The Upcoming Motor Commission Supreme Court Case: A Defining Moment for Consumer Justice

The Supreme Court is set to hear what could be one of the most significant financial justice cases in recent history.

At the heart of the case lies the question of whether motor finance providers should be held accountable for historical commission arrangements, and specifically the fact that the amount of commission was not disclosed to consumers who ultimately paid the commission via the interest charged on their finance agreements.

This case follows the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which correctly favoured greater consumer protection.

However, with the stakes now at their highest, it is widely expected that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the government, and the finance industry will attempt to intervene to protect the interests of lenders and brokers.

A Push to Avoid Retrospective Accountability

The finance industry, supported by regulatory and governmental bodies, is likely to argue that motor finance providers adhered to the regulations as they were understood at the time.

The anticipated intervention will seek to ensure that, even if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision, lenders will not be required to retrospectively apply the law.

This would effectively shield them from facing action and compensation claims for years of misconduct.

The core argument will be that finance providers followed the rules in place at the time and that requiring them to compensate affected customers now would be unfair and overly punitive.

They will claim that imposing retrospective accountability would destabilise the industry, leading to financial instability and undermining confidence in financial regulation.

This is a well-worn tactic, often deployed when corporate interests face the prospect of significant financial liability.

The Reality: The Rules Were Already Being Broken

However, a much stronger counterargument exists—one that exposes the fallacy of the finance industry’s position.

The rules governing commission disclosure were not ambiguous as it has been suggested; they were clear and unequivocal.

Specifically, under CONC 4.5.3R of the FCA Handbook, dealerships were required to disclose commission arrangements if they had the potential to impact their impartiality.

Dealerships generally work with a panel of finance providers, all offering different commission (bribes) incentives to get the dealership to sign customers up to particular finance agreements.

This resulted in dealerships proposing finance agreements that were in the interest of the dealership (deals that earned the largest commission), rather than proposing the best deal for the consumer.

This practice fundamentally compromised the impartiality of dealerships and created a clear conflict of interest, meaning that the FCA’s regulations required full disclosure of these commissions at all times.

The fact that disclosure did not happen on a systemic scale indicates that the rules were routinely breached all along.

A Systemic Failure to Protect Consumers

The failure to disclose these commissions was not an oversight; it was an industry-wide approach that placed profit above consumer transparency and fairness.

The argument that finance providers merely ‘followed the rules at the time’ crumbles under scrutiny when considering that the applicable rules already mandated disclosure.

The reality is that consumers were deliberately kept in the dark about the financial incentives that could and did influence the cost of their finance agreements.

Had these commission arrangements been properly disclosed, or all of the available finance options provided to the consumer, this would have met the regulatory requirement.

Instead, consumers were misled into believing they were receiving impartial financial advice when, in reality, brokers were motivated by hidden financial incentives.

The Supreme Court’s Crucial Role in Delivering Justice

If the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Appeal’s decision, it must resist any attempt to shield finance providers from retrospective accountability.

To do so would be to reward years of non-compliance and to deny justice to the countless consumers who were misled by undisclosed commission structures.

It would also set a dangerous precedent, effectively signalling that regulatory breaches can be excused if they were widespread enough.

This case is not just about historical misconduct; it is about the integrity of financial regulation and consumer protection.

If finance providers are allowed to escape responsibility for breaking the rules, it will undermine confidence in the FCA’s regulatory framework and embolden future misconduct.

A Defining Moment for Financial Fairness

The upcoming Supreme Court case represents a pivotal moment in time for consumer justice.

The finance industry, with the backing of the FCA and government, will undoubtedly attempt to argue that retrospective accountability is unfair.

However, the truth is that these providers were already breaking the rules at the material time.

If justice is to be served, the Supreme Court must stand firm against these attempts to rewrite history.

Consumers who were misled by undisclosed commissions deserve redress, and finance providers must finally be held to account for their systemic failure to adhere to the regulations designed to protect the public.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM