Rachel Reeves considera il superamento della Corte Suprema in £ 44 miliardi di auto finance

Free market capitalism for consumers and socialism for lenders.

Absolute scandal if they overrule the Supreme Court to subsidise the sector.

What incentive is there for FCA regulated bodies to behave themselves when they know the government and/or taxpayer will bail them out when push comes to shove?

[removed]

The court still hasn’t handed down a judgment yet.

I wonder if this has leaked to try and put some pressure on the judges.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The court was wrong, and it was quite clear it was.

For those who do not know what this article is referring to, it is regarding commission paid to brokers by finance companies.

According to the laws set down by the Financial Conduct Authority customer has to be made aware of any potential commission paid by the finance company to the broker. This has been the case for years.

The customer can ask to know the amount paid, and the broker must make them aware of this.

The court case in October was regarding 3 customers who believed they were not treated fairly. One of these cases it was found the customer was not made aware of any commission, and in addition the commission amount was approx a 1/3 of the value of the car. The other 2 the customers were made aware and the commission payment was in the single digit percentage of the car value (i do not have the figures hand).

The courts found in favour of all 3 and stated that ALL these payments were illegal. This ruling is huge and would affect everything. TVs, Washing machines, PC’s, Jewellery, Watches. Any retail store offering finance will be getting some form of commission payment, and they would now all be illegal.

The general consensus is that the customer who had not been told and was subject to a large commission payment was treated unfairly, the commission was excessive and he should have been told.

BUT… the other 2 the commission payments were a couple of hundred pounds and they were told. The finance companies and brokers followed the law as it was set down by the FCA.

*This is not the same as the Discretionary Commission Payments (DCAs) which was illegal and the finance companies are getting ready to pay out on.*

oh i see… for a second i thought i lived in a country with a justice system. Honestly? fuck this country. Not a decent politician amongst them

An alternative view is that people AGREED to pay the amounts specified. Why should they subsquently be compensated? It may not have been the best deal they could have got but nobody FORCED them to agree. At the time these deals were made, there was no FCA requirement to disclose commission on lending agreements. Why should vendors/lenders subsequently be held financially liable for behaviour that was perfectly legal at the time? There are people in this discussion banging on about it being unreasonable for the government to pass retrospective legislation to block compensation. However, it may be equally unreasonable for lenders to be held retrospectively liable for past practices that were not illegal at the time.

A lot of indignation over what amounts to an “I reckon” article. There are no substantiated sources, just conjecture. Are they likely to be planning contingency in the event this may cause economic harm to the UK? Almost certainly. But that does not mean “intends to”. I “considered” going for a run this morning but it doesn’t mean I had any real intention of actually doing it.

I thought it was supreme for a reason…e.g. could not be overruled

It’s not really overruling the Supreme Court, it’s just changing the law. This is the prerogative of any government, and is a completely normal way for governments to operate.

What’s more interesting is that if they pass a law to counter this ruling, it shows just how quickly the government can act when the political will is there. It’s something that we should all bear in mind when the government tries to pretend that it’s powerless in the face of a court defeat.