March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Motor Finance Providers and Flawed Time-Bar Arguments

How Some Motor Finance Providers Are Attempting to Time-Bar Commission Claims, Contrary to a Supreme Court Ruling

Background: Canada Square v Potter

In the Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2023] case, the Supreme Court ruled that the limitation period for bringing a claim can be extended under Section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 if the claimant can demonstrate that the defendant deliberately concealed a relevant fact. This ruling confirmed that time should not start running until the claimant became aware of the concealment, which in many cases involves undisclosed commissions in financial products.

The judgment was hailed as a significant victory for consumers, particularly those seeking compensation for financial mis-selling involving secretive commission payments, as is the case for up to 99% of motor finance agreements taken out since April 2007.

Time-Bar Arguments by Motor Finance Providers

Despite the clarity provided by the Supreme Court, many motor finance providers are still attempting to invoke the six-year time limit under the Limitation Act 1980 to dismiss claims. This tactic ignores the clear principles established in Canada Square v Potter, particularly the idea that consumers cannot be held to a time limit when they were unaware of the misconduct due to the provider’s concealment.

Refusal to Acknowledge Concealment: Providers argue that consumers should have discovered the commission payments earlier, even when these were actively hidden from consumers.
Rejection Without Investigation: Some providers seek to reject claims outright, citing time-bar rules, without properly considering whether the principles of Section 32 apply.
Delaying Tactics: By delaying or rejecting valid claims, providers attempt to discourage claimants from pursuing their cases further, thus causing further consumer harm.

Why These Arguments Are Flawed

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Canada Square v Potter leaves no room for misinterpretation:

Deliberate Concealment: If the amount of commission was not disclosed at the time the agreement was entered into, and the consumer only discovered it later (e.g., through litigation or regulatory scrutiny), the limitation period begins from the date of discovery.
Public Policy: The ruling upholds the principle that companies should not benefit from their own wrongdoing. Using time-bar arguments to reject claims contradicts this principle.
Fairness to Consumers: Many consumers only became aware of these issues following regulatory investigations or court judgments, meaning their claims are valid under Section 32.

What This Means for Claimants

Consumers with motor finance agreements that included undisclosed commissions should not be deterred by time-bar arguments from providers. The Canada Square v Potter judgment reinforces their right to pursue claims, even if the agreement was entered into more than six years ago. Claimants should:

Seek expert legal advice or assistance from regulated claims management firms.
Challenge any time-bar rejection by referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Act promptly to ensure their claims are not delayed unnecessarily.

A Call to Action for the Financial Conduct Authority

It is clear that motor finance providers are not treating complainants fairly, going so far as to ignore the Supreme Court ruling in Canada Square v Potter. It is now clear that the regulator must step in and provide a clear deterrent to motor finance providers that continue to cause significant consumer harm. Continuing to reject claims on time-bar grounds without proper consideration further undermines trust in the financial services industry. The Financial Conduct Authority must:

Enforce significant financial penalties for firms that handle complaints contrary to UK law.
Order that firms pay additional redress where complaint handling is deemed to be inadequate.
Consider a separate body to take over complaints from the outset, at a cost to finance providers that cannot be trusted to fairly handle complaints.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Canada Square v Potter has set a clear precedent for extending the time limits on claims involving undisclosed commissions. Motor finance providers must adapt their practices accordingly and immediately cease attempting to use time-bar arguments to reject valid claims. Consumers are encouraged to stand firm and seek professional assistance to ensure they receive the compensation they deserve.

motor finance commission claims time-bar

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

How Much Could the Motor Finance Commission Scandal Cost the Industry?

The motor finance industry in the UK is grappling with an enormous potential financial liability following revelations and legal defeats relating to undisclosed commissions tied to finance agreements. With potentially over 95% of motor finance agreements involving undisclosed commissions, and an estimated average commission of £700 per agreement, the scale of possible compensation claims is vast. When factoring in statutory compensation calculated at 8% per annum, the costs to the industry escalate even further.

Claims could stretch back as far as April 2007, spanning over 17 years, meaning millions of agreements could be subject to scrutiny. In this blog, we’ll delve into the numbers, the legal framework, and the additional burden statutory interest places on a potential staggering liability.

The Scale of the Issue

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has again been slow off the mark. The issue of undisclosed commission has long been known to the FCA, but it has allowed the practice to continue. Indeed, it only banned one type of hidden commission models in 2021. Discretionary commission models enabled dealerships and brokers to inflate interest rates to increase their commission, often to the detriment of the customer. Other type of hidden commission models have continued to be added unopposed until the landmark Court of Appeal judgment in October 2024.

It is estimated that up to 95% of motor finance agreements over the past two decades included some form of undisclosed commission payments. This means the vast majority of these agreements could be subject to legal and regulatory challenges, resulting in significant financial exposure for the motor finance industry.

The Numbers: Calculating the Financial Impact

1. Average Commission per Agreement: Your Money Claim suggests that the average commission paid to dealerships could be approximately £700 per agreement.

2. Number of Finance Agreements Since 2007: The Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) reports over 2.4 million new motor finance agreements annually. Over 17 years, this translates to 2.4 million agreements per year × 17 years = 40.8 million agreements.

3. Agreements with Undisclosed Commissions: If 95% of these agreements involved undisclosed commissions, this suggests the agreements potentially affected to be 40.8 million agreements × 95% = 38.76 million agreements.

4. Total Potential Refunds Refunding an average commission of £700 per agreement for all affected agreements results in 38.76 million agreements × £700 = £27.13 billion.

5. Adding Statutory Compensation at 8% per Annum: Statutory interest is calculated at an 8% annual simple interest rate, added to refunds from the date the commission was paid to the date of settlement. Assuming an average claim age of 10 years, the statutory interest adds £700 × 8% × 10 years = £560 per agreement. This increases the total compensation per agreement to £1,260 (£700 refund + £560 interest). For all affected agreements 38.76 million agreements × £1,260 = £48.82 billion

6. Costs to Administer Claims: At present the motor finance industry is doing all it can to defend cases and delay justice. Eventually though, as with PPI, it will have to face up to its poor conduct and deal with the mounting number of valid claims for compensation. This won’t come cheap, and could add millions more to the bill.

Legal Framework: Why April 2007 Matters

The legal framework underpinning claims dates back to April 2007, when the Consumer Credit Act 2006 introduced provisions to address “unfair relationships.” Courts and regulators have ruled that undisclosed commission payments create an unfair relationship, as customers were not provided with clear and accurate information about how their finance terms were influenced by such arrangements.

This framework allows claims to stretch back nearly two decades, significantly amplifying the financial exposure for motor finance providers.

Why the Motor Finance Industry is Fighting a Losing Battle

Despite mounting legal defeats and increasing consumer awareness, the motor finance industry continues to resist accountability. By challenging rulings, disputing claims, and lobbying for delays in regulatory enforcement, the industry appears intent on stalling justice rather than addressing its systemic failings.

Delaying Justice at Every Turn

Every attempt to delay the inevitable—whether through appeals or procedural hurdles—only prolongs the industry’s reckoning. Meanwhile, statutory interest continues to accrue on outstanding claims, further increasing the ultimate cost.

Broader Implications for the Industry

1. Financial Fallout: With potential liabilities exceeding £48 billion, including statutory interest, the motor finance industry faces an existential crisis. Smaller lenders may be unable to survive the financial strain, while even the largest players will need to make significant provisions to cover compensation payouts. Lenders have sought to warn regulators and all who will listen that this will result in increased costs for finance. However, if the commission paid is either removed or reduced (and disclosed), there is little evidence to suggests increased costs for credit is likely.

2. Regulatory Crackdowns: The FCA banned discretionary commission models, albeit belatedly, but this may only be the beginning. Given the scale of historical wrongdoing, regulators must seek to impose stricter compliance requirements and may demand proactive consumer redress programmes.

3. Loss of Consumer Trust Public confidence in the motor finance sector has been severely damaged. Customers are increasingly sceptical about the fairness of finance agreements, and the ongoing scandal only deepens perceptions of an industry driven by greed rather than integrity.

What Can the Industry Do to Address the Crisis?

To mitigate the damage and begin rebuilding trust, the motor finance industry must take decisive action:

Identify and Compensate Affected Consumers: Voluntary redress programmes could reduce the costs associated with prolonged litigation and restore some consumer goodwill. This is unlikely though given the costs involved.
Enhance Transparency: Clearly disclose all costs and commission arrangements in future agreements to ensure compliance and rebuild consumer confidence.
Promote Ethical Practices: Adopting customer-centric policies and prioritising fairness over profit will be essential to repairing the industry’s reputation.
Engage in Proactive Reform: Demonstrating a genuine commitment to ethical practices and regulatory compliance will help to minimise further regulatory sanctions.

Conclusion

The motor finance commission scandal could cost the industry upwards of £48 billion, including statutory compensation at 8% per annum. With claims spanning back to April 2007, this scandal represents the biggest conduct issue since the PPI saga and has the potential to eclipse the £40bn PPI bill.

While the motor finance sector continues to resist accountability, the courts, regulators, and consumer advocates are sending a clear message: justice for affected consumers cannot be delayed indefinitely. For an industry that has already lost so much credibility, the time for reform is now.

Delaying justice only compounds the damage—both financial and reputational. The question remains: how much longer will the motor finance industry continue to fight a losing battle?

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

High Court Defeat for Motor Finance Industry: Case AC-2024-LON-001124

On December 17, 2024, the High Court delivered another landmark judgment affecting the motor finance industry, this time in the case of Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd t/a Barclays Partner Finance v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (Case No. AC-2024-LON-001124). This case once again highlighted the entrenched issues of non-disclosure and unfair practices within the motor finance industry. The judgment also underscored the industry’s persistent, and ultimately futile, efforts to resist accountability for its systemic failures.

Background and Key Issues

The dispute centred around a 2018 motor finance agreement where the dealership, Arnold Clark, acting as a credit broker for Barclays Partner Finance, increased the interest rate on the loan offered to the customer from the base rate of 2.68% to 4.67%. This adjustment was not disclosed to the consumer, who later discovered the practice and lodged a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

This increase in the interest rate directly benefited the Arnold Clark, as it was part of a Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA) that allowed the dealerships to receive higher commissions based on the interest rates offered to consumers. The case highlighted the fact that the terms of the brokerage agreement expressly prohibited altering interest rates based on the assumption that a consumer could afford to pay more, or was willing to pay more.

However, Arnold Clark disregarded these terms, effectively prioritising its financial incentives over the best interests of the consumer. In addition, Barclays Partner Finance also appeared to turn a blind eye to this, likely incentivised by the fact it would generate more profit from the consumer too via the increased interest rate charged. This lack of disclosure and unfair practice became the focal point of both the FOS decision and the subsequent High Court review.

The High Court’s Findings

The High Court upheld the FOS ruling, delivering a scathing rebuke of the practices used in this case. Key findings included:

Unfair Relationship: The non-disclosure of the increased interest rate created an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The consumer was not provided with critical information that would have allowed for informed decision-making.
Breach of Brokerage Terms: The dealership acted outside the bounds of its agreement by increasing the interest rate without justification or consumer consent. This amounted to a breach of its obligations as a credit broker.
Systemic Failure of Oversight: Barclays Partner Finance, as the lender, bore ultimate responsibility for the dealership’s actions. The lender had created and maintained a commission model that inherently incentivised such misconduct, failing to implement adequate safeguards or transparency measures.

Delaying Justice Through Litigation – A Losing Battle

This case is emblematic of the motor finance industry’s ongoing attitude to systemic issues tied to undisclosed commissions. While the FCA banned discretionary commission models in January 2021, this ruling makes it clear that past misconduct continues to haunt the industry.

Instead of embracing transparency and compensating consumers for the harm caused, many motor finance companies, including Barclays in this instance, appear committed to delaying justice. By challenging FOS rulings and pushing cases into the courts, the industry is expending resources to resist accountability rather than resolving consumer grievances.

This approach, while temporarily stalling regulatory repercussions, further erodes public trust and highlights the industry’s unwillingness to prioritise fairness. It also exacerbates the financial and emotional toll on consumers who are forced to endure lengthy disputes to seek redress.

