Financial watchdog accused of ‘short-changing’ motorists on motor finance compensation

Financial watchdog accused of ‘short-changing’ motorists on motor finance compensation The FCA has said it will defend its motor finance compensation scheme as the best way to resolve a long-running saga - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments A consumer advocacy group has alleged that Britain’s financial regulator focused on reducing the cost of its £9.1 billion motor finance compensation package for lenders rather than safeguarding motorists. Consumer Voice is mounting a legal challenge against the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) framework to reimburse people affected by mis-sold vehicle loans between 2007 and 2024. Around 12.1 million agreements qualify for redress under the proposal, with payouts expected to average £829. Represented by law firm Courmacs Legal, the group contends that drivers will be "short-changed" if the framework remains unchanged. Court filings accuse the FCA of choosing a compensatory interest rate that "knowingly set the floor below the actual borrowing costs of most consumers". The claim centres on the watchdog setting the minimum interest paid on compensation at 3 per cent, calculated as the Bank of England’s average annual base rate plus 1 per cent. Despite evaluating an 8 per cent addition to the base rate, the filings state the FCA selected the lower figure to ease financial strain on lenders, streamline the process, and reach a quick decision. It said the FCA “made firm impact and operational simplicity the dominant consideration in its decision-making”. “Whilst the FCA recognised that an 8 per cent rate would directly address consumer concerns, it rejected this on the basis that it “would significantly increase total redress costs for firms”, the risk of challenge by lenders and market impacts,” the document read. “The FCA’s own data showed that unsecured personal loan rates exceeded 3% for almost the entire scheme period, and that many consumers – particularly those with weaker credit profiles – would have borrowed at materially higher rates.” Furthermore, the filing claims that the FCA heard concerns from a former chief economist who sat on its cost benefit analysis panel shortly before publishing the final details of its scheme. Peter Andrews, who was its chief economist between 2013 and 2017, said: “The fact that one scheme may be cheaper than another does not seem to be an adequate basis for a decision to favour the cheaper scheme when the main objective of the scheme must be consumer protection,” the document claims. The FCA has said it will defend its motor finance compensation scheme as the best way to resolve a long-running saga and which it says is “fair to consumers and proportionate for firms”. It has argued that the legal challenges have created uncertainty for consumers and the wider motor finance industry – with payouts that were due to start this year now facing significant delays. It has also previously tried to get the claim by Consumer Voice thrown out of court by alleging that the group has failed to explain how its legal case is being funded, the nature of the relationship with its solicitors, and potential conflicts of interest. Consumer Voice responded to say it has “no commercial interest in the outcome of this challenge” and that it considers the challenge to be “in the interests of consumers who stand to lose billions in redress under the scheme as it presently stands”. The FCA is facing separate legal challenges, on different grounds, from the financial services arms of carmakers Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz and the car finance arm of French bank Credit Agricole. The UK’s Upper Tribunal has agreed to hear the legal challenges in December or February next year, with a judgment expected in the following months. A spokeswoman for the FCA said: “Our scheme is the quickest, fairest and most efficient way to put £7.5 billion back in consumers’ pockets and we are defending it robustly. “It is unfortunate the challenges have delayed payouts for consumers that were due to begin this year, especially as household bills come under greater pressure. “We will respond fully to these challenges in court.” Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments