Close Brothers: UK motor finance commission review, court rulings, FCA redress scheme and dividend suspension
Close Brothers: UK motor finance commission review, court rulings, FCA redress scheme and dividend suspension: a public-record watch file compiled by Falling Shares Intelligence from filings and exchange disclosures, as of 2026-11-09. In February 2024 Close Brothers stopped paying dividends because of uncertainty over the FCA's review of motor finance commission arrangements.
From the FCA's January 2024 review and the dividend suspension, through the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court rulings, to the FCA's March 2026 redress scheme, legal challenges to it and a c.£320m provision at September 2026.
Falling Shares Intelligence, Edited by Wung Thomas, Editor-in-Chief. As of .
Summary
- In February 2024 Close Brothers stopped paying dividends because of uncertainty over the FCA's review of motor finance commission arrangements.
- The Court of Appeal ruled against lenders in October 2024; the Supreme Court largely reversed that on 1 August 2025.
- The FCA published final redress scheme rules on 30 March 2026; lenders and a consumer group have challenged them.
- At 29 September 2026 the group held a provision of about £320m, paid no final dividend for FY26 and cited continued uncertainty.
Key figures
| Motor finance provision | c.£320m (After an extra £164.7m in FY26) |
|---|---|
| FCA final scheme rules | 30 Mar 2026 (Two schemes covering 2007 to 2024) |
| Final dividend FY26 | None (Third year without a final dividend) |
The FCA review and the courts
FCA review prompts dividend suspension
Close Brothers said it would pay no dividends on its ordinary shares for the current financial year because of uncertainty over the Financial Conduct Authority's review of historical motor finance commission arrangements. Analysts put the forgone payout at about £100m, and the shares fell sharply. (15 Feb 2024)
Court of Appeal rules on commission without informed consent
In the joined cases, including Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal held that it was unlawful for brokers to receive commission from a motor finance provider without obtaining the customer's informed consent. (25 Oct 2024)
FCA moves to a redress scheme after the Supreme Court judgment
After the Supreme Court judgment the FCA said it would consult on a compensation scheme for motor finance customers, likely based on section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act, covering historic discretionary commission arrangements that were not properly disclosed and possibly some non-discretionary arrangements, with agreements dating back to 2007. (Aug 2025)
FCA publishes final redress scheme rules
The FCA published its final rules for motor finance consumer redress on 30 March 2026. The final scheme was split in two, covering 6 April 2007 to 31 March 2014 and 1 April 2014 to 1 November 2024, so that one part could proceed if the other were challenged. (30 Mar 2026)
Lenders and a consumer group challenge the scheme
Four challenges were filed after the scheme was finalised: by Consumer Voice, a consumer rights group, and by lenders Credit Agricole Auto Finance, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services and Volkswagen Financial Services. The FCA said it would defend them. No hearing date was fixed at 8 May 2026, the FCA had mooted mid-November 2026, and the original implementation deadlines may be affected. (May 2026)
FY26 results: provision and no final dividend
Close Brothers set aside a further £164.7m for motor finance commissions, bringing its total provision to about £320m, and said no final dividend would be paid for FY26 because of ongoing uncertainty around the FCA's redress scheme. Its pre-tax operating loss narrowed by 51% to £60.3m. (29 Sep 2026)
Outcomes favourable to lenders
Supreme Court overturns the main Court of Appeal findings
In Johnson v FirstRand Bank, Wrench v FirstRand Bank and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Supreme Court held that car dealers do not owe fiduciary duties to consumers in standard motor finance arrangements, so lenders had no civil bribery liability. Only the claim in Johnson succeeded, on an unfair-relationship basis, where commission was 26% of the credit advanced. (1 Aug 2025)
Standard
This file compiles regulator and court material, company announcements and published reporting about Close Brothers Group plc. Allegations are attributed to those who made them. A regulatory review is not a finding, and nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing by the company unless a competent authority has made one. The Supreme Court's August 2025 judgment overturned the main findings of the Court of Appeal, and the FCA's redress scheme is an industry-wide measure under legal challenge. Individuals are not named unless an official document names them and they are central; otherwise roles are used. This is news coverage for information only, not investment advice.
Right of reply
Close Brothers Group plc, and anyone named in a record cited here, can send corrections or comments to info@fallingshares.com (or directly to the Editor-in-Chief, Wung Thomas, at wungthomas@fallingshares.com). Material responses will be published alongside the relevant entry.