Wider Implications for Consumers and the Industry

The judgment serves as yet another defeat for the motor finance sector, reinforcing the courts’ and regulators’ stance against undisclosed commission practices. The key message is clear:

Transparency is Non-Negotiable: Consumers have the right to be fully informed about the costs and financial structures of agreements, including any commissions paid to brokers.
Misconduct Should Not Be Tolerated: Efforts to obscure unfair practices, whether by commission arrangements or litigation, will be should be scrutinised and penalised to the extent that a true deterrent is in place to guard against future misconduct.
Rebuilding Trust is Critical: The industry’s current strategy of resistance and delay only worsens its reputation. To move forward, companies must commit to reform, prioritising fairness and transparency in all dealings.

Conclusion

The High Court’s judgment in this case should serve as a watershed moment for the motor finance industry. Yet, the industry’s continued attempts to litigate against regulatory and consumer protections suggest it is still fighting a losing battle. By resisting accountability, the sector risks deeper regulatory intervention, greater financial penalties, and further erosion of consumer trust.

For consumers, the judgment is a reminder of the importance of vigilance when entering into finance agreements and a hopeful sign that courts and regulators are committed to ensuring fairness. However, the industry’s repeated attempts to delay justice highlight the need for ongoing pressure from both regulators and the public to bring about meaningful change.

High Court ruling motor finance commission

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Exposing Corruption and Leadership Failures at Black Horse

Black Horse, a prominent name in the UK’s finance sector and part of the Lloyds Banking Group, has long attempted to position itself as a trusted provider of vehicle finance. However, beneath the surface lies a troubling history of mis-selling practices, leadership failures, and regulatory breaches that have eroded public trust and led to substantial fines. This article examines the systemic issues within Black Horse that has allowed, and arguably encouraged such malpractice to flourish, and explores the broader implications for consumers and the financial industry as a whole.

A History of Mis-Selling

Black Horse has been implicated in multiple cases of mis-selling over the years. The company has repeatedly misled consumers, often pushing them into purchasing products they neither needed nor understood. This systematic approach to mis-selling highlights a corporate culture prioritising profit over ethics.

The PPI scandal: The PPI debacle serves as the most glaring example of Black Horse’s unethical practices. Customers were frequently sold PPI policies alongside loans and finance agreements without being properly informed of the terms and conditions or even the necessity of the product. In many cases, consumers were ineligible to claim on these policies due to pre-existing conditions or employment status. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed widespread evidence of misrepresentation and non-disclosure, leading to significant consumer harm. The Lloyds Banking Group, including Black Horse, was forced to set aside billions of pounds in compensation for affected customers, an amount that starkly illustrates the scale of the issue.
Mis-Selling of GAP (Guaranteed Asset Protection) Insurance: Another area of malpractice is the mis-selling of Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) insurance. Black Horse, alongside other providers, failed to adequately explain the product’s coverage and limitations, leaving customers paying for policies that provided minimal value. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) stepped in to address these issues, but not before countless consumers had been exploited. Similar to PPI, hidden commissions generated obscene profits that were far too tempting for Black Horse to take advantage of.
Motor Finance Commission Claims: One of the more recent controversies involves the mis-selling of motor finance agreements, particularly concerning undisclosed commission. Black Horse has been accused of failing to transparently inform customers about the sizeable commissions paid to car dealerships for arranging finance agreements. This lack of disclosure often led to higher interest rates for consumers, as dealerships had an incentive to push more expensive deals that maximised their commission. The FCA’s investigation into motor finance practices uncovered widespread evidence of harm, with customers overpaying for loans without understanding the true cost of their agreements. This scandal further underscores Black Horse’s prioritisation of profit over fairness and transparency, adding another layer to its tarnished reputation.

Regulatory Fines and Consequences

The FCA and other regulatory bodies have repeatedly fined Black Horse and its parent company, Lloyds Banking Group, for breaches of conduct. These fines have highlighted systemic failures in governance and oversight, including:

Inadequate Training and Monitoring: Black Horse staff often lacked proper training, leaving them ill-equipped to provide clear and accurate information to customers.
Pressure to Meet Sales Targets: High-pressure sales environments pushed employees to prioritise sales volumes over customer needs, leading to unethical practices.
Failure to Rectify Issues: Despite being aware of systemic problems, Black Horse’s leadership failed to take meaningful action to prevent further harm.

Leadership Failures: A Lack of Accountability

Poor regulation and a lack of real deterrent has allowed Black Horse to continue with its culture of profit over consumer focus, which appears to attract a certain type of employee and leadership within the organisation.

A Culture of Denial: At the heart of Black Horse’s problems lies a profound failure of leadership. Senior executives have repeatedly neglected their duty to foster a culture of integrity and compliance. This absence of accountability allowed harmful practices to persist unchecked.
Missed Opportunities for Reform: Rather than confronting the issues, Black Horse’s leadership repeatedly downplayed the severity of the problems. Whistleblowers and consumer advocacy groups have reported instances where concerns were ignored or dismissed outright, further entrenching the culture of denial.

The Broader Impact on Consumers

The fallout from Black Horse’s malpractice has been devastating for consumers. Victims of mis-selling have faced financial hardship, stress, and a loss of trust in financial institutions. Many were left paying for products they did not need or could not use, while others struggled to navigate the claims process to secure compensation.

What Needs to Change?

To rebuild trust and prevent future scandals, Black Horse and its parent company must undertake significant reforms. Key steps include:

Strengthening Governance: Implementing robust oversight mechanisms to ensure compliance with ethical and regulatory standards.
Enhancing Transparency: Providing clear, honest, and accessible information to consumers about financial products.
Fostering a Customer-Centric Culture: Shifting focus from profit-driven practices to genuinely addressing customer needs.
Holding Leadership Accountable: Ensuring that senior executives are held responsible for systemic failures and actively promoting a culture of integrity.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

FCA Failings and the Role of Claims Management Companies

MPs Brand FCA as “Incompetent”—The Crucial Role of Claims Management Companies

Published: November 26, 2024

Financial Scandals and Regulatory Failures

Today’s blistering parliamentary report exposes deep flaws in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), labeling it “incompetent at best, dishonest at worst.” Over decades, financial scandals such as PPI mis-selling and motor finance commission abuses have revealed the FCA’s systemic weaknesses. However, claims management companies (CMCs) have emerged as unlikely champions for consumer rights, often leading the charge where the regulator and financial institutions have failed.

PPI Mis-selling

The PPI scandal, spanning decades, saw tens of millions of mis-sold insurance policies that consumers didn’t need or want. While the FCA eventually pushed for redress, it was CMCs that turned PPI claims into one of the largest consumer compensation movements in history. These companies uncovered the scale of the problem and battled financial institutions reluctant to repay billions in compensation.

Motor Finance Mis-selling

Similarly, recently uncovered motor finance commission abuses — where dealers prioritised personal commissions over fair lending practices — show another area where the FCA’s delayed response and poor regulations have left consumers vulnerable and in the dark. CMCs have once again played a critical role in exposing these practices, culminating in the October 25th 2024 Court of Appeal judgment which paves the way to ensuring customers are compensated.

The Role of CMCs in Financial Justice

Claims management companies have been instrumental in uncovering systemic abuses, empowering consumers and holding financial institutions accountable. Their contributions include:

Exposing Misconduct: CMCs identify patterns of mis-selling or abuse, often acting when regulators fail to intervene.
Providing Expertise: CMCs guide consumers through what can be complex claims processes, ensuring they receive fair compensation.
Challenging Resistance: Financial institutions frequently employ tactics to delay claims, deter claimants and minimise liabilities; CMCs push back to secure justice.

Overcoming Criticism

The culprits of the mis-selling scandals have often pushed the message not to trust CMCs, often maliciously tagged ‘ambulance chasers’. This message has been drip fed into society by the media, funded by the banks themselves. While some criticise CMCs for their fees, this ignores their essential role. Without CMCs, many victims would remain unaware of their rights or unable to navigate compensation claims. CMCs persistence has secured tens of billions in payouts and exposed widespread misconduct, holding both financial institutions and the FCA accountable.

What Needs to Change?

The FCA’s alleged failings, as suggested by MPs, underscore the need for reform. Recommendations include greater accountability, improved transparency, and a consumer-centric approach to regulation. However, until these changes materialise, CMCs remain indispensable in protecting consumer rights and securing justice.

FCA failings claims management companies

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

March 31, 2025

Daniel Lee

Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Judgment

Why Martin Lewis is Wrong About the Wrench v FirstRand Court of Appeal Judgment

In a recent commentary, financial advisor Martin Lewis expressed concern that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wrench v FirstRand Bank Ltd and related cases has “gone too far.” However, his perspective overlooks critical legal and ethical nuances highlighted in the judgment. The ruling, far from being excessive, is a measured step toward ensuring transparency and fairness in financial transactions, particularly in motor finance arrangements.

Understanding the Court’s Decision

The Court of Appeal judgment addressed whether the disclosure of commissions paid by lenders to motor dealers was adequate. The decision clarified that partial or buried disclosures, such as vague mentions in terms and conditions, do not satisfy the duty of transparency owed to consumers. Crucially, it found that motor dealers and brokers owe a fiduciary duty to consumers, requiring impartial advice when arranging finance, and that lenders can be held liable as accessories if they fail to ensure proper disclosure.

This is not an overreach. It corrects a systemic imbalance where consumers were often unaware of commission structures, always unaware of the amount of commission paid, and which incentivised dealers to prioritise profit over the consumer’s best interest. The judgment explicitly ruled that failing to disclose the scale or nature of commissions creates an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, particularly when commissions are disproportionately high compared to the borrowed amount.

Why Martin Lewis’ Critique Misses the Mark

Focus on Consumer Vulnerability: Lewis’ argument downplays the vulnerability of many consumers who depend on motor finance to access vehicles. The Court recognised that these individuals trust dealerships to act in their best interest. By reinforcing the fiduciary duty and disclosure requirements, the ruling prioritises consumer protection over industry convenience.
Cheaper Finance for UK Consumers: Lewis has fallen into the trap of believing the narrative of the finance sector, which has suggested the judgment could jeopardise the industry and lead to more expensive credit for consumers. However, the judgment forces lenders and dealerships to now be upfront and open about commissions paid. This may, and should, result in the payment of commissions being removed or reduced. As consumers ultimately pay the commission via the interest paid on finance agreements, the removal of commission would result in cheaper finance options available as a result of a more competitive, fair and transparent marketplace.
A Balanced Approach: The Court did not order the recission of the finance agreements included within the case. Recission would have had an earth shattering impact upon the finance industry, which it could be argued is long overdue. Instead, it allowed for the repayment of the hidden commissions that were unknowingly paid by the consumers via their finance agreements. This restraint reflects an intention to balance consumer rights with industry feasibility.

The Broader Implications

The decision strengthens the foundation for fairer practices across all consumer credit arrangements involving undisclosed commissions, not just in motor finance. Claims management companies and consumer advocates welcome this clarity, while lenders will need to adjust their practices to align with these higher standards.

In conclusion, while Martin Lewis raises valid concerns about potential litigation impacts, the Court’s judgment is a necessary intervention to rectify widespread unfair practices. It ensures that consumers are no longer kept in the dark about commission arrangements that could influence their financial decisions. This is not a case of the courts going “too far” but rather doing what is needed to restore trust in financial transactions.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM

...

«Prev 2 345 6 Next Last

The Compensation Claim Experts

Motor Finance Providers and Flawed Time-Bar Arguments

Background: Canada Square v Potter

Time-Bar Arguments by Motor Finance Providers

Why These Arguments Are Flawed

What This Means for Claimants

A Call to Action for the Financial Conduct Authority

Conclusion

How Much Could the Motor Finance Commission Scandal Cost the Industry?

The Scale of the Issue

The Numbers: Calculating the Financial Impact

Legal Framework: Why April 2007 Matters

Why the Motor Finance Industry is Fighting a Losing Battle

Delaying Justice at Every Turn

Broader Implications for the Industry

What Can the Industry Do to Address the Crisis?

Conclusion

Background and Key Issues

The High Court’s Findings

Delaying Justice Through Litigation – A Losing Battle

Wider Implications for Consumers and the Industry

Conclusion

A History of Mis-Selling

Regulatory Fines and Consequences

Leadership Failures: A Lack of Accountability

The Broader Impact on Consumers

What Needs to Change?

Financial Scandals and Regulatory Failures

PPI Mis-selling

Motor Finance Mis-selling

The Role of CMCs in Financial Justice

Overcoming Criticism

What Needs to Change?

Understanding the Court’s Decision

Why Martin Lewis’ Critique Misses the Mark

The Broader Implications

About YourMoneyClaim

Navigation

Contact Us

Customer Area