Car finance: Repayments are deferred until next year.

Millions of drivers were in line to receive compensation this year, and most of the rest were due by the end of 2027.

But the FCA has confirmed that no compensation will be paid before 2027 due to legal challenges to the scheme.

Consumer Voices announced the plan. Left: “Too many people have changed in a short time.”. FCA also received challenges from three creditors: Volkswagen Financial Services, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services and Crédit Agricole Auto Finance.

The UK’s top court has agreed to hear legal challenges to the plan in December or February next year.

It means that creditors do not need to calculate or pay compensation to people who owe money under the scheme until the legal process is over.

The FCA said it would need to decide what to do next if the courts decide to strike down the programme. Without a plan, the FCA estimates that up to 19 million complaints would have to be dealt with individually, taking three years and costing lenders £6bn more.

“It’s the best way to deal with the scheme as legitimate and as broad, long-running and complex as this,” he said.

Finally, the industry is expected to cover the full costs of any compensation plan, including any administrative costs.

Lenders – including some of the UK’s biggest banks and specialist motor finance firms – have set aside billions of pounds for repayments.

The Finance and Leasing Association, the body that represents the lending industry, said it had concerns about the program but was choosing not to mount a legal challenge.

Santander, Barclays and Lloyds accepted the plan despite concerns that the scale of the damage was disproportionate.

Drivers are entitled to compensation from these creditors but should wait.

There have been some concessions made to lenders through the FCA’s reduced final compensation scheme.

The Supreme Court considered three test cases that influenced the FCA’s decision and ultimately limited how broad the compensation program could be.

It focused on whether car dealers had a duty to act on behalf of their customers rather than their own interests. The certified test case Marcus JohnsonIn 2017, he bought his first car – Suzuki Swift.

In his case, the Supreme Court found that the terms of the financial agreement were unfair due to the amount of the commission and the relationship between the financial institution and the distributor seemed to be wrong.