Updated: 21 August 2025

Originally Published: 11 March 2025

One of the largest operators in the UK car finance industry over the past few decades has been Close Brothers Finance, which is part of the Close Brothers Group. The group provides Hire Purchase (HP) and Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) agreements that enable auto finance to tens of thousands of consumers throughout the nation. Close Brothers is an old firm and has established itself as a leading lender in the industry by providing cheap finance deals to thousands of customers.

This lender is also highly regarded for providing a variety of auto financing choices and competitive interest rates and payment terms. Its PCP contracts, in fact, are designed to make owning a car more affordable by providing lower monthly payments than other forms of financing. This approach has turned Close Brothers into the first point of call for individuals wishing to pay the cost of buying a car over a set period of time. But what is the Close Brothers scandal?

Although the group has a dominant position in the marketplace, the business was criticised upon finding that it was guilty of mis-selling. These developments had wider implications for the UK auto finance sector as well as casting doubt about Close Brothers' sales practices and internal controls. The battle increased consumer visibility of their financing agreement rights as well as invoking regulatory attention.

Why the FCA and Consumer Watchdogs Are Investigating

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and other consumer authorities started an investigation into Close Brothers Finance following increasing complaints over potential mis-selling tactics. Following these investigations, the business operations of the company, namely the equity and transparency of its auto finance contracts, were scrutinised.

Stricter controls are mandated by the FCA, the body that governs the financial services sector of the UK, so that all lenders in any business sector, like auto finance, adhere to the industry benchmark. Its ultimate purpose is to shield consumers against exploitation that can make them spend their money foolishly. Deception and inadequacy in transparency by Close Brothers’ financial products which led to general confusion and customer complaints were the driving forces behind FCA’s intervention.

Whether Close Brothers had good disclosure practices is the focus of the inquiry. The company’s failure to make key terms of its car finance agreements, such as interest charges, balloon payments and potential penalties, “clearly and understandably available” to consumers has been criticised by consumer groups. Consumers often complain that they were “duped by promotion” of these deals, which were “presented as being cheaper than they are” or that they were not made “adequately aware” of the full cost of their finance agreements.

Its application of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) is a central concern. Based on amounts raised in interest rates, this activity allows car dealers to determine loan interest rates. Under the FCA, due to this framework, consumers have been made to pay very high interest charges on a monthly basis. Although this does not qualify as illegal in itself, it could be considered unethical or fraudulent, especially if the commissions are not clearly disclosed to clients.

Moreover, a significant area of focus for the investigation is checks on affordability. In order to ensure that customers are able to repay their loans, lenders such as Close Brothers must carry out proper affordability tests. A large number of customer complaints do indicate, though, that these tests were simply disregarded or carried out inadequately, and clients signed up for deals they were not later able to afford. This has raised concerns regarding reckless lending tactics and the potential for customers to be left with unsustainable debt.

Further, whether consumers were treated fairly during the sales process while making the sale is also closely under investigation by the FCA and consumer protectors. It is alleged that Close Brothers rewarded dealerships to promote specific finance products without exposing the terms and conditions of these products to their full extent. For instance, some customers were tricked into believing that they would get full ownership of the vehicle once they signed their finance contract, only to be informed subsequently that a substantial balloon payment was required to secure ownership, a very important fact that was not clearly stated when the purchase was being done.

Because other lenders and auto dealerships are also being examined for similar issues, these concerns reflect a trend in the auto finance business. As such, Close Brothers is presently spearheading an industry-wide investigation to address systemic issues in the auto finance market and strengthen consumer protections against fraud.

What Were Close Brothers Accused Of?

In terms of Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) and Hire Purchase (HP) agreements specifically, Close Brothers Finance has faced serious allegations of mis-selling auto finance products. The allegations relate to conduct that caused consumers to make additional loan repayments and, in some instances, to enter into products they did not understand. The main issues involve the use of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), the non-disclosure of important information, and misleading consumers about the total cost of their loan products.

Use of Discretionary Commission Arrangements (DCAs) to Inflate Interest Rates

One of the most significant accusations against Close Brothers involves the use of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), a controversial practice that allowed car dealers to set interest rates for finance loans. These contracts empowered dealers to alter auto finance contracts' interest rates based on the secret commission they would earn from Close Brothers [1]. In other cases, this act resulted in inflated interest rates, causing borrowers to pay more than they would have paid if the rates were adjusted fairly in accordance with their financial conditions.

A chief aspect of the investigation of Close Brothers' business model has been the transparent deficiency regarding how discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) have been used, effectively allowing terms in finance agreements to be based upon the potential profitability of the deal to the dealer, rather than upon the individual's repayment potential or true expense of the loan. Most consumers did not know that these arrangements were even in place, so they had no idea how their interest rates were being determined.

Failing to Disclose Key Terms in Finance Agreements

The omission by Close Brothers to disclose significant terms on financing contracts is another serious point raised against the company. The full price of their loans, including balloon repayments due at the end of a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) contract, was not fully disclosed to numerous customers. A balloon payment is a large upfront payment that a consumer must pay at the end of the financing period in order to retain possession of the automobile. However, the payments were often so vague that many believed that they would be the de facto owner of the car once they had fulfilled the contract.

There were also cases of customers who were not aware of unbudgeted costs, for example, excess mileage costs on PCP deals or redemption penalties. Customers were sometimes caught unaware by the overall financial impact of their deal due to the lack of disclosure of interest rates. A common complaint was lack of transparency.

Consumer Complaints and Growing Legal Challenges

The number of consumer complaints about Close Brothers has increased significantly due to these practices. Most of them involve unfair or misleading terms in financing contracts. Close Brothers also faces legal action as the number of consumer complaints continues to rise. Consumers report deceptive contract conditions, hidden fees, and exorbitant interest charges. Some have sought an independent review through the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), while others have filed lawsuits to recoup their costs.

The FCA and other regulatory agencies are taking notice as the number of complaints and lawsuits grows. These questions examine potential systemic issues in the broader auto finance sector, beyond Close Brothers' business practices. 

How Are Affected Consumers Being Compensated?

Close Brothers Finance has gone ahead to reserve £165M to address the car loan commission scandal and pay compensation to the affected customers [2] as regulatory pressure mounts and concerns rise. The company has committed to review and reimburse interest charges on customers who were charged more than they should or other unfair conditions, such as hidden charges or balloon payments not disclosed clearly.

FCA Directives and Close Brothers’ Response

Close Brothers has been instructed to take remedial action to correct the underlying issues in their finance agreements following an FCA investigation [3]. To ensure that finance agreements are fair and transparent, these measures involve reviewing all affected loans and making the required adjustments. The company has agreed to redress affected customers where discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) have resulted in higher interest rates being charged. In addition, Close Brothers has also agreed to remove unfair terms from existing contracts where necessary, such as unclear balloon payments or undisclosed charges.

Despite Close Brothers' attempts to resolve these problems, however, the situation has not moved quickly and many customers have still not had their refund issued. There have also been some customer complaints about poor communication and delays in handling the claims. The company is continuing to address these issues; however, with the deadline extended [4] and as the inquiry continues, more clients may receive the money owed to them.

What Close Brothers Finance Has Agreed to Refund So Far

Customers exposed to high interest charges due to the application of discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) will be given a refund on their part of the interest charges by Close Brothers Finance. A number of consumers who have been affected have not yet been fully compensated for their financial losses, and the overall value of the Close Brothers compensation claim is yet to be assessed.

Factors Affecting Compensation Distributions

The amount of compensation a consumer can recover for misrepresented auto finance contracts varies based on several factors. However, finance claims experts highlight the FCA’s statement that suggests that for DCAs, the average payouts could reach £950 per eligible agreement [5]. Individuals can assess their entitlement to an award and have realistic expectations regarding the potential award with the assistance of car finance claims experts in understanding of these factors. The most critical of these factors influencing compensation awards in these cases are discussed at length below.

1. The Size of the Overcharge

The extent of the overcharge to which the consumer is subjected is one of the most important factors affecting the amount of compensation. It is related to the additional amount paid as a result of misrepresented terms of financing, such as inflated interest rates, undisclosed commissions or hidden charges. The larger the gap between the amount the customer was originally induced to pay and the amount paid, the larger the compensation amount.

For instance:

• Inflated Interest Rates: Customers can be entitled to a refund of the extra interest paid if they were charged a higher interest rate than their credit profile could support.
• Hidden or Undisclosed Fees: Reimbursement can be provided for fees that were not explicitly disclosed in the financing contract, including administrative fees, early repayment fees, or additional charges associated with balloon payments. The total amount of compensation could be greatly affected if these fees were large.
• Commission-Driven Interest: Purchasers often get charged a greater rate of interest than they would have received had the rate been established according to their financial capacity when interest is fixed by brokers or dealers as a function of commission. A significant point for which the consumers may qualify for compensation is this excessive interest rate.

The larger the financial discrepancy between what consumers were led to believe and the actual terms, the more compensation they may be entitled to.

2. The Length of the Agreement

The length of the finance agreement may also have a bearing on the payout of compensation. The misselling effect may be determined by the length of the agreement, as motor finance contracts may be for anything between 24 months and 60 months or more, most notably Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) and Hire Purchase (HP) contracts. Longer contracts render the effect of misselling higher since they subject consumers to higher interest charges over an extended period.

When agreements are longer, consumers end up paying more interest over time, making the impact of mis-selling more significant. For example:

• A longer contract increases the overall sum paid because there are more interest payments made over a greater duration. 
• Missold long-term terms increase the overcharge amounts because the rate of interest or charges are imposed on a higher loan value for a greater term.

Therefore, consumers with longer agreements are likely to see larger compensation payouts than those with shorter terms. 

3. Evidence of Mis-Selling

No payment can be made unless you can show that you were missold. The burden of proof is on the client to show that the conditions of their financing agreement were not fair or were concealed or that the agreement was mis-sold in another way.

Normally, the proof needed includes:

• Loan Terms Documentation: The consumer is required to produce a copy of the finance agreement with the terms and conditions of the loan, including interest rates, charges, repayment plan, and other fees.
• Company communication: Email, letter, or any other mail received by Close Brothers Finance or the car dealership confirming false or unclear information on the terms of the agreement can be used as evidence to sustain the claim.
• Statements and Documents: Records of conversation with the lender or dealership, 

A valid claim for redress, for instance, would involve proof that a buyer was assured of ownership of the vehicle at the end of a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) arrangement but was instead asked to pay a significant balloon payment.

In addition, if there is not enough evidence of misrepresentation, the customers may struggle to sustain their claims, and it may lead to the cancellation or a diminishment of the award of compensation.

Other Considerations for Compensation Payouts

While the factors mentioned above are critical, there are additional factors that may influence the final compensation payout:

• Interest Rate Comparisons: A consumer's award level can be higher if they can prove that the interest rate they were charged was significantly higher than what they would have qualified for based on their financial situation.
• Past Cases and Court Rulings: Previous court rulings or FCA regulations in similar cases can also be a factor in compensation awards. Hence, based on the general regulatory atmosphere at the given time, the overall sum given back to clients can vary.

Timeliness is required in the process of compensation. Clients can be compensated quickly if they present their complaints in a timely manner and provide sufficient supporting documents. To ensure a smooth and efficient process, professional services from finance claims experts or legal specialists are recommended since these cases, which often entail negotiation and legal assessments, are complex in nature.

