Mid-market motor finance firms are severely underestimating their historical liability exposure following the publication of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Policy Statement PS26/3. To address this regulatory challenge, UK regulatory compliance firm Compliance Consultant recommends systematically isolating high-commission cases using the finalized 39% commission threshold and applying the specific three-tiered remedy formulas across 2007–2024 loan books. Lenders must adjust their balance sheets against the projected £9.1bn industry-wide bill and immediately update their client asset resolution packs, whilst adapting to the partial rules suspension issued by the Upper Tribunal on July 2, 2026.
Auditing the 2007–2024 loan book for eligibility and exclusions
Firms must first establish a clean, historical database of all regulated motor finance agreements executed between April 6, 2007, and November 1, 2024. This task is complicated by legacy database migrations, archive retrieval costs, and inconsistent record-keeping across independent credit broker networks. Under the finalized rules in PS26/3, the FCA tightened eligibility, dropping the total number of expected eligible agreements from 14.2 million to 12.1 million. This reduction offers some balance-sheet relief, but only to firms that can accurately separate qualifying accounts from those that are contractually or legally exempt.
Rigorous data governance is the first line of defense. Lenders must design queries to identify and immediately isolate three categories of automatic exclusions. First, high-value loans, which are defined as those in the top 0.5% of agreements by value for each specific calendar year, are entirely excluded from the redress scheme. Second, agreements featuring a 0% APR are exempt from redress. Third, where a lender can prove there was a visible, documented link between the manufacturer and the dealer, a basic contractual tie alone will not trigger compensation.
Lenders are also permitted to exclude high-commission cases that ended before March 26, 2020, provided they can prove the fact of the commission was clearly and prominently disclosed to the consumer at the point of sale. However, if a firm intends to rule a consumer out of the scheme based on this limitation period, they must write to the customer with a detailed, defensible rationale. The customer retains the right to object and escalate the decision to the Financial Ombudsman Service. This requires firms to maintain a complete audit trail for every excluded account, verifying that their management and control mechanisms comply with the standards outlined in our Comprehensive FAQs on FCA Compliance | Your Guide to Financial Conduct Authority Standards.
Calculating the core redress amount using the three FCA remedies
Once the eligible loan book has been isolated, firms must apply the calculation mechanics set out under FCA Handbook CONRED 5.4. The rules require lenders to run calculations across three distinct remedy pathways, depending on the severity and structure of the historical commission arrangement.
The commission repayment remedy
The commission repayment remedy applies primarily to very high commission arrangements. Under the rules, a very high commission arrangement is defined as an agreement where the commission paid to the broker equaled or exceeded 50% of the total cost of credit, and also represented more than 22.5% of the total loan amount. While these cases are relatively rare in mid-market portfolios, their individual redress values are substantial.
For standard high-commission disputes, the FCA raised the threshold to 39% of the cost of credit and 10% of the loan amount, up from the 35% and 10% parameters proposed during the consultation phase. In these instances, the commission is deemed fair if the total payout was £120 or less for agreements executed before April 1, 2014, or £150 or less for agreements executed on or after that date. These specific fairness thresholds are detailed in the FCA PS26/3 analyst briefing. Any commission paid above these thresholds must be refunded to the consumer.
The hybrid remedy
In cases where a discretionary commission arrangement was present but did not trigger the extreme thresholds of the commission repayment remedy, lenders must calculate redress using the hybrid remedy. The hybrid remedy compares the actual cost of credit paid by the consumer against a reconstructed baseline scenario. This baseline represents the interest rate the consumer would have been offered had the broker not been incentivized to inflate the APR to secure a higher commission.
Under CONRED 5.4.6R, there is an exception for agreements where the consumer paid a minimal cost of credit. If the agreement was offered at a rate available to 5% or less of the wider market at the time, excluding 0% APR agreements, no redress is payable. For all other cases, the hybrid remedy acts as the default calculation standard, unless the alternative APR adjustment formula results in a larger payout to the consumer.
The APR adjustment remedy
The APR adjustment remedy focuses on removing the unfair relationship by recalculating the loan agreement from day one. It strips out the discretionary commission element entirely and applies the lender's lowest available buy rate for that specific credit tier at the time of underwriting.
Lenders must run a month-by-month historical amortization schedule for each agreement. The redress amount is the difference between the actual monthly payments made by the consumer and the lower, reconstructed monthly payments under the buy-rate scenario. This process must be repeated for hundreds of thousands of accounts, requiring dedicated, audited calculation engines to prevent compounding errors over multi-year loan terms.
Factoring compensatory interest and allowable offsets
Calculating the raw redress amount is only the first step. Lenders must also apply historical compensatory interest and determine where they can apply legitimate, compliant offsets to protect their capital.
Compensatory interest must be calculated on each individual overpayment from the date it was paid by the consumer until the date of the redress calculation. The interest rate is defined as the annual average of the daily Bank of England base rate plus one percentage point. Given that the base rate has fluctuated significantly between 2007 and 2026, firms cannot use a flat, static rate for this step. Instead, they must construct a daily interest rate table spanning nearly two decades and apply it dynamically based on the exact date of each historical monthly payment.
| Remedy Type | Primary Trigger | Redress Calculation Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Commission Repayment | Commission $\ge$ 50% of credit cost and $\ge$ 22.5% of loan amount | Refund of all commission exceeding the £120/£150 fairness thresholds |
| Hybrid Remedy | Discretionary commission present without meeting very high thresholds | Reconstructed baseline comparison, capped to prevent consumer overcompensation |
| APR Adjustment | Yields a higher redress figure than the hybrid remedy calculation | Day-one reconstruction of the loan using the historical minimum buy rate |
Lenders can offset the calculated redress against any outstanding arrears owed by the consumer. However, this offset is subject to a strict regulatory condition: the arrears must not be subject to an unresolved customer dispute, active complaint, or ongoing legal claim. If a customer is in arrears but has contested those arrears, the lender must pay the full redress amount directly to the consumer rather than reducing the outstanding balance.
The operational reality of these calculations has been further complicated by the Upper Tribunal's decision on July 2, 2026. As confirmed in the FCA statement, the tribunal suspended parts of the scheme on terms agreed with four major challengers. Firms must comply with all non-suspended rules, which means they must continue identifying eligible accounts and preparing their calculation frameworks. However, they must build their calculation engines with the flexibility to pause, adjust, or recalculate specific cohorts depending on the final resolution of these legal challenges.
Updating CASS resolution packs and operationalizing the payout
Identifying past liabilities is pointless if a firm fails to integrate those projections into its current financial governance and client asset protections.
Integrating redress outflows into CASS resolution packs
Lenders must ensure that projected redress outflows are accurately reflected in their Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) resolution packs. If a firm holds client money or must segregate funds to meet looming redress obligations, these liabilities must be documented clearly for auditor and regulator review. A failure to update these records can trigger immediate intervention from the FCA during desk-based supervisory reviews.
For mid-market lenders, a sudden £10m or £20m redress liability can severely pressure regulatory capital adequacy requirements. Accurate CASS documentation ensures that these liabilities are categorized correctly, preventing a technical breach of capital rules that could lead to a suspension of the firm's lending permissions.
Documenting rationale for the Financial Ombudsman
Because the FCA expects millions of claims to be processed, mid-market firms must build highly structured, repeatable decision-making frameworks. Every rejection, exclusion, or capped redress calculation must be backed by a clear, written rationale that can withstand scrutiny by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Compliance Consultant recommends that firms do not rely on generic, off-the-shelf compliance templates to manage this process. Instead, we apply our signature "engage, execute, embed" methodology to help firms build customized, audited redress operations. Under this approach, we:
- Engage with your leadership team to define the scope of your specific loan book, demonstrating the financial return on investment of independent verification before starting.
- Execute the data extraction and calculation steps early, running parallel tests on sample portfolios to ensure accuracy.
- Embed the final, compliant calculation models and staff training programs into your daily operations, ensuring your team can manage ongoing complaints with absolute consistency.
Our experience in reviewing, testing, and verifying complex financial frameworks is well documented across our client base. You can review how we deliver independent assurance and governance reviews in our Compliance Case Studies | FCA & PRA Regulatory Projects.
Whether you require a comprehensive review of your historical calculations or need to update your CASS resolution packs to reflect these liabilities, expert advisory support is vital. Mid-market firms can access our senior specialist team through our structured Silver and Gold retainer tiers, providing predictable monthly costs and guaranteed response times.
To secure an independent benchmarking audit of your motor finance redress framework, contact Compliance Consultant. You can book a free 30-minute consultation by calling our UK Freephone number at 0800 689 0190, or by emailing info@complianceconsultant.org with the subject "Retainer Discovery Call".