header-logo header-logo

30 October 2024
Issue: 8092 / Categories: Legal News , Consumer , Commercial , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

Car dealerships kept quiet about commissions

Buyers of cars have a right to know about, and must give consent to, any commission arrangements between their finance lender and car dealer, the Court of Appeal has held

Ruling in three conjoined cases, Johnson v Firstrand Bank (London branch) t/a Motonovo Finance [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, the court found car dealers have a fiduciary duty when arranging finance, and must be upfront about any commission. It held dealers did not satisfy this duty by hiding information about commissions in small print in terms and conditions appended to the finance agreement. Consequently, the lender was liable for the repayment of the commission in all three cases.

Handing down their judgment last week, Lady Justice Andrews and Lords Justice Birss and Edis said: ‘The dealer is acting as a seller of the cars, and also as a credit broker.

‘A credit broker offers services to help people to find credit by considering the market (or a particular section of the market) and introducing them to a potential lender who can offer them a deal which is suitable for their requirements. There is no hint in the evidence in any of these cases that the consumers concerned were aware of this.’

Kavon Hussain, principal of Consumer Rights Solicitors, which acted for two of the appellants, said: ‘This Court of Appeal judgment is going to affect every lender in the market, including Lloyds Black Horse, VW Finance, BMW, Stellantis, Mercedes, and Barclays Clydesdale.

‘We already have a substantial number of clients with claims waiting to go. This decision is a huge step towards those clients being repaid these hidden commissions.’ The firm believes the figure owed to consumers could be as high as £42bn. 

In 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority banned lenders from allowing car dealers to set the rates charged to customers on credit agreements. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll