01254 82288001254 822880
March 31, 2025 
Daniel Lee The recent landmark ruling in the Hopcraft v Close Brothers case in the Court of Appeal confirms that the motor finance industry has been unlawfully hiding key commission information from its customers. The Judges unanimous decision paves the way for billions in compensation to be refunded, which may result in the motor finance scandal eclipsing the PPI scandal. The Judges in the case each have long and formidable careers.
Lady Justice Andrews, appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2020, brings extensive experience in commercial and public law. A former barrister specializing in commercial disputes, Andrews practiced in the areas of shipping, finance, and international trade. Her judicial career began with her High Court appointment in 2013, where she presided over cases involving banking, company, and public law. Known for her precision and analytical approach, she has a history of handling complex financial litigation and matters involving regulatory oversight. Lady Justice Andrews is recognized for her clear, pragmatic judgments, often addressing intricate points of commercial and administrative law.
Lord Justice Colin Birss, a specialist in intellectual property law, was appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2021. He began his career as a barrister in IP law in 1990, gaining recognition for his deep knowledge in patents and copyright law. In 2010, he became a judge in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), where he handled high-profile cases impacting technology, media, and pharmaceuticals. Elevated to the High Court in 2013, he presided over the Patents Court and served as Supervising Judge of the Business and Property Courts. Known for his involvement in patent law, Birss is a member of international legal committees, such as the EPO Boards of Appeal Committee, and has contributed significantly to legal literature as the General Editor of Terrell on the Law of Patents.
Lord Justice Andrew Edis, appointed to the Court of Appeal in 2021, is renowned for his expertise in criminal law and significant contributions to legal proceedings in complex criminal cases. Originally appointed as a High Court Judge in 2014, Edis has presided over numerous high-profile trials, including cases related to the Essex lorry deaths, the Shoreham Airshow crash, and the News International phone-hacking scandal. Edis has a reputation for his strong ethical standards and rigorous approach to justice. His background includes prosecuting complex cases and issuing judgments in criminal appeals, emphasizing the balance of fairness and accountability within the legal system.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 31, 2025 Daniel Lee 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.
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.
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.
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
July 11, 2018 Daniel Lee Almost every single bank and finance provider is corrupt.
Strong words? Too strong?
The Oxford English Dictionary provides the definition of corrupt to be having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.
Given the tactics employed by these finance providers to sell PPI, in order to reap huge profits, I don’t feel corrupt is too strong a word.
Accepted estimations suggest that 64 million PPI policies were sold, and not even half of these have attempted to have been claimed back.
The main reason is that the corrupt staff within the corrupt finance providers added the toxic product without the knowledge of millions of customers.
Speaking to many friends, the usual answer I receive back is “I haven’t had it”.
Maybe you haven’t, but maybe, just maybe, you’re one of the millions who have been affected and don’t know about it.
The tactics of the banks, and the pitiful fines handed out by a weak regulator still sees the banks in profit for their corruption.
I’ve been banging on about the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for years now.
The role of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to protect the balance sheet of those it regulates.
Again, the role of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to protect the balance sheet of those it regulates.
Time after time, they’ve had the opportunity to punish the banks and put right the wrongs.
Force the banks to refund the money – The FCA failed
Force the banks to write to people potentially affected – The FCA failed
Punish the banks with fines that will force change – The FCA failed
Force the banks to handle complaints fairly – The FCA failed
I do not know of any instance where a bank has advised the customer of the amount of commission it was making as a result of selling PPI.
This is a fundamental failure by any bank or finance provider.
The average amount of commission retained by banks is 67%!!!
One case, Plevin versus Paragon, even went to the Supreme Court in 2014 and the Judge agreed that Paragon (the finance provider) failed in its duty to disclose the commissions to Mrs Plevin (the customer), and therefore mis-sold the PPI policy.
So, what did the FCA do with this ruling?
Well, it decided to have a consultation with a view to implementing new rules (that should have been in place in the first instance).
The FCA, in its infinite wisdom, decided that anything above 50% commission is unfair and that banks should refund the difference.
A reminder, the role of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to protect the balance sheet of those it regulates.
THE FCA, UNSURPRISINGLY, FAILED YET AGAIN.
Name me one industry where 50% commission is considered fair.
Would you buy a £10,000 car if the dealer told you it was only worth £3,300 and it was keeping £6,700?
Banks have routinely rejected valid PPI complaints.
