From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

I don't get it.

You go and buy a car, man says it will be -uXs, but you can buy for -uYs
per month, over <many> years.

You say "great, I can afford that" and you check/fail to check bank loan rates.

So what if the salesman gets a commission? He got one on the car sale!
He is a salesman, its his job to earn money selling stuff.

Or do they now have to list all the individual costs of a finance deal,
right down to how many cups of tea the cleaner has?
--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly" http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106teq9$2svs8$1@dont-email.me:

I don't get it.

You go and buy a car, man says it will be -uXs, but you can buy for -uYs
per month, over <many> years.

You say "great, I can afford that" and you check/fail to check bank loan rates.

So what if the salesman gets a commission? He got one on the car sale!
He is a salesman, its his job to earn money selling stuff.

Or do they now have to list all the individual costs of a finance deal, right down to how many cups of tea the cleaner has?

the recent court judgement made it clear why in specific cases relating to specific individuals there is a valid *legal* claim on the grounds of being unfair. Read the judgement about that. Consumer legislation protects us as consumers against unfair conditions in any contract whether finance or
buying a lawn mower.

As for the other matter, it is not a legal matter and the appeals court bounced that back to the regulator. It is now for the regulator to make a decision about whether the finace agreements made in certain circumstances breached financial regulations.

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some comeback.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

On 05/08/2025 20:48, wessie wrote:

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106teq9$2svs8$1@dont-email.me:

I don't get it.

You go and buy a car, man says it will be -uXs, but you can buy for -uYs
per month, over <many> years.

You say "great, I can afford that" and you check/fail to check bank loan
rates.

So what if the salesman gets a commission? He got one on the car sale!
He is a salesman, its his job to earn money selling stuff.

Or do they now have to list all the individual costs of a finance deal,
right down to how many cups of tea the cleaner has?

the recent court judgement made it clear why in specific cases relating to specific individuals there is a valid *legal* claim on the grounds of being

Obviously I have not read it then, or still don't get it.
I've only seen what the papers have reported, presumably I need to find
it elasewhere?

unfair. Read the judgement about that. Consumer legislation protects us as consumers against unfair conditions in any contract whether finance or
buying a lawn mower.

As for the other matter, it is not a legal matter and the appeals court bounced that back to the regulator. It is now for the regulator to make a decision about whether the finace agreements made in certain circumstances breached financial regulations.

But on an individual basis, not a group basis as all the legal/claims
ads seem to ge going towards.

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some comeback.

Go on, a prime example of where they operated outside the regulations
please?
--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly" http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106v5ju$39a9a$1@dont-email.me:

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some
comeback.

Go on, a prime example of where they operated outside the regulations please?

again, you have not fully understood what is happening in relation to discretionary commissions, rather than unfair contracts that were the
subject of the court case. These are two entirely separate matters but a
lot of the bollocks on the internet is conflating them.

the regulator has yet to make a decision on discretionary commissions and
has put the matter out to consultation, with an intention to issue a final decision in October

you seem to have been sucked into the hyperbolae around the matter

without a decision by the regulator it is currently an allegation rather
than a defined breach

I suggest you research the histroy of discretionary commissions and why the regulator outlawed them in 2021. This might give you some insight into why some people think there is a case to say that the lenders operated outside
the regulations.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

On 06/08/2025 10:16, wessie wrote:

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106v5ju$39a9a$1@dont-email.me:

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some
comeback.

Go on, a prime example of where they operated outside the regulations
please?

again, you have not fully understood what is happening in relation to discretionary commissions, rather than unfair contracts that were the

Yeah, I get that now. What's a discretionary commission?

subject of the court case. These are two entirely separate matters but a
lot of the bollocks on the internet is conflating them.