How to Check If You Were Affected

If you were affected by the Close Brothers mis-selling scandal, you may be eligible to file a Close Brothers claim back for compensation. Hence, reviewing your loan contract is important to assess correctly. Here are key indicators to assist you in determining whether you could have been affected:

How to Identify Signs of Mis-selling in Your Loan Agreement

• Uncertain Balloon Payments: If you were informed that the car would be yours free and clear at the end of the contract, only to find out at the end that you would need to pay a hefty balloon payment, then you have been mis-sold a car finance agreement. 
• Interest Rates Higher Than Expected: Check the auto loan interest rate (APR) that your provider gave you. Compare it with the rates advertised or those that were offered by other providers to know whether it was considerably higher than what is suitable for your financial circumstances.
• Unstated Charges or Fees: Were there charges that weren’t stated in your contract, like early repayment penalties or additional fees for exceeding mileage limits? Keep in mind that all charges should always be present during the initial agreement and in your contract, or else it can be considered as mis-selling. 
• Lack of Clarity: You should be able to thoroughly understand what each term means, such as interest rates, commission structure, and other important information. Also, make sure that your dealer explains these terms religiously and that any other fees are revealed early on. Without clarity on the words used and the contract itself, the agreement may be labeled as mis-sold. 

What to Do if You Suspect Hidden Commissions

Before anything else, the first step that you must take is to request a clear and precise explanation regarding your finance deal if ever you feel that the agreement contains exaggerated interest or hidden commission. You may also ask the dealer or broker about any commissions and how this influenced the condition of your loan.

In case the response you got was unsatisfactory, you may refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for a much neutral evaluation and inquiry.

Next Steps for Affected Consumers

It is necessary to take the right steps to find redress if you feel Close Brothers has deceived you about the terms of your car loan agreement.

Filing a Claim for Compensation

1. Contact Close Brothers: Begin by lodging a written formal complaint with Close Brothers and ensure that you attach all the supporting documents that you need. Your finance agreement, communications entered into with the company, and some other evidence demonstrating potential mis-selling might be included. Provide full information of the specific problems for which you have complained.
2. Escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS): You can appeal to the FOS to be reviewed in a just and impartial manner if Close Brothers cannot find an acceptable solution. The FOS will, after hearing your case, render a final decision on compensation on your behalf.

Seeking Professional Advice if Needed

In more complex cases or if you are unsure what to do, a finance claims expert or legal advisor should be contacted. A specialist will walk you through the process of making a claim, describe your rights, and ensure that you receive the money you're entitled to.

FAQs

Do I need my car registration or finance paperwork to claim?

No. Most lenders can locate your agreement from your personal details.

What if my lender has gone out of business?

The FCA’s redress scheme is expected to address claims even where the lender no longer operates.

Will claims be automatic?

The FCA consultation in October 2025 [6] will decide if claims are automatic or require an opt-in.

How much compensation could I get?

It depends on how much extra interest you paid, but average payouts could be around £950.

_________

1. dealers altered auto finance contracts' interest rates based on the secret commission they would earn from Close Brothers - https://www.ft.com/content/9d24f4d5-480a-4d2f-aebc-3d93ab4d7b73
2. Close Brothers Finance has gone ahead to reserve £165M to address the car loan commission scandal and pay compensation to the affected customers - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/feb/12/car-finance-scandal-lender-sets-aside-165m-for-possible-compensation-costs
3. Close Brothers has been instructed to take remedial action to correct the underlying issues in their finance agreements following an FCA investigation - https://www.closemotorfinance.co.uk/customers/help-centre/commission-complaints
4. FCA extends the deadline for motor finance firms in handling commission complaints - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-consult-extending-time-motor-finance-firms-handle-commission-complaints
5. average payouts could reach £950 per eligible agreement - https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/04/who-will-get-car-loan-payout-how-much-regulator
6. FCA consultation scheduled for October 2025 - https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/fca-consult-compensation-scheme-motor-finance-customers