It’s in their interests to reject complaints as their is no real consequence for doing so, such is the weakness of the regulator.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), is where consumers can take their complaint if they are unhappy with how the bank has handled it.
The FOS is supposed to be impartial and independent.
However, a recent Channel 4 Dispatches documentary uncovered serious failings within the FOS.
Due to the weak regulator and corrupt banks, the FOS has been deluged with PPI complaints.
One of the most concerning findings was that the FOS was rejecting potentially valid PPI complaints in order to get through the backlog.
The reason for this was that customers are far less likely to appeal a decision than a bank would.
Once more, the role of the regulator is to protect consumers, not to protect the balance sheet of those it regulates.
The regulator has shown its colours time and time again.
The regulator has clearly shown that its main purpose is to protect the banks, and turn a blind eye to the corruption that everybody else can see.
In a recent court ruling a Judge ruled against 50% commission being fair, and ordered the finance provider to refund all of the PPI premiums and interest.
This ruling sees a new path to go down, where common sense prevails over the corrupt banks and their protector regulator.
Has the FCA taken note of the ruling and sought to change its rules? The FCA failed again.
It now appears the best route to take any rejected or partial offer PPI claims is via the court.
One benefit of this is that the PPI deadline of 29th August 2019 would no longer apply.
If the regulator refuses to protect consumers the courts will.
https://www.yourmoneyclaim.co.uk/2014/11/ppi-fines-2005-present-day/
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44696362
https://www.ft.com/content/f5bbeff6-7e1d-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
PPI Corruption
October 16, 2017 Daniel Lee 19 October marks International Credit Union (ICU) Day, which has been celebrated since 1948 to recognise the achievements and hard work of those in the credit union industry. To show our own appreciation, we’re telling you why we think they’re so beneficial, highlighting some of the UK’s best employers who are getting it right.
A credit union is a not-for-profit financial co-operative, who provide savings, loans and a range of other financial services to its members – who own and control it. Essentially, credit unions are owned by the people who use their services, and not by external shareholders or investors. The result? Services that are designed around providing the best return for customers rather than profit for the organisation. That means no hidden charges, impressively lower interest rates and total transparency to name just a few benefits.
Membership of a credit union is based on a common bond such as working for the same employer, within the same industry or falling into specific geographical location. They vary in terms of size, service offering and form however, all credit unions offer savings and loans with a vast choice of products available. Better still as co-operatives, credit unions share their profits with their members where savers for example, will receive a dividend on their savings every year, which could be as much as 3%.
Because credit unions design loans around people rather than profit, they meet individual needs much more closely and at rates we can afford. So, if it’s a short-term loan you’re seeking, you’ll most likely be able to find it without the high interest rates the UK’s high street banks can sting us for.
The maximum any credit union will charge for a small loan is 3% per month on the reducing (about 42.6% APR) * which is still a whopping eight times cheaper than a payday loan charged at their cap. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of credit union loans are made well below the maximum interest rate and their customer focus means we can trust them far more than we can trust many of the high street banks.
Employers tend to set up a payroll deduction scheme into credit unions for savings or the repayment on loans. Some of the major UK employers successfully adopting this for their workforces are the NHS, British Airways and Royal Mail.
Plane Saver is the credit union for British Airways, with over 11,000 members, they have lent over £100 million to date. While the NHS offer an entirely transparent credit union of secure savings, affordable loans and FREE life savings and loan protection schemes. They do this to more than 15,500 members across Scotland and the north of England. Finally, Royal Mail staff benefit from the Penny Post credit union, with loans from as little as £500, at a rate of 42.6% APR, up to loan sums over £15,000 at a competitive rate of just 4.9%APR.
According to statistics from the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), 3.7 million people joined a credit union in 2015, reaching a record high of total members with growing numbers year on year.
What you are getting with banks is years of experience and a wider range of services, possibly added convenience with more commercial premises, ATMs and choices available. Credit unions do offer free or low-fee basic accounts but you won’t get the jazz hands surrounding it such as rewards, points and free coffee in-branch. But if it’s a range of services that offer security, accessibility and are designed for the people that use it, not the people that work for it – then find your credit union now.
The easiest way to find out if you are eligible is to find your credit union online, where you can search by your postcode, associations or employer.
If you would like to find out more about the UK’s high street banks, stay tuned to read our blog later this month – exposing the worst culprits for mis-selling products. If you feel you have been mis-sold any kind of credit, contact us now.
At Your Money Claim our aim is to fight your corner, whether it is helping you claim PPI compensation or providing you with knowledge on how to get the money you deserve.
—
Source: *https://www.findyourcreditunion.co.uk
...
October 4, 2017 Daniel Lee In 2014 Mrs Susan Plevin took Paragon Finance to the Supreme Court and won her case.
The case centred around Paragon Finance failing to advise Mrs Plevin what commission payments were being made by selling her a PPI policy.
Mrs Plevin argued that, by Paragon failing to provide her with this vital information, she was denied the opportunity to evaluate whether the PPI policy represented value for money.
The Judge found in favour of Mrs Plevin, which has subsequently seen the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), having to change its rules that providers must abide by when dealing with PPI complaints.
In the case of Mrs Plevin it was discovered that 71.8% of the £5,780 PPI policy, which was added to her loan, was pure commission.
Yes, that is correct, £4,150 was commission for selling the PPI policy, an utter disgrace.
Was it any wonder that banks mis-sold tens of millions of PPI policies given the commissions and profits on offer?
Was it any wonder that banks decided not to tell customers how much commission and profit they were making from the fraud?
Fraud may sound like a strong word to use, but that is quite simply what it was, fraud on a huge scale.
Some could argue that the regulator turned a blind eye and was therefore complicit in the fraud, whilst others argue the regulator was simply not fit for purpose and was unaware of the scam, but we’ll let you decide on that.
It took the FCA almost two and a half years to produce new rules for banks to follow when dealing with complaints surrounding the Plevin case.
It was found that the average commission taken by banks and providers for selling the toxic product was approaching 70%.
The FCA, in their wisdom, have suggested that anything over 50% commission is deemed to be a ‘tipping point’, at which the customer should have been informed.
50%!!! So, the FCA argue that had Paragon only taken £2,890 of the £5,780 PPI policy they didn’t need to tell Mrs Plevin.
Utter lunacy. You tell me any other industry where the regulator deems 50% to be a fair amount of commission, and the customer doesn’t need to be advised.
New rules allow banks to only offer the difference between 50%, up to the percentage of commission taken, so Mrs Plevin would only have been entitled to a refund of 21.8% given the commission taken by Paragon was 71.8%.
The new rules have been welcomed by some consumer champions as it provides hope to millions of previously rejected complaints.
Banks have ‘agreed’ to write out to millions of consumers who had their complaints rejected, but whose claims may now fall under these new rules.
We just hope that these letters being sent to customers are not lost in the post, or sent to old addresses in error, but we’ll have to rely upon the banks and the regulator to ensure this doesn’t happen, which given their track record I am sure won’t be an issue!
With the PPI deadline announced for 29th August 2019, there is a wave of advertisements encouraging those who haven’t checked whether they’ve been sold PPI to do so.
The FCA expect a surge in claims being made as the deadline approaches, but this carries a risk.
Banks have consistently handled valid claims unfairly, which is proven by data collated by the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which has always shown that over half of rejected claims are rejected unfairly.
The problem is that the fines handed to banks for failing to handle claims fairly do not act as a deterrent, given the billions the banks have saved themselves by rejecting valid claims.
Given banks penchant of putting the consumer as a last priority in favour of profits, coupled with the regulators continued failure to bring them into line, there are clear dangers to new claimants.
We are starting to see banks rejecting claims, but upholding part of the claim surrounding the Plevin rule and paying out partial compensation.
On the face of it the bank appears to be making an offer of compensation, but to the trained eye this can be spotted and the rejected part of the claim challenged or escalated to FOS for review if required.
However, can the everyday man on the street navigate through the jargon within a decision letter to uncover that the compensation being offered is potentially not a fair amount?
Banks have history of attempting to only offer partial compensation awards.
Shock horror I hear you say!
Banks previously attempted to make partial offers by suggesting an alternative PPI policy would have been more suitable to the customer, and that a refund of the difference in the costs of the policies would be fair.
How much banks saved by customers accepting this is open to debate, but we wouldn’t be surprised if the savings ran into billions.
Not bad when you consider the total fines handed to banks regarding the PPI scandal is less than £200m.
So who is to say banks won’t seek to try and take advantage of what should be a win for the consumer, instead turning it into a win for their profit margins and shareholders?
