The UK Supreme Court has rejected intervention requests from His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) and the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) in the landmark Johnson v FirstRand case.
What does this mean? The Supreme Court will decide this case based on legal facts, not political pressure or financial industry influence. This is a major win for consumers, as lenders will now have to defend their mis-selling practices without government or industry intervention attempting to limit compensation payouts.
Major news outlets covering this ruling include:
🔗 Legal Futures: “Supreme Court refuses Treasury intervention in motor finance case”👉 Read more: Legal Futures
🔗 City AM: “Treasury refused permission to intervene in motor finance battle”👉 Read more: City AM
Who was granted permission to intervene?
✅ Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) – The UK’s financial regulator will now present its findings on car finance mis-selling.
✅ National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA) – Car dealerships, a major player in finance agreements, will provide evidence on industry practices.
Who was refused permission to intervene?
❌ His Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) – The government will not be allowed to influence compensation decisions.
❌ Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) – The lenders’ main lobbying group was denied a voice in the case.
❌ Consumer Voice (CV) – A consumer advocacy group seeking to represent claimants was also refused intervention.
What happens now? The Supreme Court ruling will determine the true scale of compensation owed to consumers who were mis-sold car finance agreements.
Key Restriction: Limited Interventions
The Supreme Court has imposed strict limitations on interventions:
Written submissions are limited to 25 pages.
Oral submissions are limited to 30 minutes.
This ensures the case remains focused on the core legal arguments and prevents external parties from influencing the outcome with excessive lobbying.
Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court Ruling on Car Finance Claims
Treasury’s attempt to intervene in car finance compensation was blocked.
Lenders can no longer rely on government influence to reduce payouts.
The FCA will now be the key regulatory voice in the case.
The Supreme Court will rule based solely on legal facts and not financial industry lobbying.
🔗 Read how Santander structured its commissions to inflate lender profits here.
Why Did the Supreme Court Reject Treasury & Lender Lobbyists?
The Treasury and Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) sought to intervene to argue for a more “balanced” approach to redress, raising concerns about the potential financial impact on banks and lenders.
The Supreme Court’s rejection of these parties is a significant ruling in itself:
❌ Treasury intervention was seen as unnecessary—the government’s argument that redress should be limited to protect financial stability was dismissed.
❌ The FLA’s request to intervene was denied, preventing the motor finance industry’s most powerful lobbying group from shaping the legal outcome.
✅ The court allowed the FCA to intervene, ensuring that consumer protection remains at the heart of the ruling.
What happens if the Supreme Court rules in favour of consumers?
Lenders may have to pay billions in compensation for mis-sold car finance agreements.
This is a major step toward full consumer redress. The Supreme Court has signaled that only legal arguments will determine the outcome, not political or financial pressure.
🔗 Read how FCA delays could impact car finance redress here.
How the FCA’s Intervention Could Shape the Future of Car Finance Redress
Now that the FCA has been granted intervention, its legal submissions will be crucial. The FCA’s stance in this case could establish legal precedents for future compensation claims.
Why This Matters:
If the FCA argues that lenders engaged in systemic mis-selling, this could impact compensation payouts across the entire finance industry.
The ruling could reshape consumer rights in financial services, potentially forcing lenders to adopt stricter transparency measures.
The FCA now has 25 pages of written submissions and just 30 minutes of oral argument to prove that lenders mis-sold finance agreements and that full redress is necessary.
This intervention will play a key role in determining whether consumers get the compensation they deserve, or if lenders succeed in limiting payouts.
Sentinel Legal’s Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision
"The Supreme Court’s decision to refuse the Treasury and lender-backed groups permission to intervene is a clear signal that consumer justice will not be dictated by politics or financial interests. The case will be judged on facts, not economic convenience."
"For too long, lenders have profited from hidden commissions and undisclosed fees, leaving consumers to foot the bill. Now that industry lobbyists have been blocked from interfering, this ruling will focus purely on whether lenders acted unlawfully, and whether consumers are owed compensation."
"Who is eligible for car finance redress after this ruling?"
If you had a PCP, HP, or another car finance agreement since 2007, you may have been overcharged due to hidden commissions and could be entitled to compensation.
What Happens Next? Sentinel Legal’s Industry Predictions
1. The Supreme Court Ruling Will Shape Compensation for Millions
If the court rules in favour of consumers, lenders could be forced to pay billions in redress.
If the ruling is watered down, legal action may be the only option to ensure consumers receive full compensation.
2. Lenders May Attempt to Settle Before the Final Ruling
Some lenders may offer low settlement amounts to avoid larger payouts if they believe they will lose in court.
Consumers who act early may receive faster and higher compensation amounts before lenders introduce more legal barriers.
🔗 Read more about how FCA delays could impact car finance redress here.
What This Means for Consumers & How to Claim
If you financed a car through PCP, HP, or another agreement since 2007, your finance deal may have included hidden commissions that increased your costs without your knowledge.
How to Check If You Have a Car Finance Claim:
Sign Your Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA)
it only takes a minute.
We Investigate Your Agreements
we’ll uncover any hidden commissions or mis-sold terms.
Get Your Money Back
we handle everything on a no-win, no-fee basis.
Final Verdict: This is a Huge Win for Consumers
The Supreme Court has blocked government & lender-backed intervention
this ruling will be based on legal merit, not politics.
The FCA’s intervention means regulatory scrutiny will focus on financial misconduct & consumer harm.
Sentinel Legal Social & Podcast Links
Follow Sentinel Legal for the Latest Updates on Car Finance Claims:
📸 Instagram: @SentinelLegal_
🎵 TikTok: @SentinelLegal
🐦 Twitter (X): @SentinelLegal_
📺 YouTube: Sentinel Legal
Listen to the Sentinel Legal Podcast:
🔗 Spotify: Sentinel Legal Podcast
🍏 Apple Podcasts: Sentinel Legal Podcast
👉 Start Your Car Finance Claim Today: Click Here
