By Steve Conley
Founder, Academy of Life Planning
It’s déjà vu for the British public.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is now weighing up whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers mis-sold motor finance products. The headlines echo familiar scandals: deception, lack of transparency, and vast financial harm to everyday citizens.
Once again, the question emerges—whose side is the regulator really on?
£50 Billion Lessons Not Learned
We’ve seen this before with PPI: £50 billion in compensation, decades too late, for misconduct that had been an open secret in the industry. That scandal taught us that regulators often act after public harm has reached systemic proportions. Now, history risks repeating itself—this time with motor finance.
The Supreme Court is due to rule on whether car dealerships failed in their duty to consumers by not disclosing how commissions were structured in car loans. If the judgment falls in favour of consumers, the FCA says it will “consider” redress. Yet its public comments already betray hesitation.
The FCA warns that forcing firms to pay compensation could cause “economic harm,” reduce competition, and make borrowing more expensive. The underlying message is clear: protecting the market may take precedence over protecting people.
Consumer Protection or Market Preservation?
This is a pivotal moment.
Are we to accept that systemic consumer harm is the cost of a “healthy” financial system? That when wrongdoing becomes too widespread to contain, regulators must weigh justice against economic fallout—as though they are somehow equal in moral weight?
It is not the public who should pay the price for rigged systems. It is the institutions and their enablers who profited from them.
And yet, when institutions make reserves—like FCE Bank’s £61 million—for potential payouts, the conversation shifts to preserving the market rather than upholding justice.
Why does the regulator show such sensitivity to corporate pain, but so little urgency in righting wrongs suffered by ordinary people?
Time to Put the Public First
This isn’t just about motor finance. It’s about a regulator’s primary duty. The FCA’s objectives include consumer protection, market integrity, and competition. But too often, “competition” and “integrity” are code for shielding the system—especially when that system is part of the government’s Mansion House growth agenda.
If a redress scheme is necessary, it should be opt-out—not opt-in. The burden must not be placed on victims to fight for justice, especially after a decade or more of institutional silence.
This is not about claims management companies making a quick buck. It’s about whether justice will be done at scale.
The public shouldn’t have to ask this question again and again: Is the regulator working for us—or managing risk for those who caused the harm?
We need regulators that stand on the side of citizens—especially when the system itself has failed.
Your Money or Your Life
Unmask the highway robbers – Enjoy wealth in every area of your life!
By Steve Conley. Available on Amazon. Visit www.steve.conley.co.uk to find out more.
Academy of Life Planning 