Car finance ruling leaves motorist involved in Supreme Court case ‘dumbfounded’

One of the three drivers involved in a legal order on the compensation of motor finance, the Supreme Court, said that he was “stunned” after deciding that lenders were not responsible for secret commission payments.

At that time, Marcus Johnson, a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid £ 1,650,95 in the commission as part of the financial agreement with the Firstrand for Suzuki.

In October last year, the Court of Appeal decided that the 35 -year -old and two other drivers who paid commission as part of car financing agreements before 2021 had the right to compensation.

The court decided that the drivers would receive a commission to introduce the business to the car vendors who act clearly or as a credit broker.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision on Friday, but Mr. Johnson said he had to maintain his compensation and interest because he was in a “unfair önemli relationship with the lender.

When the PA News Agency was asked how he felt the result of the case, Mr. Johnson, Cwmbran in Wales, said: “This surprise and sadness, because I was quite trusting on how I felt myself, the fairness of what happened to me.

“I thought that people who look at all the information would come to the same conclusion and I’m just confused.

“I feel terrible because people can’t claim anything like me.”

Johnson said that he did not “participate in the commission” because he understood that the market works like this ”.

However, the decision, “the commission is good to secretly pricing customers,” he said.

Mr. Johnson said he managed to sell Suzuki after winning a Honda Civic at a lottery on Facebook.

He said he couldn’t meet the insurance in Honda, so he sold it and used the money to pay the remaining balance in Suzuki.

Later, he sold it with a special loss thanks to the amount that Suzuki was still owed to finance three years later.

While Mr. Johnson admitted that the rental purchasing agreements would be “clarified in the future, there was very little warning him against the commission in the Suzuki agreement.

He said: “The problem with this would not tell you any information to read the small pressure in my situation.

There was only one sentence in the whole contract that saying ‘the commission may or may not be’.

“There was no information about the commission, as well as no information.

“In the future, I don’t know what a car to buy this way, but I really stay away from doing a similar transaction in the future.”

Mr. Johnson said the decision was “never sitting with me”.

He said: “I am happy that my case was successful, but I do not like the message sent to the UK consumer for many other people who receive excessive wages.”

In an 110-page decision, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen, said car vendors have no relationship that requires only a relationship with customers to act in the interest of customers.

They said: “The proposal to find the best deal is not the same as the proposal to be devoted.”

“No reasonable audience would have given up to find a suitable financial package to allow the customer to buy the car, and that the seller had given up instead of continuing to secure a profitable sale of the car.”