ARTICLE
8 November 2024

Motor Finance Cases Set New Standards For Disclosure

PR
Proskauer Rose LLP

Contributor

The world’s leading organizations and global players choose Proskauer to represent them when they need it the most. Our top tier team of star trial attorneys, acclaimed transactional lawyers and exceptionally talented partners and associates have earned a reputation for the relentless pursuit of perfection and a dauntless pursuit of success.
The Motor Finance Commission cases reinforce transparency requirements in motor finance agreements, ruling that undisclosed commissions breach fiduciary duties. This decision may impose significant liabilities on dealerships and lenders, setting a new standard for consumer protection in finance.
United Kingdom Finance and Banking

The Motor Finance Commission Claims – including Johnson v FirstRand BankWrench v FirstRand Bank, and Hopcraft v Close Brothers – are a set of Court of Appeal cases addressing undisclosed or partially disclosed commission payments in motor finance agreements.

Key Points:

  1. Background:

The claimants were financially unsophisticated consumers who relied on car dealerships to arrange hire-purchase finance for second-hand cars. The dealerships acted as credit brokers, receiving commission from lenders, often without informing the consumers.

  1. Claims and Allegations:
  • Secret and Half-Secret Commissions: In Hopcraft, the commission was completely undisclosed, while in Wrench and Johnson, the commission was only partially disclosed with vague terms like "may be paid," which did not adequately inform consumers.
  • Breach of Duty: The claimants argued that the brokers owed them a "disinterested duty" to act impartially in their recommendations, and, in some cases, a fiduciary duty to prioritize their interests.
  • Unfair Relationship: The claimants also argued that the undisclosed commissions made the credit agreements unfair under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  1. Court Findings:

The Court ruled that the dealerships breached both the "disinterested duty" and fiduciary duty by failing to disclose commissions adequately.

  • Accessory Liability: In Johnson, the lender was found liable as an accessory, knowing the broker's breach of duty and failing to ensure informed consent.
  • Remedies: The court ordered that the commissions be repaid as damages or equitable compensation, along with interest.
  1. Implications:

This ruling requires full disclosure of commissions to consumers, setting a precedent for transparency and fairness in motor finance.

The decision may lead to significant financial liabilities for lenders and brokers, potentially costing billions in repayments, similar to the PPI scandal.

This case underscores the importance of transparency in consumer finance, with dealerships and lenders now facing increased responsibility to ensure consumers are fully informed of any commission arrangements.

View original.

Motor Finance Cases Set New Standards For Disclosure

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More