Is it a coincidence that the FCA have announced these new rules, over two years since the court ruling, to coincide with the deadline announcement and subsequent rush of claims?
Now call me a cynic if you wish…..
Obviously we would invite you to ask Your Money Claim to act on your behalf, but we understand some of you out there would prefer to carry out your own investigations and manage your own claims.
If you have chosen not to use the services of a reputable Claims Management Company, generally not one that cold calls or makes any unsubstantiated statements, and a bank makes an offer of compensation to you, we recommend you read the letter thoroughly.
Look for any hint that the bank has rejected the main part of the claim, and are only making a partial offer based on unfair commissions.
If you are unsure as the jargon used renders the letter difficult to comprehend, or you believe you have been made an unfair partial offer, escalate the claim to the Financial Ombudsman Service for review within six months from the date of the letter.
Each referral to the Ombudsman can cost the bank, so if enough people do it the banks may see that it is no longer financially viable to look to cheat customers out of compensation that is rightfully due.
Could banks benefit from Plevin PPI ruling?
September 22, 2017 Daniel Lee At Your Money Claim, our aim is to fight your corner. Whether that’s helping you claim PPI compensation or filling you in on the latest products that could impact your pocket, we’re here to help.
Smart meters are the latest version of gas and electricity meters and these digital devices are designed to automatically read your meter, resulting in more accurate energy bills. But are they as good as they sound? By 2020, every home will be offered a smart meter by their energy supplier, so we look at whether a smart meter will cost or save you money.
With a smart meter, you are only charged for the electricity and gas you use. This means no more over-priced bills based on estimates. With constant measurement, you can save yourself the cost and hassle of an unexpected excessive payment. Although energy companies refund differences, smart meters reduce nasty surprises.
The main way that smart meters can help you save money is by allowing you to monitor your usage. Being able to easily see how much energy you are using can help you consciously reduce it. This is great for the environment, as well as your bank balance.
Although the smart meter offers you an opportunity to save, you still need to be willing to alter your usage to see the benefits. Even on a standard meter, turning off unused electronics, switching off lights or putting on warmer clothes instead of central heating could still help you save money. The advantage of a smart meter is that you don’t have to wait for your bill to adjust. The smart meter’s running total can also make motivation easier.
While you can control how much you use, the estimated savings are modest. According to Money Supermarket and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Action every household will be annually saving £26 by 2020, £33 by 2024 and £43 by 2030.
Any saving no matter how small is surely a good thing though. Or at least it would be if you didn’t have to pay for your smart meter…
You are never technically charged for a smart meter – all changeovers come with free installation and no upfront costs. Sounds great, right? But there is a catch.
The smart meters cost up to £200 each and this will be absorbed by households – not energy companies. Suppliers are currently adding approximately £6 a year extra to energy bills to cover the price. This reduces the amount you can save with a smart meter.
However, the good thing about this method is that there’s no prohibitive one-off cost. You do not need to outlay a large amount of money to make a small annual saving. This gives everyone equal access to a new meter.
By 2020, the Government aims for every home in the UK to be offered a smart meter. However, some experts say this target is overambitious and there may be a delay. If you want one sooner, contact your supplier to see if it’s possible.
If you decline a smart meter, there are no financial advantages as everyone still pays the rollout cost. However, if you do say no, current advice is that getting a smart meter later will remain free so there’s no rush if you’re unsure. Although once most people transition, there are warnings that certain (and potentially cheaper) tariffs may not be available to those who do not switch.
One vision for the future is that we will live in ‘smart cities’. This involves the Internet of Things (IoT) becoming part of everyday life. The IoT is all about ‘things’ connected to the internet, from self-driving cars to devices that help you locate misplaced keys. Today, we can already see how the IoT connects with energy. For example, there are apps that allow you to adjust your heating or turn off electrical appliances when not at home. Smart meters naturally compliment this. As devices continue to interact more intelligently with each other, we will hopefully have more ways to save both energy and money!
Although a greener future could mean a cheaper one, there are concerns that energy suppliers will eventually profit from smart meters. This is because smart meters give these companies more data than ever before (although you can edit your permission levels). This data could then be used to adjust charges, such as charging more for peak times.
Although smart meters are not a money saving guarantee, they are the future. The best way to save money on your energy bill is to simply use less. You can easily offset your £6 annual charge by just switching off unused electrical goods. If you have a smart meter, use it to monitor your usage but don’t expect it to reduce your bill without making an effort.
...
