Updated: 22 September 2026

Originally Published: 04 March 2026

Discovering that your car finance was sold or transferred to another company can make an already complicated car finance claim feel even harder to follow.

You may have signed the agreement with one lender but later started receiving statements from another company. Perhaps the direct debit name changed, the original lender was acquired, or the company you now deal with was not involved when you bought the car.

That raises an obvious question: if you are concerned about mis-sold car finance, who should deal with the complaint now?

The important point is that transferring an agreement does not automatically make concerns about the original finance disappear. If you are investigating possible mis-selling of car finance, the history of the original agreement can still matter even if ownership or administration later moved to another company.

This has become particularly relevant in 2026. Blue Motor Finance entered administration in July and its business and most assets were sold to Hodge MF Limited, while FirstRand has more recently put its UK operations, including Aldermore and MotoNovo Finance, up for sale as it progresses an exit from the UK.

At the same time, the FCA's motor finance redress scheme is facing four legal challenges, and the Upper Tribunal has partially suspended parts of the scheme. Consumers can still complain, but some stages of the process, including affected compensation calculations and payments, are currently delayed.

Here is what all of this means for car finance claims and PCP car claims where the lender, owner or company servicing the agreement has changed.

Quick answer: can I still claim if my car finance was sold?

Potentially, yes.

The fact that a finance agreement was transferred to another company does not automatically prevent it from being considered under the relevant complaints or redress process.

The first thing to establish is what actually happened to the agreement.

There is a difference between a lender selling or assigning an agreement, another company taking over its servicing, a lender changing its trading name, one finance company acquiring another, and a successor company taking on particular rights or liabilities.

Those distinctions can affect which firm needs to deal with a car finance claim.

For consumers, however, the practical starting point is usually the same: identify the original lender, identify the company now associated with the agreement and make clear that your complaint concerns the original motor finance transaction.

You should not assume that a change of company means that PCP finance claims or other car finance complaints disappeared.

Why are car finance agreements sold or transferred?

Finance agreements can move between companies for ordinary commercial reasons.

A lender might sell a portfolio of agreements to release capital, restructure its business, reduce exposure to a particular market or exit an area of lending.

Companies can also merge, acquire other businesses or transfer parts of their operations.

From the customer's perspective, this might first become apparent when a letter arrives explaining that future payments will be handled by a different company.

Depending on how the transaction is structured, you may notice a new name on statements, different customer service details or a new online account.

But not every corporate sale means that individual finance agreements or historic liabilities have moved in exactly the same way.

That distinction is especially important when looking at car finance mis-selling.

Does a lender transfer affect a PCP car finance claim?

It can affect the administration of the complaint, but it does not automatically prevent one.

The key question is not simply:

"Who owns or services my agreement today?"

It is also:

"Which firm is responsible for dealing with the issue I am raising?"

If the complaint concerns circumstances surrounding the original finance arrangement, relevant evidence may relate to the original lender and broker.

If the issue concerns something that happened after an agreement was transferred, such as how a new company administered the account, the position may be different.

This is why it can be misleading to assume that every complaint should automatically be directed to whichever company name appears on the latest correspondence.

The FCA car finance redress framework specifically recognises situations involving lenders and successor firms. Relevant firms may need to cooperate and exchange information so that the responsible lender can assess an agreement.

For consumers, that means a change of company does not necessarily create a dead end.

Who should I complain to if my car finance was sold?

Start by establishing which company originally provided the finance and which company now owns or services the agreement.

If you know the original lender and your concern relates to the original finance agreement, contacting that lender can be a sensible starting point.

If you contact a successor or purchaser instead, that does not necessarily mean the complaint stops there.

Under relevant FCA scheme rules, lenders and successors may have obligations to cooperate. Where a complaint reaches a firm that is not responsible for assessing it under the applicable rules, there are circumstances in which it must be passed to the appropriate firm and the consumer informed.

The precise position depends on the agreement, the companies involved and the structure of the transfer.

So, if you are uncertain, explain the history rather than trying to work out the corporate and legal relationships yourself.

You could say:

"I entered into motor finance with [original lender] in approximately 2013. I understand that the agreement was subsequently transferred or is now administered by your company. My complaint concerns the original finance agreement. Please confirm whether you are responsible for assessing it or whether it should be forwarded to another firm."

Keep copies of your correspondence and any explanation of where the complaint has been sent.

Blue Motor Finance shows why the distinction matters

Blue Motor Finance provides a particularly useful real-world example of how ownership, servicing and historic liabilities can become separated.

Blue Motor Finance Limited entered administration on 30 July 2026 [1]. Shortly afterwards, its business and most of its assets were sold to Hodge MF Limited.

The Blue Motor Finance business continued under new ownership, with its servicing platform and employees moving across to Hodge MF Limited.

For existing borrowers, however, the position is more nuanced.

EY, the administrator, says existing borrowers' contracts remain with Blue Motor Finance Limited in administration, while Hodge MF Limited is responsible for servicing those loans on its behalf [2].

Existing borrowers were told that they did not need to take action and should continue their normal payment arrangements.

Historic liabilities were treated differently again.

Hodge confirmed that existing Blue Motor Finance liabilities, including liabilities relating to the motor finance redress scheme, did not transfer to Hodge as part of the transaction. The FCA has similarly confirmed that Blue Motor Finance Limited remains liable for compensation it owes, including compensation under the motor finance scheme.

This demonstrates why someone pursuing car finance claims should not assume that the company currently servicing an account has automatically taken responsibility for everything connected with the original agreement.

There is another complication. The FCA says that where a Blue Motor Finance loan had already been sold to another purchaser before the end of its fixed term, that purchaser may now be responsible for administering the scheme. Original lenders and debt purchasers must cooperate, including by sharing relevant information.

So even within one lender's customer base, responsibility may not necessarily be identical for every agreement.

For someone investigating a historic Blue Motor Finance PCP claim or other agreement, the important thing is to establish what happened to that particular finance rather than assuming the July 2026 transaction produced the same result for everyone.

MotoNovo shows why future ownership changes also matter

MotoNovo Finance provides a different example.

In September 2026, FirstRand formally classified its UK business, including Aldermore Bank and MotoNovo Finance, as held for sale as the South African banking group progresses its exit from the UK [3].

The move followed a substantial increase in FirstRand's expected costs associated with historic motor finance redress.

For the year to June 2026, FirstRand recorded an additional £518.4 million provision for customer redress and £29.4 million of associated costs, producing a combined pre-tax impact of approximately £547.8 million [4].

FirstRand is now pursuing the sale of its UK operation, with the current timetable targeting completion within 12 months.

For consumers, however, MotoNovo has not yet been sold to a new owner. The eventual transaction structure and treatment of relevant historic liabilities remain to be determined.

There is also an existing corporate-history issue to consider.

Motor finance business originated before 5 May 2019, together with associated liabilities, remained on the balance sheet of FirstRand Bank Limited's London Branch, while MotoNovo Finance Limited subsequently became part of Aldermore Group.

That means someone investigating an older MotoNovo car finance claim should not automatically assume that every agreement bearing the MotoNovo name sits with exactly the same legal entity.

The date of the agreement and the lender responsible at that point can matter.

Likewise, FirstRand's planned UK exit does not mean potentially eligible MotoNovo car finance claims simply disappear. The treatment of liabilities will depend partly on the structure and terms of any eventual sale and the relevant regulatory requirements.

This is why keeping track of the original agreement matters even when the brand itself continues to look familiar.

What if I do not know whether the lender was sold, renamed or replaced?

This can happen frequently with older agreements.

A consumer may remember one company name from the original paperwork and another from later correspondence without knowing why the change occurred.

Do not assume they are necessarily two completely separate lenders.

Start with your documents.

Look for the original finance agreement, letters announcing a transfer, settlement correspondence, bank statements, old emails, credit information and annual statements.

Pay particular attention to terms such as "assignment", "transfer", "new owner", "successor", "servicing" or "change of name".

If you cannot find the paperwork, you may still be able to identify the agreement from your vehicle registration, previous address, approximate finance date or payment records.

Depending on the provider and information available, some claims management companies may also be able to help trace historic finance through a car finance refund check or mis-sold car finance check.

Finding an agreement, however, is different from establishing that compensation is due.

What happens to the evidence when an agreement changes hands?

A lender transfer can make the paper trail more complicated, but relevant records do not necessarily disappear because ownership changes.

Depending on the circumstances, records could include the finance agreement, pre-contract information, payment history, settlement records, information concerning the broker, commission records and relevant disclosure information.

Some information may remain with the original lender. Other records may have moved to a successor or may need to be obtained from a broker.

This matters because many consumers will not personally know details such as the amount of dealer commission or the commercial arrangement between lender and broker.

The FCA's redress framework contains provisions requiring relevant firms to obtain and exchange information in appropriate circumstances.

A consumer is therefore not necessarily expected to reconstruct the entire transaction from their own paperwork.

If a firm tells you it cannot locate the agreement, ask what additional identifying information would help and whether relevant records may be held by a predecessor, successor, debt purchaser or broker.

What types of car finance arrangements does the FCA scheme cover?

The position is much clearer than it was when this article was last published in May.

The FCA confirmed its Motor Finance Commission Consumer Redress Scheme on 30 March 2026 [5].

It broadly covers relevant motor finance agreements entered into between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024, subject to the detailed scheme criteria.

The final framework addresses particular commission-related arrangements that may have resulted in an unfair relationship. These include qualifying discretionary commission arrangements, high commission arrangements and tied arrangements.

A discretionary commission arrangement, or DCA, allowed the broker to influence the interest rate in a way that affected the commission it received. The FCA banned DCAs in motor finance from 28 January 2021 [6].

The final scheme also contains defined tests for other relevant commission arrangements.

This is more precise than simply asking whether the dealer arranged the finance, whether commission existed or whether the agreement happened to be PCP.

Dealer-arranged finance does not automatically establish mis-sold car finance. Neither does the fact that commission was paid.

Likewise, a company subsequently buying or servicing an agreement is not evidence of mis-selling of car finance.

The agreement and relevant evidence still need to be considered against the applicable rules.

What if my PCP lender changed?

The same broad principles can apply to PCP claims.

Suppose you entered into a PCP agreement with Lender A but later received correspondence saying that the account had moved to Company B.

The transfer itself does not tell you whether the agreement qualifies under the FCA scheme.

You first need to identify the original agreement and establish which firm is responsible for considering it.

This becomes particularly important for consumers who had several PCP agreements over the years.

For example:

• 2011: PCP with Lender A, later transferred
• 2015: PCP with Lender B
• 2019: PCP with Lender C

These should not be treated as one single PCP refund claim.

Each agreement may have involved a different lender, broker, commission structure and disclosure history.

Keep separate records for each vehicle and agreement.

Does the new lender become responsible for everything?

Not necessarily.

A change in ownership does not mean the new company automatically becomes responsible for every action that occurred before the transfer.

Equally, it is too broad to say that only the original lender can ever be relevant.

Blue Motor Finance demonstrates this particularly clearly. Hodge acquired the business and certain assets, and now services existing Blue loans on behalf of the company, but Blue Motor Finance Limited remains liable for its existing motor finance redress liabilities.

Other transactions can be structured differently.

The eventual FirstRand sale could also have its own arrangements governing which businesses, assets and liabilities move to a purchaser. Until a transaction is completed and its structure is known, consumers should not assume what will happen to a MotoNovo claim.

Responsibility depends on the relevant agreement, legal relationship between the companies, nature of the transfer and applicable FCA rules.

Can a mis-sold car finance check help if my lender has changed?

Potentially.

A PCP claim check may help identify information about historic finance, depending on the provider, tracing methods and information available.

This can be useful where you remember the car but no longer know which legal entity provided the finance, particularly if a lender has subsequently changed name, been acquired or transferred parts of its business.

A check may help identify the historic agreement, original lender or agreement period.

That can be especially useful if you are investigating several PCP compensation claims or car finance claims.

But tracing and eligibility should not be confused.

Finding an old finance agreement does not establish car finance mis-selling.

Think of the process as three separate stages.

First, find the agreement.

Second, establish the relevant lender and assess the agreement against the applicable rules.

Third, determine whether any redress is actually due.

A car finance refund check therefore does not guarantee a car finance refund or car finance compensation.

Consumers can also investigate their agreements and complain directly to lenders for free. Using a claims management company is optional, and fees may apply.

Does selling the agreement affect car finance compensation?

The fact that an agreement was sold does not, by itself, determine whether car finance compensation is due or how much an eligible consumer could receive.

The FCA's scheme uses a defined methodology for agreements that qualify.

The FCA has estimated average redress of around £829 per eligible agreement across the wider scheme [7]. This is an overall estimate rather than a guaranteed payment for an individual car finance claim.

Some eligible agreements could result in more and others less. Some agreements will not qualify at all.

The transfer of an agreement is therefore not itself a reason to expect a larger or smaller mis-sold PCP car finance compensation

Blue Motor Finance also demonstrates another important point: even where compensation is ultimately found to be owed, the financial position of the responsible company can matter.

The FCA has warned that customers owed compensation by Blue Motor Finance Limited are unlikely to receive all of the money they are owed [8]. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme generally does not cover consumer credit lenders for this type of motor finance compensation.

That situation is specific to Blue Motor Finance's administration and should not be treated as the normal outcome where a finance agreement is transferred.

How have the car finance scandal and legal challenges changed things?

The wider car finance scandal has moved on significantly since this article was last published in May 2026.

The FCA confirmed the Motor Finance Commission Consumer Redress Scheme on 30 March 2026.

But its lawfulness is now being challenged by four organisations [9]:

• CA Auto Finance UK Limited
• Consumer Voice Limited
• Mercedes-Benz Financial Services UK Limited
• Volkswagen Financial Services UK Limited

On 1 July 2026, the Upper Tribunal made an order partially suspending parts of the scheme [10].

This is a partial suspension rather than the cancellation of the scheme.

Firms must continue complying with rules that remain in force. They can also continue preparing for the scheme and progressing complaints as far as possible.

However, while the relevant provisions are suspended, firms do not currently have to calculate or pay affected redress under the original scheme timetable.

This means earlier expectations around widespread car finance compensation payouts 2026 have changed.

When will the legal challenges be heard?

The Upper Tribunal has identified two possible hearing windows:

14 to 18 December 2026

or

16 to 26 February 2027

The final timing depends on procedural developments, including whether those involved apply for further expert opinion or disclosure and whether any such application succeeds.

Judgment is then expected sometime after the hearing rather than immediately.

If the scheme is ultimately upheld and the legal process does not create further delays, the FCA has said it expects payments to begin in 2027.

That is important context for anyone currently pursuing car finance claims.

A delay in compensation does not necessarily mean an individual complaint has been rejected. It may reflect the wider legal proceedings affecting the scheme.

Are lenders and successor companies still working on claims?

Some work can continue.

The Upper Tribunal did not suspend every part of the FCA framework.

The FCA says firms must continue complying with provisions that remain in force and can continue preparing and progressing complaints as far as possible.

This can include work to identify relevant agreements and gather information.

For someone whose finance moved between companies, that preparation can be particularly important because records may need to be located across an original lender, successor, debt purchaser or broker.

You could therefore still receive requests for an old address, vehicle registration, agreement number or other information while the legal challenges continue.

That does not mean car finance compensation has been approved. It may simply mean the firms are identifying the agreement and assembling the relevant records.

What if I cannot find the original lender?

Start with whatever information you have.

You might remember the dealership and vehicle but not the finance company.

Old bank statements may reveal the lender through the direct debit name. Emails can contain welcome letters, annual statements or settlement figures. Credit information may also show historic borrowing, although older closed accounts do not necessarily remain on a current credit report indefinitely.

If you contact the company that now appears to own or service the agreement, explain that you are trying to establish the identity of the original lender.

For example:

"My finance was subsequently transferred to or serviced by your company, but I no longer have the original agreement. Please confirm the original finance provider and agreement details held on your records."

If your own search reaches a dead end, another option is a car finance refund check through a claims management company that offers historic agreement tracing.

Using a CMC is optional. Consumers can identify their lender and complain directly for free where they have the necessary information.

What should I do if my finance was sold to another company?

Start by creating a simple record for the agreement.

Record the original lender if known, the company you currently deal with, vehicle registration, make and model, approximate finance dates, dealership and agreement number if available.

Keep any correspondence explaining a sale, assignment or change of servicer.

If you make a complaint, be clear that your concern relates to the original motor finance agreement and ask the company to confirm whether it is responsible for assessing it.

If another lender, successor or purchaser needs to become involved, keep records of where your complaint is forwarded.

You do not need to determine every corporate relationship yourself.

The Blue Motor Finance example shows why this is important. A company can service a customer's existing agreement without necessarily assuming the historic redress liability attached to it.

MotoNovo illustrates another possibility. A business can be put up for sale while existing customers and historic claims remain under the current structure until a transaction actually takes place.

Frequently asked questions

Can I make a car finance claim if my agreement was sold?

Potentially, yes. Selling or transferring the agreement does not automatically prevent a car finance claim from being considered.

Which company is responsible will depend on the agreement, nature of the transfer and applicable rules.

Who do I complain to if my PCP lender changed?

Start by identifying the original lender and the company that now owns or services the agreement.

If your complaint concerns the original finance arrangement, explain this clearly. Relevant FCA rules can require lenders, successors or purchasers to cooperate and, in certain circumstances, forward a complaint to the firm responsible for assessing it.

Does a lender transfer prove my finance was mis-sold?

No.

The transfer itself is not evidence of mis-sold car finance. It tells you that something changed in the ownership, servicing or corporate structure surrounding the agreement.

Eligibility depends on the circumstances of the original agreement and applicable FCA rules.

What happens to Blue Motor Finance claims after the Hodge transaction?

Blue Motor Finance Limited entered administration on 30 July 2026 and its business and most assets were sold to Hodge MF Limited.

Existing borrower contracts remain with Blue Motor Finance Limited in administration, with Hodge MF Limited servicing them on its behalf. Blue's existing motor finance redress liabilities did not transfer to Hodge as part of that transaction.

The position may differ for loans that Blue had previously sold to other purchasers.

Has MotoNovo Finance been sold?

Not yet.

As of September 2026, FirstRand has classified its UK business, including Aldermore and MotoNovo Finance, as held for sale and is progressing a formal sale process as part of its planned UK exit.

The eventual ownership structure and treatment of relevant historic liabilities will depend on the transaction that is ultimately agreed.

Does FirstRand leaving the UK affect MotoNovo Finance claims?

The planned exit does not automatically cancel an eligible historic claim.

The position can also depend on when the MotoNovo agreement was entered into and which legal entity was responsible for the finance. The terms of any future sale will be important in determining how relevant businesses and liabilities are treated.

Does a mis-sold car finance check still work if the lender changed?

A mis-sold car finance check may help identify information about a historic agreement where the lender or owner later changed, depending on the provider and records available.

