The outcome of a major investigation into hidden, unfair car finance commission will be pushed back from September 2024 to May 2025, it's been announced. But the regulator behind the probe has told MoneySavingExpert.com founder Martin Lewis that payouts to drivers are now "more likely".
Read the full story:
Martin Lewis: Car finance mis-selling update – complaint decisions delayed but redress payments now "more likely"
If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.
We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Martin Lewis: Car finance mis-selling update – complaint decisions delayed, redress "more likely"
MSE_Molly_G
Posts: 186 MSE Staff
0
Comments
-
Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
1 -
Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future1 -
Massive operational costs to process all the complaints irrespective if they are justified or not and then large amounts of formerly booked earnings having to be refunded leaves a big black hole in the accounts for the next few years. You either issue your shareholders with a profit warning or you increase your revenues to make up for the costs. Most companies are likely to do the later.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the future
Hence those that take out future credit agreements are likely to pay slightly more to cover these costs1 -
Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the futureSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
2 -
Add Airline compensation to the list of additional costs will be borne by the consumers using the service.0
-
All costs of doing business are ultimately borne by the customers, voluntary and not.... uninsured drivers, shoplifters, taxes, the list is nearly endless.Hoenir said:Add Airline compensation to the list of additional costs will be borne by the consumers using the service.0 -
I was merely musing about areas where the culture is increasingly for inconvenience compensation. Rather than costs that have always been costed into product and service pricing.DullGreyGuy said:
All costs of doing business are ultimately borne by the customers, voluntary and not.... uninsured drivers, shoplifters, taxes, the list is nearly endless.Hoenir said:Add Airline compensation to the list of additional costs will be borne by the consumers using the service.
0 -
MattMattMattUK said:
Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the futureNasqueron said:
Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the futureWell yes, but...Their prices still have to be competitive.0 -
Build them in China at a fraction of the labour cost of US and European plants. .prowla said:MattMattMattUK said:
Specifically if the new car is bought on finance. The finance companies as part of their business model will need to increase their revenue and gross profits to cover the additional cost of payouts, which will mean higher interest rates charged on new finance products.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the futureNasqueron said:
Car companies will want to make back any money lost out on these grifting exercises (even the admin charges for dealing with people who had no DCA, or had 0% finance etc add up). You don't think the car firms will just suck up the cost of any refunds for a practice that, while undoubtedly shady, wasn't banned at the time? It's the same as PPI, sites like this and the CMC leeches encouraged everyone and their wife to chuck in nonsense PPI complaints which companies ended up paying as it was cheaper than fighting them all, even those without merit. They make the money back by reducing benefits or increasing costs to the rest of us.prowla said:
Why would that be?Nasqueron said:Oh well, higher payments for the rest of us if we buy cars in the futureWell yes, but...Their prices still have to be competitive.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards