Aug 19
Aug 12
Aug 5
Jul 29
Jul 22
Jul 15
Jul 8
Jul 1
Jun 24
Jun 17, 2025
From: MSE's Money Tips - Tuesday Aug 05, 2025 07:32 pm
| 05 August 2025 | View in browser |
|---|---|
|
|---|
The FCA is strongly warning against using claims firms because the mass redress scheme it's looking at will likely involve lenders being made to contact you, then either automatically paying out (if you've an eligible claim) or asking if you want to opt in for your claim to be considered. So sign up to a claims firm now and you may have to pay it, even if it ends up doing nothing.  You were told you had a DCA. If the firm said you did have a DCA in its reply, then it's logged, all is done. Now you just need to wait, but you are potentially due some compensation. In terms of time limits, the firm's response probably stated claims were on pause until 4 Dec 2025. Yet as the Supreme Court case has delayed everything, the regulator will almost certainly extend this, with complaints now likely to be dealt with under the new redress scheme from 2026. You were told you didn't have a DCA. If the firm said you didn't have a DCA, then it's likely over, unless your claim comes under the more narrow 'unfair commission' route I mentioned earlier. Yet exact definitions may change or force firms to double-check. Still, for now, you've done all you need to. You got a poor response. If it didn't say anything other than to acknowledge your complaint, that's frustrating but there's nothing else to do for now, as it is logged for complaint purposes, and should be part of a future redress scheme if you're eligible. MSE & I will be arguing for 2007 in our consultation response. As if not, it could break the whole redress system and see us having to suggest people going en masse via the ombudsman or courts instead, clogging them up. What we need now is the regulator to be able to deliver an easy, consistent, speedy process. So if you don't have the paperwork and it's a recent case (say roughly the last decade or so), you're likely fine. If it's older, then if you have your paperwork, great. Even if you only have partial details of the firm and car, that would help (see what info do I need?) as the redress scheme may be able to look at the patterns used by individual firms (similar was done with PPI). If not, it gets much trickier, and we'll be pushing for the consultation to consider what the options are. I believe it'd be best for consumers and the industry to have clarity, consistency and transparency, to get on with this and get past it. The industry is already far less financially exposed than it could've been had the Supreme Court followed the Court of Appeal ruling - so much so, many car finance firms' share prices jumped on Monday morning, even after the regulator's consultation announcement. Yet you can go harder if you know what you're doing. There is nothing stopping you going to court, either by yourself if you feel comfortable, or with legal representation. In some circumstances, you may end up with more compensation than the mass route (though legal fees may eat away at that gain), but that's not something we can specifically help you with. The choice is yours. This is probably most relevant for the more complex 'unfair commission' cases. Some may want to put a complaint in now and go to the ombudsman or court. Personally, I'd wait until we know what the redress scheme will include, but it's up to you. |
|---|
 |  |  |
|---|
| | |
|---|---|
a) Pay at least the monthly minimum and stick within your credit limit, or you can lose the 0% and get hit with fees.
b) Plan to clear the card (or balance-transfer) before the 0% ends, or these cards charge 24.9% rep APR interest.
c) Don't use these cards to withdraw cash - it's not at 0%.
 |  |  |
|---|
|
Home: Try our Compare+ Home Insurance tool |
|
|---|
| |
|---|