CRS UK

  The Supreme Court’s August 2025 judgment clarified how commission in motor finance agreements should be treated under the law. For borrowers, the outcome is more nuanced than many headlines suggested. 1. What the Supreme Court Decided The Court confirmed that a discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) does not automatically create an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It also made clear that dealers are commercial intermediaries, not fiduciaries, and that disclosure of the possibility of commission can defeat claims of secrecy. Importantly, unfairness now requires additional aggravating factors, such as very high commissions or inadequate disclosure. In practical terms, this narrowed certain court-based claims. 2. What Changed After the Judgment Shortly after the ruling, the Financial Conduct Authority announced plans for a consumer redress scheme targeting undisclosed or excessive commission. Consultation Paper CP25/27 proposes an industry-wide sche...

  If your PPI complaint was rejected years ago, it is easy to assume the matter is closed permanently. In practice, a rejection answers one specific question: did the complaint meet the regulatory tests that applied at the time it was assessed? It does not automatically answer every possible question about fairness. What a past rejection does mean A rejection usually means: The firm applied FCA complaint-handling rules and concluded that the complaint did not meet the threshold for redress at that time  The complaint may have been considered out of time, particularly after the 29 August 2019 deadline  There may have been insufficient evidence about how the policy was sold  The firm concluded that mis-selling tests were not met under the rules then in force  In short, it reflects a regulatory judgment made within a defined framework. What a past rejection doesn’t necessarily rule out It does not automatically rule out: That the complaint was assessed under narr...