Supreme Court Car Finance Ruling: Implications for the Market

August 2025

On 1 August 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered a long-awaited judgment on the issue of undisclosed commissions in motor finance. The decision significantly narrows the basis on which consumers can bring claims and provides welcome clarity for lenders and investors across the credit markets.

Key Findings

  • The Court rejected the majority of arguments that non-disclosure of commissions constituted a fiduciary breach or “bribe.”
  • Of the three test cases, only one succeeded – on the narrow basis of an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act, linked to a commission equating to 55% of the credit charge. Importantly, the one case that succeeded was heavily fact-driven and specific to the individual circumstances, reducing the likelihood of a mass “one-size-fits-all” redress scheme.

  • This effectively limits the legal avenues for consumer redress but does not eliminate regulatory risk.

Regulatory Response

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to investigate the use of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), which were banned in 2021. Although the Court has curtailed the legal exposure, the FCA is expected to announce its position on potential redress by early October 2025. Estimates of industry-wide compensation have been revised down, with current expectations in the range of £9–18 billion. However, this is expected to be contained to the regulated auto finance sector.

There has been some pushback from the industry to the FCA’s approach, suggesting it represents overreach, and presents logistical problems. The FCA wants to go back to 2007 – but GDPR means many firms will have destroyed records that far back!

Relevance to LGB Issuers

LGB’s programme issuers are predominantly non-bank lenders focused on secured business lending, including asset finance, bridging and development finance, and unsecured business loan. These lenders very rarely, if at all, operate in the regulated consumer credit space.

We do not believe any LGB issuers are exposed to claims of this nature.

However, we are monitoring developments closely. There remains the possibility of broader thematic FCA scrutiny around broker practices, pricing transparency, and intermediary oversight – all of which may have relevance in both consumer and SME lending contexts. Additionally, although fiduciary duty is not deemed to apply for typical motor finance, the picture is less clear for brokers in other sectors – including asset finance.

Helen Lumb, MD of Shire Leasing, said of the ruling: “The judgment from the Supreme Court has brought much needed clarity on the issues of fiduciary duty and bribery addressing concerns raised by the Court of Appeal ruling. The court delivered an excellent judgment that is welcomed by both brokers and lenders alike, restoring confidence across all markets. In delivering the judgment the court has effectively narrowed the route for claims, which in the motor finance sector will be addressed through the FCA redress scheme.”

Helen is also a board member of the Finance and Leasing Association and a director of The Leasing Foundation.

Summary

The ruling provides some comfort to alternative lenders and their funders, particularly around legacy legal risks. While the FCA’s review is ongoing, the scope appears focused on historical consumer motor finance arrangements rather than SME or B2B credit.

We will continue to update our investors and issuers as the regulatory position evolves.