Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Santander UK sets aside £295m for car finance scandal

The brewing controversy over mis-sold car loans has forced Santander UK to set aside £295 million to potentially compensate aggrieved motor finance customers.
The bank joins a small but growing list of lenders that have started to make provisions for the growing scandal, which some analysts believe could leave the car loans industry footing a redress bill of as much as £30 billion.
Santander UK’s move takes the total amount earmarked by firms for compensation costs so far to just under £1 billion, according to research by The Times. This includes £450 million set aside in February by Lloyds Banking Group, a leading player in the vehicle finance market.
Expectations that lenders will be forced to redress borrowers en masse have been growing ever since the Financial Conduct Authority (FCU), the regulator, this year began a wide-ranging review into potentially unfair commissions in motor finance deals.
A landmark Court of Appeal judgment last month has significantly expanded the scope of the potential problem facing the industry, fuelling speculation that banks and the lending arms of car manufacturers face a crisis akin to the £50 billion payment protection insurance scandal.
The court ruling was the trigger for Santander UK’s provision, which was disclosed in its third-quarter figures.
The lender was originally due to publish its results in late October but delayed the release at the last moment to consider the ramifications of the surprise court judgment.
It said on Wednesday that it had decided to set aside money “in light” of the ruling and that £295 million encompassed “estimates for operational and legal costs, including litigation costs, and potential awards”. It cautioned, however, that there were “significant uncertainties as to the extent of any misconduct, if any” and that “the ultimate financial impact could be materially higher or lower than the amount provided”.
The provision contributed to a sharp fall in Santander UK’s pre-tax profits to £143 million in the three months to the end of September, from £558 million a year earlier.
It is a blow to the bank, which is the British division of Santander, Spain’s biggest lender. Santander UK is one of several lenders that has seen a rise in customer complaints and county court claims over car loans since the FCA banned discretionary commissions in motor finance in early 2021.
Commissions are paid by lenders to car dealers for arranging loans. Some firms used discretionary arrangements, where commissions were tied to the interest borrowers paid on their loans. The authority banned them over concerns that the arrangements encouraged the sale of more expensive credit.
The jump in consumer complaints about these commissions in recent years prompted the watchdog to start an inquiry in January into discretionary arrangements struck as far back as April 2007. The broad scope of the continuing review stoked speculation that lenders might be forced to compensate customers, expectations that have been further fuelled by last month’s court judgment.
The ruling is significant because it applies to all types of motor finance commission, not just discretionary arrangements. The court found that any commission that was not properly disclosed to a borrower, or consented to, was unlawful and it decided that lenders were liable to repay the money to consumers.
This sent shockwaves through the car loans industry because it set a much higher threshold for disclosure and consent than had previously been required by regulation. Several lenders temporarily suspended their motor finance operations while they overhauled their procedures to ensure they were compliant with the ruling, causing chaos in the market.
The industry is now waiting for the Supreme Court to give its view on the matter. Close Brothers and FirstRand, the lenders at the centre of the cases considered by the Court of Appeal, have said that they intend to appeal to the UK’s highest court. The FCA wants the Supreme Court to “decide quickly” whether it will grant permission to appeal.

en_USEnglish