Car Finance Redress

MADMEN

Has anyone got any thoughts on the motor finance redress scheme?

Is it just me, or do these delays feel like a tactic to drag the process out? What frustrates me is that the finance companies have been allowed to challenge things at this stage when they had the opportunity to raise objections during the consultation period.

Surely the FCA should have taken that into account and made it clear that the consultation was the time for firms to challenge the proposals, rather than allowing further delays now that consumers are waiting for answers and compensation.

Ayr_Rage

You can't challenge a decision until one has been made.

Reported for moving, this post does not belong in ENERGY.

Isthisforreal99

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6670895/car-finance-redress

Are you conveniently forgetting that one of the objections did not come from the finance companies but a so called consumer group who's purpose seems to be to represent the claims management companies who want a bigger slice of the pie.

dunstonh

Is it just me, or do these delays feel like a tactic to drag the process out? 

Seeing as the latest delay is largely caused by a claims company, that opinion would be daft.

What frustrates me is that the finance companies have been allowed to challenge things at this stage when they had the opportunity to raise objections during the consultation period.

Are you suggesting that their rights under the law shouldn't be allowed?

How would that be fair?

Surely the FCA should have taken that into account and made it clear that the consultation was the time for firms to challenge the proposals, rather than allowing further delays now that consumers are waiting for answers and compensation.

It's not for the FCA to decide that. It's up to the courts.

dunstonh

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82044970#Comment_82044970

You are wrong. The law trumps the FCA. The FCA has to follow the law. Indeed, the FCA didn't see anything wrong with what the lenders were doing until it was the courts offer their opinion.

Effectively, the law was badly written and has led to unintended consequences. However, the law is what it is, and that is why the FCA is following what the courts said.

MADMEN

Take your point but the continued delays is particularly difficult to understand given that the FCA did not act in isolation. The issues were considered through the courts, legal judgments were obtained, and the FCA then undertook a formal consultation before reaching its final position on redress.

Consumers could therefore reasonably expect that both the legal and regulatory processes had been followed. The courts had considered the relevant legal issues, and the FCA had carried out its role as the regulator by consulting, assessing the evidence, and publishing a final scheme.

It is therefore fair to ask what confidence consumers can have in the regulatory process if, after court judgments have been delivered and the FCA has completed its consultation and issued its decision, further challenges continue to delay resolution. If legal and regulatory scrutiny have already taken place, consumers are entitled to question why the process appears capable of being reopened repeatedly while they continue to wait for redress.

The right to challenge decisions is important, but there must also come a point at which consumers can rely on the outcome of both the judicial and regulatory processes. Otherwise, the burden of ongoing delay falls disproportionately on those who have already waited years for certainty and compensation.

LeighF

I can see this becoming a damp squid. I was fortunate to be able to find details of agreements going back to 2008 for a number of cars but have already received a couple of responses saying that:

We have identified that your agreement was not subject to a discretionary commission arrangement.

It's alright being told that we can contest replies to claims but we don't have the information so how can we do that? We are relying on the manufacturers being truthful about this! Given that my claims are against one of the biggest manufacturers identified with regard to possible mis-dealings I find it strange that I would be "lucky" enough to have bought a number of cars over a number of years via finance (PCP) and not being subject to one of the disceptations?

Maybe they fell foul of the other reasons for being able to make a claim? I shall have to wait and see.

 

Nasqueron

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82057431#Comment_82057431

Clydesdale Bank was fined £20m for pretending not to have paperwork to deal with PPI complaints, there is zero chance these firms are going to lie in writing if they know you had it. No need to put these big firms on a pedal stool* not all deals were subject to it

*IT Crowd