.jpg)
A permission to appeal application has now been made by lenders to the Supreme Court, following the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Angel v Black Horse & Others.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by lenders, upholding a previous High Court decision allowing multi-claimant claim forms to be issued for low value motor finance consumer claims in the County Court, without requiring a Group Litigation Order (GLO).
While an application for permission to appeal does not mean that a further appeal will necessarily be heard by the Supreme Court, it creates the prospect of yet more delay in resolving motor finance commission claims.
Consumers have already waited years for clarity on whether undisclosed, or inadequately disclosed, commission arrangements between lenders and motor dealers or brokers gave rise to an unfair relationship or other remedy.
The Court of Appeal’s decision was an important development for affected borrowers. However, the continued attempts by lenders to challenge decisions and delay final resolution are deeply frustrating, particularly where consumers may be entitled to compensation but remain unable to obtain a definitive outcome.
By trying to overturn the multi-claimant structure, lenders want to force individual consumers to fight their case alone. For low-value consumer claims, the cost and effort of running a standalone claim in the County Court against a lender, with all its financial backing, makes seeking justice economically impossible for most individuals.
This is especially concerning for customers whose agreements may not fall within the scope of the FCA’s proposed motor finance redress scheme (itself currently under formal legal challenge), or whose eligibility under that scheme is disputed.
For example, non-discretionary commission cases, which do not meet the FCA’s high commission threshold of 39% or more than the total costs of credit and 10% or more than the amount borrowed under the finance agreement.
We fully understand that lenders are entitled to seek to challenge legal decisions. However, the practical consequences are that consumers continue to face uncertainty while lenders retain the benefit of delay.
It is important that the courts and regulators do not lose sight of the toll that these continued delays are having upon consumers and provide clarity as soon as possible, particularly for those consumers who may otherwise be left without an effective route to compensation.
We will continue to monitor the permission to appeal application and provide updates as matters develop.
.jpg)
