Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
FinanceUnited Kingdom
UK FOS Motor Finance Commission Complaint Template
Draft a UK Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) complaint pack in respect of a motor-finance regulated agreement where the lender paid the dealer a commission that was not adequately disclosed. The template is updated for the Supreme Court judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd [2025] UKSC 33 (1 August 2025), which overturned the Court of Appeal's fiduciary-duty and bribery analysis but upheld the s.140A CCA 1974 unfair-relationship framework on Mr Johnson's specific facts. The FCA indicated it would issue guidance within 6 weeks on a motor-finance compensation scheme. UK motor finance commission claims affect an estimated 14 million regulated agreements; total redress could approach £30 billion.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Rachel Marie Hawkins
14 Elmwood Avenue, Bristol BS6 7AB
07832 419872
rmh.hawkins@protonmail.com
2026-06-03
FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance — Complaints Team
4 Capital Quarter, Tyndall Street, Cardiff CF10 4BZ
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT — MOTOR FINANCE COMMISSION (FOS PACK)
Ref: MNF-1849-2018-93421
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write on behalf of Rachel Marie Hawkins (DOB 1986-03-14) in respect of the regulated motor-finance agreement identified below. This letter is a formal complaint made under the Financial Conduct Authority's DISP rules and is intended to be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if not resolved to the Claimant's satisfaction within the 8-week period prescribed by DISP 1.6.2R.
I write on behalf of Rachel Marie Hawkins (DOB 1986-03-14) in respect of the regulated motor-finance agreement identified below. This letter is a formal complaint made under the Financial Conduct Authority's DISP rules and is intended to be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) if not resolved to the Claimant's satisfaction within the 8-week period prescribed by DISP 1.6.2R.
1.
THE REGULATED MOTOR-FINANCE AGREEMENT
1.1 The agreement the subject of this complaint is a Personal Contract Purchase regulated agreement made on or about 2018-09-22 (reference MNF-1849-2018-93421). 1.2 The agreement was made with the Lender in respect of the purchase of a 2018 Volkswagen Golf GTI 2.0 TSI (registration WT18 KHV) supplied through the Dealer Centre Park Motors Ltd — Bristol Branch of 184 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2XT. 1.3 Cash price of the vehicle: £24,750.00. 1.4 Total credit advanced: £21,500.00. 1.5 Agreement term: 48 months.
2.
THE COMPLAINT — COMMISSION NON-DISCLOSURE
2.1 The Claimant complains that the existence and amount of the commission paid by the Lender to the Dealer / broker were not disclosed to the Claimant at the point of sale. 2.2 The commission represents an integral part of the consideration paid by the Lender to the Dealer for procuring the Claimant's agreement to finance. The Claimant was unaware of: (a) the commission's existence; (b) its quantum; and (c) the fact that the Dealer's commission would be paid directly or indirectly by the Claimant as part of the total cost of credit. 2.3 Based on information now available, the commission paid is estimated at approximately £1,840.00.
3.
STATUTORY GROUND — S.140A CCA 1974 UNFAIR RELATIONSHIP
3.1 The complaint is brought on multiple bases — s.140A CCA 1974, the CONC 4 disclosure rules and (for pre-January 2021 agreements) the DCA prohibition. Section 140A confers on the court the power to find that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor because of one or more matters, including: (a) any of the terms of the agreement; (b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement; or (c) any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after the making of the agreement. 3.2 On 1 August 2025 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance) [2025] UKSC 33. While the Court overturned the Court of Appeal's fiduciary-duty and bribery analysis ([2024] EWCA Civ 1282), it upheld Mr Johnson's claim under section 140A on the particular facts: the failure to disclose the commission, taken together with the Dealer's preferential commercial relationship with the Lender and the absence of any meaningful disclosure to Mr Johnson, rendered the relationship unfair. 3.3 The factual position in the Claimant's case is materially analogous to Johnson: non-disclosure of commission, integral relationship between Lender and Dealer, the Claimant being treated as a routine retail customer rather than as a party to a commission arrangement.
4.
FACTUAL PARALLEL TO JOHNSON V FIRSTRAND
4.1 The following facts in the Claimant's case parallel those in Johnson [2025] UKSC 33:
The factual parallel to Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33 is direct: (a) the Lender is FirstRand Bank Limited acting through MotoNovo Finance, the same Lender as in Johnson; (b) the agreement was a PCP signed at Centre Park Motors Ltd Bristol Branch on a single Sunday afternoon visit; (c) the Dealer presented the finance terms as the standard MotoNovo product, without disclosing the existence of any commission arrangement; (d) the Claimant was a first-time MotoNovo customer with no prior knowledge of commission arrangements between motor dealers and finance lenders; (e) the agreement documents handed to the Claimant did not state the commission existence or quantum; (f) the Claimant was treated as an ordinary retail consumer and was not given any opportunity to obtain independent advice.
4.2 The Supreme Court's approach in Johnson is fact-sensitive — the question for s.140A is whether the relationship was unfair in all the circumstances. The Claimant's case is to be assessed on its own facts but the parallel framework supports the same conclusion.
The factual parallel to Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33 is direct: (a) the Lender is FirstRand Bank Limited acting through MotoNovo Finance, the same Lender as in Johnson; (b) the agreement was a PCP signed at Centre Park Motors Ltd Bristol Branch on a single Sunday afternoon visit; (c) the Dealer presented the finance terms as the standard MotoNovo product, without disclosing the existence of any commission arrangement; (d) the Claimant was a first-time MotoNovo customer with no prior knowledge of commission arrangements between motor dealers and finance lenders; (e) the agreement documents handed to the Claimant did not state the commission existence or quantum; (f) the Claimant was treated as an ordinary retail consumer and was not given any opportunity to obtain independent advice.
4.2 The Supreme Court's approach in Johnson is fact-sensitive — the question for s.140A is whether the relationship was unfair in all the circumstances. The Claimant's case is to be assessed on its own facts but the parallel framework supports the same conclusion.
5.
PLEVIN V PARAGON PERSONAL FINANCE — RELEVANCE
5.1 The Supreme Court in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61 held that non-disclosure of a substantial PPI commission (paid by the lender to the broker) rendered the credit relationship unfair under s.140A CCA 1974, giving rise to a remedy under s.140B. 5.2 The Plevin analysis is materially analogous to the motor-finance commission cases. The Supreme Court in Johnson [2025] UKSC 33 expressly drew on the Plevin framework as part of the s.140A analysis. 5.3 The commission estimate of £1,840 against a total credit of £21,500 represents approximately 8.5% of the total credit — which is a material proportion. The Plevin tipping-point analysis (50%-71% of premium in the PPI context) does not directly translate to motor finance proportions, but Supreme Court guidance in Johnson confirms that the assessment is fact-sensitive and any material undisclosed commission is capable of supporting an unfair relationship finding. The Claimant was not given the opportunity to shop around for finance and was unaware that the Dealer's recommendation was incentivised.
6.
REMEDY SOUGHT AND QUANTUM
6.1 The Claimant seeks restitution of the commission paid by the Lender to the Dealer, together with statutory interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984.
6.2 Commission repayment claim. Restitution of the commission paid by the Lender to the Dealer, currently estimated at £1,840, plus statutory interest at 8% simple from the date of the agreement (22 September 2018) to the date of repayment. As at the date of this letter, statutory interest amounts to approximately £1,140 calculated over 7.7 years, giving a total claim of approximately £2,980.
6.3 Statutory interest. Statutory interest claimed at 8% per annum simple under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 (or the equivalent FOS interest framework) from the date of the agreement until the date of repayment.
6.4 Consequential loss. No specific consequential loss claimed at this stage. The Claimant reserves the right to add consequential loss where the Lender provides full disclosure of the commission arrangement and any further loss becomes identifiable.
6.2 Commission repayment claim. Restitution of the commission paid by the Lender to the Dealer, currently estimated at £1,840, plus statutory interest at 8% simple from the date of the agreement (22 September 2018) to the date of repayment. As at the date of this letter, statutory interest amounts to approximately £1,140 calculated over 7.7 years, giving a total claim of approximately £2,980.
6.3 Statutory interest. Statutory interest claimed at 8% per annum simple under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 (or the equivalent FOS interest framework) from the date of the agreement until the date of repayment.
6.4 Consequential loss. No specific consequential loss claimed at this stage. The Claimant reserves the right to add consequential loss where the Lender provides full disclosure of the commission arrangement and any further loss becomes identifiable.
7.
FCA MOTOR FINANCE COMPENSATION SCHEME — RESERVATION
7.1 The Claimant is aware that following the Supreme Court judgment in Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33, the Financial Conduct Authority indicated that it would issue guidance within 6 weeks of judgment on the approach to redress for affected motor-finance consumers. The Claimant expressly reserves the right to: (a) participate in any FCA-led motor-finance compensation scheme; (b) accept or decline any scheme offer; and (c) maintain the present complaint and any subsequent FOS or court proceedings in the event that the scheme outcome is insufficient or the Lender does not enrol in the scheme.
8.
DISCRETIONARY COMMISSION ARRANGEMENT (DCA) GROUND
8.1 In the alternative (or in addition), the Claimant relies on the prohibition of Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCA) in motor finance, which the Financial Conduct Authority banned with effect from 28 January 2021. Where the agreement was made prior to that date and the commission was set by reference to a rate that the Dealer / broker had discretion to adjust (typically influenced by the interest rate offered to the Claimant), the arrangement is a DCA. 8.2 A DCA inherently creates an unfair relationship under s.140A CCA 1974 because the Dealer's commission incentivised the Dealer to set a higher interest rate to the Claimant, directly contrary to the Claimant's interest. The Lender is requested to confirm: (a) whether the agreement involved a DCA; and (b) if so, the formula or methodology by which the commission was calculated.
9.
FOS TIME LIMITS — DISP 2.8
9.1 The complaint is within jurisdiction under the FOS DISP 2.8 time limits: it is brought within the 3-year awareness period in DISP 2.8.2(2)(b) — the Claimant became aware of the commission issue on or about 2025-08-04, which is within 3 years of the date of this complaint. 9.2 In the further alternative, the Claimant submits that the Supreme Court judgment in Johnson [2025] UKSC 33 (1 August 2025) is itself the relevant event for awareness purposes — prior to that judgment the proper analysis of the s.140A claim was not authoritatively settled.
10.
RELIEF SOUGHT AND COOPERATION
The Lender is requested to: (a) acknowledge receipt of this complaint within 5 working days; (b) investigate the complaint and provide a final response in writing within the 8 weeks prescribed by DISP 1.6.2R; (c) disclose the commission paid to the Dealer in respect of this agreement together with copies of the commission arrangements; (d) offer redress in accordance with the Supreme Court framework in Johnson; and (e) confirm FOS jurisdiction in the final response under DISP 1.6.6R. The Claimant consents to the Lender sharing this complaint with the FCA, the FOS and any other regulator for the purposes of the FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme.
11.
GOVERNING LAW
This complaint is governed by the law of England and Wales.
YOURS FAITHFULLY,
Rachel Marie Hawkins
Claimant in person
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a UK FOS Motor Finance Complaint?
A UK FOS Motor Finance Complaint is a formal complaint sent by a consumer (or their solicitor / CMC representative) to the lender that provided their car finance, in respect of an undisclosed commission paid to the dealer / broker. The complaint relies primarily on section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (unfair relationship), supplemented (for pre-January 2021 agreements) by the FCA prohibition on Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCA). The complaint is sent to the lender first; under DISP 1.6.2R of the FCA Handbook, the British lender has 8 weeks to provide a final response. If unresolved (or if the consumer disagrees with the final response), the complaint can then be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service for binding determination.
In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance) [2025] UKSC 33 on 1 August 2025. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's analysis in Johnson and the two conjoined appeals (Hopcraft v Close Brothers, Wrench v FirstRand) so far as it found that motor dealers owed fiduciary duties to consumers or that the lender had committed the tort of bribery. However, on Mr Johnson's specific facts (not the other two appellants), the Supreme Court upheld the s.140A CCA 1974 unfair-relationship finding. The judgment is therefore a partial win — the framework remains alive but it is fact-sensitive and not a blanket victory.
The FCA indicated within the judgment timeframe that it would issue guidance within 6 weeks on the approach to redress for affected British motor-finance consumers, with a view to a possible industry-wide motor-finance compensation scheme. The template includes an express reservation for the consumer to participate in any such scheme without prejudice to the complaint or any subsequent FOS / court proceedings. The DISP 2.8 time-limit framework — 6 years from the agreement OR 3 years from awareness (whichever is later), plus DISP 2.8.7R exceptional-circumstances discretion — is also addressed in Expert mode for agreements older than 6 years.
What's Covered in This UK Template
Our UK FOS Motor Finance Complaint template produces a structured complaint pack updated for the post-Johnson UKSC 33 framework.
Consumer-to-Lender Letterhead
British consumer or representative (solicitor / CMC / family member) letterhead with claimant details, DOB, contact and representative status.
Motor Finance Agreement Details
Agreement type (HP / PCP / Conditional Sale / Lease Purchase / other), date, reference, vehicle make and model, registration, dealer name and address, cash price, total credit, duration.
Commission Disclosure Position
Pick disclosure position — not disclosed (strongest), partly disclosed (commission existence only, no quantum — Johnson framework applies), fully disclosed (weak claim — Supreme Court emphasised disclosure defeats unfair relationship).
s.140A CCA 1974 Unfair Relationship
The primary post-Johnson framework — Consumer Credit Act 1974 sections 140A-140D. The court's power to find the relationship unfair and to grant a wide range of remedies under s.140B.
Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33
The recent Supreme Court framework — overturned fiduciary duty and bribery; upheld s.140A on Mr Johnson's specific facts; fact-sensitive analysis driven by non-disclosure + Dealer-Lender preferential relationship + ordinary-consumer status.
Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance
Expert mode adds the Plevin v Paragon [2014] UKSC 61 PPI-commission framework which the Supreme Court in Johnson drew on. Commission tipping-point analysis from the PPI sector applied to motor finance.
Remedy Schedule
Expert mode adds the structured remedy — rescission of agreement + restitution of payments / restitution of commission only + statutory interest / partial unwind reducing credit by commission amount / FOS compensation. Statutory interest at 8% per annum simple under s.69 County Courts Act 1984.
FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme
Expert mode adds the express reservation for the British consumer to participate in any FCA-led motor-finance compensation scheme without prejudice to the complaint or any subsequent FOS / court proceedings.
DCA Prohibition (Pre-Jan 2021)
For pre-28 January 2021 agreements, Expert mode adds the Discretionary Commission Arrangement (DCA) prohibition ground. A DCA inherently creates an unfair relationship under s.140A because the Dealer's commission incentivised a higher interest rate to the consumer.
DISP 2.8 Time-Limit Argument
Expert mode adds the FOS time-limit argument — 6 years from agreement (DISP 2.8.2(2)(a)) OR 3 years from awareness (DISP 2.8.2(2)(b)) OR exceptional circumstances under DISP 2.8.7R. The Johnson judgment may itself be the awareness trigger.
Cooperation Consent (FCA / Regulator)
Optional consent to the lender sharing the complaint with the FCA, the FOS and any other regulator for the purposes of the FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme.
CMC / Solicitor / Self Representation
The template supports the British consumer acting in person, through an FCA-authorised Claims Management Company (CMC), through a solicitor, or through a family member representative.
How to Create a UK FOS Motor Finance Complaint
Follow these steps to draft a UK FOS motor finance commission complaint that reflects the post-Johnson UKSC 33 framework.
- 1
Enter Consumer + Lender + Letter Date
Enter the British consumer's name, service address, optional contact details, date of birth (if known — assists lender identification). Identify any representative (solicitor / CMC / family). Enter the lender's complaints-team address (this is typically a dedicated complaints address printed on the agreement or the lender's website).
- 2
Enter the Motor Finance Agreement
Enter the agreement date, internal reference (if known), agreement type (HP / PCP / Conditional Sale / Lease Purchase / other), vehicle make and model, registration, dealer name and address, cash price, total credit and duration. Be as accurate as possible — the British lender will use these details to locate the agreement on its system. The dealer name is particularly important for the commission analysis.
- 3
Set the Complaint Ground and Commission Position
Pick the primary ground — s.140A unfair relationship (post-Johnson default) / CONC 4 disclosure / DCA prohibition / multiple. Pick the commission disclosure position — not disclosed (strongest), partly disclosed (existence only, no quantum — Johnson applies), fully disclosed (weak claim). State whether the commission amount is known or estimated and the date of awareness of the commission issue (relevant to DISP 2.8 time limits).
- 4
Unlock Expert: Johnson + Plevin + Remedy
In Expert mode, add the explicit factual parallel to Johnson v FirstRand UKSC 33 (Supreme Court's s.140A analysis is fact-sensitive — well-structured parallels materially strengthen the complaint). Add the Plevin v Paragon framework which the Supreme Court drew on. Build the structured remedy schedule — rescission / restitution of commission / partial unwind / FOS compensation — with statutory interest calculation.
- 5
Add FCA Scheme + DCA + Time-Limit and Serve
In Expert mode, add the FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme reservation, the DCA prohibition ground (for pre-Jan 2021 agreements only), and the DISP 2.8 time-limit argument (6 years / 3 years awareness / exceptional). Confirm cooperation consent for FCA / regulator data-sharing. Download as PDF and serve on the British lender's complaints team by recorded delivery. The 8-week clock under DISP 1.6.2R starts from receipt.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations
The post-Johnson UKSC 33 motor finance commission landscape in the UK is evolving rapidly.
This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For complex agreements (multiple vehicles, business hire, contested commission disclosure, agreements pre-2014), instruct a UK consumer-credit solicitor experienced in s.140A claims.
Reviewed for England consumer-finance practice post-Johnson UKSC 33 (June 2026)
Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33 — The Definitive Position
The UK Supreme Court delivered judgment in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (London Branch) (t/a MotoNovo Finance), Wrench v FirstRand and Hopcraft v Close Brothers — three conjoined appeals from the Court of Appeal's decision in [2024] EWCA Civ 1282 — on 1 August 2025. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's findings that motor dealers owed fiduciary duties to consumers and that the lender had committed the tort of bribery. These analyses are therefore no longer reliable for British motor finance claims. However, the Supreme Court UPHELD Mr Johnson's claim under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (unfair relationship) on his specific facts — non-disclosure of commission, integral relationship between dealer and lender, ordinary-consumer status. The Wrench and Hopcraft claims failed altogether. The framework is therefore fact-sensitive and the analysis must be tailored to each claimant's specific circumstances.
s.140A CCA 1974 — The Unfair Relationship Test
Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 confers on the British court the power to find that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of: (a) any of the terms of the agreement; (b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of its rights under the agreement; or (c) any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after the making of the agreement. The remedies under s.140B are wide — including requiring repayment of sums paid by the debtor, requiring the creditor to do or not do anything in connection with the agreement, reducing or discharging any sum payable, ordering the return of property and altering the terms. The s.140A analysis is fact-sensitive and the burden of proof is on the consumer (Plevin v Paragon [2014] UKSC 61).
DISP 2.8 — FOS Time Limits
The FOS has jurisdiction over motor-finance commission complaints under DISP 2.5 (compulsory jurisdiction over FCA-regulated firms). The DISP 2.8 time limits are: (a) the complaint must be made within 6 years of the event complained of — typically the agreement date (DISP 2.8.2(2)(a)); OR (b) within 3 years of the date the consumer became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) of cause for complaint (DISP 2.8.2(2)(b)) — whichever is the later. The Ombudsman has further discretion under DISP 2.8.7R to consider complaints out of time where exceptional circumstances apply. The British Ombudsman has historically taken a broad view of awareness in commission cases; the Johnson UKSC 33 judgment itself (1 August 2025) is a likely awareness trigger for consumers who were not previously alerted.
FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme
Following the Supreme Court judgment in Johnson, the FCA indicated within the judgment timeframe that it would issue guidance within 6 weeks on the approach to redress for affected British motor-finance consumers. The scheme is in development as at June 2026. The likely scope is industry-wide consultation, redress methodology (tied to s.140A unfair-relationship framework rather than the rejected fiduciary-duty analysis), and a deadline for affected consumers to register claims. The template includes an express reservation for consumers to participate in any scheme without prejudice to this complaint or any subsequent FOS / court proceedings — a critical clause given the developing nature of the regulatory framework.
Frequently Asked Questions
Draft Your UK FOS Motor Finance Complaint Now
Use our free template — updated for Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33 — to draft a structured FOS motor finance commission complaint. Expert mode unlocks the s.140A factual parallel to Johnson, the Plevin v Paragon framework, the structured remedy schedule with statutory interest, the FCA Motor Finance Compensation Scheme reservation, the DCA prohibition ground (pre-Jan 2021) and the DISP 2.8 time-limit argument. The complete UK motor-finance redress toolkit.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required