Finding the agreement does not establish car finance mis-selling or guarantee compensation.

Does selling my PCP agreement affect a possible refund?

Not automatically.

A transfer does not itself determine whether a PCP claim qualifies or how much redress could be due.

Are car finance claims still progressing during the legal challenges?

Some work continues.

Parts of the FCA scheme are suspended, but firms must comply with provisions that remain in force and can continue relevant preparation and information gathering.

When could car finance compensation be paid?

The timing now depends substantially on the Upper Tribunal proceedings.

The legal challenges are expected to be heard in December 2026 or February 2027, with judgment likely to follow later. If the scheme is upheld and there is no further legal delay, the FCA expects payments to begin in 2027.

A lender transfer changes the paper trail, not necessarily your options

When a finance agreement moves from one company to another, the paperwork can become harder to follow.

But a new company name does not automatically erase the history of the original agreement or prevent a car finance claim from being considered.

Blue Motor Finance demonstrates how different the roles can be. Hodge acquired the business and now services existing Blue agreements on its behalf, while Blue Motor Finance Limited remains responsible for its existing motor finance redress liabilities.

MotoNovo shows why consumers also need to pay attention to changes that are still unfolding. FirstRand is progressing the sale of its UK operations, but the eventual transaction has not yet happened and the treatment of relevant historic liabilities will depend on how that sale is structured.

For consumers investigating possible mis-sold car finance, the practical priority is therefore to identify the original agreement, the lender responsible at the time and any subsequent owner, purchaser or servicer.

A car finance refund check or mis-sold car finance check may help with agreement tracing depending on the provider, but finding the finance is not the same as establishing car finance mis-selling or entitlement to a car finance refund.

The legal challenges arising from the wider car finance scandal have delayed parts of the FCA redress process, but the partial suspension has not stopped every aspect of car finance claims work.

Who owns or services the agreement today is useful to know. What happened under the original agreement, and which firm is responsible for dealing with it under the applicable rules, remain the more important questions.

________

References:

1. Blue Motor Finance Limited entered administration on 30 July 2026 - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/blue-motor-finance-limited-enters-administration
2. EY, the administrator, says existing borrowers' contracts remain with Blue Motor Finance Limited in administration, while Hodge MF Limited is responsible for servicing those loans on its behalf - https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-uk/campaigns/administrations/blue-motor-finance-limited/creditors-initial-notification-template-dated-30-july-2026.pdf
3. In September 2026, FirstRand formally classified its UK business, including Aldermore Bank and MotoNovo Finance, as held for sale as the South African banking group progresses its exit from the UK - https://www.billionaires.africa/2026/09/10/mary-vilakazi-takes-firstrand-out-of-britain-after-548-million-hit/
4. For the year to June 2026, FirstRand recorded an additional £518.4 million provision for customer redress and £29.4 million of associated costs, producing a combined pre-tax impact of approximately £547.8 million - https://businesstech.co.za/news/banking/874746/one-of-south-africas-most-valuable-banks-planning-a-major-exit/
5. The FCA confirmed its Motor Finance Commission Consumer Redress Scheme on 30 March 2026 - https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/policy-statements/ps26-3-motor-finance-consumer-redress-scheme
6. The FCA banned DCAs in motor finance from 28 January 2021 - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-ban-motor-finance-discretionary-commission-models
7. The FCA has estimated average redress of around £829 per eligible agreement across the wider scheme - https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/policy/ps26-3.pdf
8. The FCA has warned that customers owed compensation by Blue Motor Finance Limited are unlikely to receive all of the money they are owed - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/09/06/drivers-miss-out-motor-finance-payouts-lender-takeover/
9. its lawfulness is now being challenged by four organisations - https://consumervoice.uk/cars/fca-car-finance-compensation-challenge/
10.  On 1 July 2026, the Upper Tribunal made an order partially suspending parts of the scheme - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/motor-finance-scheme-partially-suspended