Blog

‘Plevin claims’ are a specific type of complaint about undisclosed, high levels of commission on payment protection insurance (PPI) sold alongside a regulated credit agreement. The term comes from Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (Plevin), in which the Supreme Court ruled in November 2014 that non-disclosure of a substantial commission could make a credit relationship ‘unfair’ under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974.

A Financial Times report published on 18 February 2026, citing 'two people briefed on the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) [final redress scheme] plans,' suggests that the regulator will make changes to its redress proposals that will cut up to £1 billion from the compensation bill of carmakers with in-house lenders.

In its motor finance redress proposals, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) estimated that consumers will receive an average of £700 per mis-sold agreement.

As the history and scale of car finance mis-selling in the UK have become clear, lenders have continued to advance a position that sounds superficially plausible. Even if a commission or contractual tie was not adequately disclosed, lenders argue that consumers knew the monthly payment and received the car they wanted, and therefore suffered no real detriment.

Banking giant Santander has criticised the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) motor finance redress proposals while announcing a significant addition to its compensation provision.

Motor finance is a high-volume product sold in an environment where decisions are often made quickly. A customer wants to buy a car, the dealer organises the paperwork at the point of sale, and the lender relies on the dealership as an intermediary to generate business at scale. 

For many years, millions of motorists took out motor finance agreements in good faith, believing that the person arranging the deal was presenting competitive options and acting in their best interests. In reality, large parts of the market were built on conflicts of interest, weak disclosure, and an information gap so wide that many consumers could not have identified the problem, even if they had suspected one.

Since the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its motor finance redress proposals, both lenders and industry bodies have said that the regulator’s estimates and assumptions are incorrect. Arguments from across these institutions have included claims that the proposed scheme will overcompensate consumers. Others have argued that the FCA is overstating lenders’ redress liabilities or underestimating what lenders will repay.

Undisclosed commissions have been central to the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) investigations into motor finance commissions and associated consumer harm. The regulator’s initial investigation, and much of the subsequent coverage, focused on discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), through which the broker could adjust the interest rate offered to you to earn a higher commission. 

Public confidence in financial regulation and institutions is tested in times when systemic misconduct is uncovered across a major consumer market. Motor finance mis-selling is one such test.