Which is normal

the regulator has yet to make a decision on discretionary commissions and
has put the matter out to consultation, with an intention to issue a final decision in October

you seem to have been sucked into the hyperbolae around the matter

Which is normal :-) (Or arguably not as I have come here for some
sensible opinions/information :-) )

without a decision by the regulator it is currently an allegation rather
than a defined breach

And not a "done thing" as the media is depicting. MSE on the surface is
all guns blazing (and no, I've not delved deep into any of his articles)

I suggest you research the histroy of discretionary commissions and why the

Are you suggestion that I "do my own research"? :-)

regulator outlawed them in 2021. This might give you some insight into why some people think there is a case to say that the lenders operated outside the regulations.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly" http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106v7ju$39oj1$1@dont-email.me:

Are you suggestion that I "do my own research"? :-)

based on the evidence in this thread so far, I have deduced that is not one
of your strenghts so just go back to trying to remember what it was like to ride a motorcycle instead of reading clickbait
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

On 06/08/2025 10:16, wessie wrote:

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106v5ju$39a9a$1@dont-email.me:

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some
comeback.

Go on, a prime example of where they operated outside the regulations
please?

again, you have not fully understood what is happening in relation to discretionary commissions, rather than unfair contracts that were the
subject of the court case. These are two entirely separate matters but a
lot of the bollocks on the internet is conflating them.

Ok, fair enough. Explains why I feel deflated :-)

the regulator has yet to make a decision on discretionary commissions and
has put the matter out to consultation, with an intention to issue a final decision in October

you seem to have been sucked into the hyperbolae around the matter

without a decision by the regulator it is currently an allegation rather
than a defined breach

Interesting! (probably)

I suggest you research the histroy of discretionary commissions and why the regulator outlawed them in 2021. This might give you some insight into why some people think there is a case to say that the lenders operated outside the regulations.

Ok, I should probably do this but I am stuck with the old 'caveat
emptor' - or alternatively, 'Why you should never take on finance for anything'.
Ever.

I guess I am stuck at the point where someone *agreed* to pay out for
finance at whatever rate it was....

If it was illegal then someone is at fault and should pay (sic) but I
don't see that anyone is due 'compensation' for something they *chose*
to agree to? It is most definitely something the 'public purse' should
have no part in!

We'll see how the 'regulator' decides :-)

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550T
https://www.Deuchars.org.uk
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.rec.motorcycles

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:

On 06/08/2025 10:16, wessie wrote:

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote in news:106v5ju$39a9a$1@dont-email.me:

Seems quite clear to me. If you work in a regulated industry and you
operate outside the regulations then there is likely to be some
comeback.

Go on, a prime example of where they operated outside the regulations
please?

again, you have not fully understood what is happening in relation to
discretionary commissions, rather than unfair contracts that were the

Yeah, I get that now. What's a discretionary commission?

Google's "AI" response is copied & pasted verbatim below.

A discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) in car finance allows
the broker to adjust the interest rate, and consequently, their
commission, potentially leading to higher costs for the consumer
without their full knowledge. This practice was common in Personal
Contract Purchase (PCP) and Hire Purchase agreements up to 2021. The
FCA (Financial Conduct Authority) has since banned DCAs due to
concerns about consumer harm.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

How it works:
In a DCA, a lender authorizes the broker to set or negotiate the
interest rate on a car loan, and the broker's commission is tied to
that interest rate. This means the broker can potentially increase
the interest rate to earn a higher commission, without necessarily
informing the customer about this potential for manipulation.

Consumer impact:
This practice can lead to consumers paying significantly more
for their vehicles than they would have under a transparent,
non-discretionary arrangement. Consumers may not be aware that the
interest rate, and thus the overall cost, could have been lower if
the broker hadn't had the discretion to adjust it.

FCA intervention:
The FCA has taken steps to address the issue of DCAs, including
banning them in 2021 and launching a review of historic cases
to assess potential consumer redress, according to the Financial
Conduct Authority.

Current situation:
While DCAs are banned, the FCA is still working on implementing a
compensation scheme for consumers who were potentially harmed by
these arrangements in the past. They are also considering whether
to introduce an opt-in or opt-out scheme for consumers who may be
eligible for redress.

Legal action: The Supreme Court has recently heard a test case
related to hidden commissions in car finance, but the specific case
was not primarily about DCAs, according to Martin Lewis.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2