A County Court ruling involving Black Horse has raised potentially significant questions about how long consumers have to bring certain car finance claims through the courts.

The case concerns Christopher Berry, who financed a Volkswagen Golf through Black Horse in 2005 and later brought proceedings over commission paid to the supplying dealer.

His claim had previously been dismissed after a judge concluded that it had been brought outside the conventional six-year limitation period.

But that decision has now been overturned on appeal.

His Honour Judge Glen concluded that the Limitation Act 1980 does not prescribe a statutory limitation period for an unfair relationship claim brought under sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 [1].

The decision could have implications for historic consumer credit disputes, including some agreements considerably older than those covered by the Financial Conduct Authority's Motor Finance Compensation Scheme.

However, the ruling comes from the County Court and does not create binding precedent for other courts. Lloyds Banking Group, which owns Black Horse, reportedly intends to appeal.

What happened in Berry v Black Horse?

Berry purchased a Volkswagen Golf in June 2005 for £8,588.50.

After paying a £500 deposit, he financed the remaining amount through a 48-month Black Horse hire-purchase agreement with an APR of 16.5%.

Black Horse paid commission totalling £935.80 in connection with the agreement.

According to the judgment, this consisted of £369.60 in direct commission, a £404.43 volume bonus and £161.77 in marketing support [2].

The judgment records that there was no evidence Berry had been told about either the fact or amount of these payments.

Berry subsequently brought proceedings against Black Horse in March 2023, many years after the original finance agreement had ended.

His case included an allegation that the relationship between borrower and lender was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Why was the claim originally dismissed?

The age of the agreement became a central issue.

A District Judge originally concluded that Berry's claim was subject to a six-year limitation period.

On that interpretation, time began running when the credit relationship ended. Because Berry waited considerably longer than six years before bringing proceedings, the claim was considered out of time.

That approach reflected the way limitation had previously been treated in comparable unfair relationship cases.

Berry appealed.

The legal landscape then changed following an apparently unrelated Supreme Court decision concerning company law.

Why did a Supreme Court company case affect a car finance claim?

In February 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in THG plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd [3].

That case had nothing to do with car finance compensation claims.

It concerned the statutory remedy available to shareholders where a company's affairs have been conducted in a way that unfairly prejudices their interests.

The Supreme Court considered whether claims under sections 994 and 996 of the Companies Act 2006 were subject to statutory limitation periods under sections 8 or 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.

By a majority, it concluded they were not.

The Supreme Court stressed that limitation periods are created by statute. If the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to a particular statutory remedy, the courts cannot impose a limitation period simply because doing so might appear desirable as a matter of policy.

Berry's lawyers relied on that reasoning when challenging the dismissal of his Black Horse case.

What did Judge Glen decide?

Judge Glen accepted the argument that the Supreme Court's reasoning had consequences for unfair relationship proceedings under the Consumer Credit Act.

He concluded that claims for relief under sections 140A to 140C are not subject to a limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 [4].

That is an important distinction.

The ruling did not simply decide that Berry's six-year period should have started at a later date.

Instead, the judge concluded that the Limitation Act does not impose the six-year statutory time bar that had previously been assumed to apply to this type of claim.

The judgment described the issue as being of "profound significance".

Berry's appeal was therefore allowed.

Does this mean the six-year limit has been removed for all car finance claims?

No.

The decision needs to be treated cautiously for several reasons.

First, this is a County Court judgment. It does not create binding precedent that every other court hearing a car finance claim must follow.

Second, Black Horse disputed Berry's interpretation of the law.

The lender argued that previous cases had proceeded on the basis that limitation periods applied to unfair relationship claims and that the established approach should continue.

Third, Lloyds reportedly intends to appeal the decision.

A higher court could uphold Judge Glen's interpretation, modify it or overturn it.

Consumers should therefore not interpret the ruling as establishing that there is now no time limit whatsoever for every historic car finance mis-selling case.

Could very old car finance agreements now lead to claims?

This is where the case could become particularly significant if its reasoning is ultimately upheld.

Berry's agreement was entered into in 2005.

That predates the eligibility period for the FCA's Motor Finance Compensation Scheme.

The FCA scheme generally covers certain agreements entered into between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024.

A 2005 agreement therefore does not become eligible for the FCA scheme simply because of the Berry judgment.

Instead, the decision concerns a separate legal route through the courts under the Consumer Credit Act.

If the interpretation is upheld at a higher level, consumers and their lawyers could potentially examine much older credit relationships to determine whether an unfair relationship claim remains available despite the passage of time.

That does not mean every old agreement will produce a successful claim.

A claimant would still have to establish the legal grounds for relief.

Court claims and the FCA compensation scheme are different

The distinction between the two routes is particularly important for consumers following the wider car finance scandal.

The FCA's Motor Finance Compensation Scheme [5] is an industry-wide regulatory redress programme with its own eligibility rules, dates and compensation methodology.

Berry v Black Horse concerns proceedings brought through the courts under the Consumer Credit Act.

A ruling about statutory limitation for an unfair relationship court claim does not automatically rewrite the FCA car finance scheme rules.

It does not move the scheme's April 2007 starting date backwards.

Nor does it mean someone with an agreement from 2005 or earlier automatically has a Black Horse car finance claim or becomes entitled to compensation through the FCA scheme.

The legal routes can overlap in subject matter while still operating under different rules.

What about the 31 August 2027 car finance claims deadline?

That is another separate issue.

Under the current FCA scheme, 31 August 2027 is an important deadline for consumers who are not contacted by their lender but believe they have an eligible agreement and want it considered under the scheme.

That deadline should not be confused with the six-year limitation issue considered in Berry.

The first concerns participation in the FCA's regulatory compensation framework.

The second concerns whether the Limitation Act imposes a statutory time bar on certain unfair relationship proceedings brought before a court.

The Berry judgment does not remove or change the FCA scheme's 31 August 2027 deadline.

Does the ruling mean Berry has won compensation?

Not necessarily.

Allowing Berry's appeal on the limitation question does not itself establish that the underlying relationship was unfair or determine the compensation, if any, that should ultimately be awarded.

The substantive dispute concerns commission connected with the finance agreement and whether the circumstances created an unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act.

The limitation ruling concerns whether Berry is prevented from pursuing that case because too much time has passed.

Those are separate questions.

This distinction is important because a decision allowing an old claim to proceed is not the same thing as a court finding that mis-sold car finance occurred or ordering compensation.

Could delay still matter even without a statutory limitation period?

Potentially.

The Supreme Court's decision in THG also demonstrates why saying there is "no time limit" can be an oversimplification.

In that case, the majority acknowledged the public interest in preventing stale litigation. But it said policy concerns could not justify imposing a statutory limitation period where Parliament had not provided one.

The Court also recognised that delay can still have consequences when a court exercises its discretion over whether and what relief should be granted.

How those principles ultimately apply to Consumer Credit Act unfair relationship cases will be important if Berry progresses through the appellate courts.

The current ruling therefore should not be interpreted as giving consumers an unlimited guarantee that any historic finance dispute can successfully be revived regardless of its age.

Could the decision affect claims beyond motor finance?

Potentially, and this may ultimately prove to be one of the most important aspects of the case.

Sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act are not restricted to vehicle finance [6].

They form part of the wider legal framework governing relationships between creditors and debtors.

If a higher court ultimately agrees that the Limitation Act does not prescribe a limitation period for proceedings under these provisions, the consequences could therefore extend beyond PCP claims, hire-purchase agreements and other motor finance disputes.

The Times reported that the decision could potentially affect historic claims across the wider consumer lending sector.

How extensive that impact might be will depend heavily on what happens if Black Horse appeals.

What does the ruling mean for Black Horse customers?

For now, consumers should avoid assuming that the judgment has automatically revived every old Black Horse finance claim.

The ruling concerns an important preliminary legal issue in one case and remains capable of being challenged on appeal.

It also does not establish that all undisclosed commissions made a credit relationship unfair.

Consumers with agreements falling within the FCA scheme's 2007 to 2024 eligibility period should continue to consider their position under that framework separately.

Those with much older agreements may want to follow the Berry litigation closely because an appellate ruling could provide greater clarity about whether and how historic unfair relationship proceedings can be brought.

What happens next?

The next major development is likely to be an appeal.

If the limitation issue reaches a higher court, the resulting judgment could carry considerably greater authority than the current County Court decision.

An appellate court could also provide guidance on how the Supreme Court's reasoning in THG should apply to unfair relationship claims under the Consumer Credit Act.

Until that happens, Berry v Black Horse represents a potentially important development rather than a settled rewriting of the rules governing car finance claims.

For the motor finance industry, the case raises a question that extends beyond the FCA's existing compensation programme: whether some historic consumer credit disputes previously considered too old to pursue could still be heard by the courts.

The answer could matter not only for Black Horse car finance claims, but potentially for the wider consumer credit market.

____________

References:

1. Limitation Act 1980 does not prescribe a statutory limitation period for an unfair relationship claim brought under sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/county-court-ruling-upends-time-limits-on-consumer-finance-claims-gckvcxclm
2. According to the judgment, this consisted of £369.60 in direct commission, a £404.43 volume bonus and £161.77 in marketing support - https://kohenavocats.com/jurisprudences/christopher-berry-v-black-horse-limited/
3. In February 2026, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in THG plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd - https://supremecourt.uk/cases/judgments/uksc-2024-0047
4. claims for relief under sections 140A to 140C are not subject to a limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 - https://www.kingschambers.com/martin-budworth-successful-in-important-appeal-on-limitation-periods-for-unfair-relationship-claims/
5. FCA's Motor Finance Compensation Scheme - https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps26-3-motor-finance-consumer-redress-scheme
6. Sections 140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act are not restricted to vehicle finance - https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10328/CBP-10328.pdf