance providers, especially when such disclosures are not specifically mandated by Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations.

Key Findings of the Court

The Court of Appeal found in favor of Mr. Hopcraft, concluding that car dealerships acting as credit brokers must disclose any commission payments from finance companies like Close Brothers. The ruling clarified that dealerships owe their customers both a “disinterested duty” and a “duty of loyalty,” meaning they must transparently disclose any commissions that might impact the impartiality of their financing advice.

This decision essentially sets a new bar for the industry, requiring transparency that exceeds existing FCA requirements, particularly in cases where a conflict of interest, such as commission-based incentives, could influence consumer choice.

Implications for the Motor Finance Industry

Close Brothers has since announced its intent to appeal the decision to the UK Supreme Court. While awaiting this potential appeal, the company has temporarily paused new motor finance transactions in the UK as it reviews and updates its disclosure practices to meet the standards established by the judgment.

This ruling could lead to broader implications across the motor finance industry, prompting companies to reconsider and potentially expand their disclosure protocols to avoid similar legal challenges. It also signals a shift toward prioritizing transparency in consumer finance, especially where commissions or similar incentives are involved.

This case summary highlights how Hopcraft v Close Brothers could set a lasting precedent in motor finance disclosure requirements, aiming to protect consumers from hidden financial incentives in brokered finance deals. The industry and consumers alike are likely to see further developments if the Supreme Court takes up the case.

For a deeper understanding, refer to sources like Motor Finance Online and official judiciary statements.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM