Am I owed compensation for mis-sold car finance?

Where the scheme stands

The Financial Conduct Authority confirmed an industry-wide motor finance redress scheme in Policy Statement PS26/3 on 30 March 2026. It covers agreements entered into between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024 where commission arrangements were historically undisclosed or unfair.

On 1 July 2026 the Upper Tribunal partially suspended the scheme. The practical effect of that suspension, while it stands, is narrow and specific:

• Lenders are not required to calculate redress.
• Lenders are not required to pay redress.
• Lenders are not required to send compensation communications.

The Tribunal hearing is listed for 14 to 18 December 2026 or 16 to 26 February 2027. What happens after that is conditional, and the FCA has published both limbs: if the scheme is upheld and the judgment is not appealed, it expects payments under the scheme to begin in 2027; if the scheme is overturned and it consulted on a revised scheme that faced further legal challenge, it says compensation could be delayed until 2028 or beyond. Neither is a date anyone can rely on.

So the answer to the question in the heading of this page is not available to anyone today, including the lender. That is the position as at 9 October 2026 and it is live litigation, so it can change. The FCA publishes the current position itself, and that is the source to check rather than any page, including this one.

What the scheme covers

The scheme is about how motor finance was sold — specifically, commission arrangements between lenders and the brokers and dealers who introduced the business, where those arrangements were not disclosed or were unfair. It is not about the condition, mileage or description of the car.

The FCA estimates that 37% of the agreements made in the 6 April 2007 to 1 November 2024 window are eligible for compensation, which is around 12.1 million agreements. That figure is the eligible subset, not the size of the window — the window itself holds roughly three times as many agreements. Falling inside the dates is therefore not the same as being eligible, and it is the 37% rather than the 12.1 million that carries the meaning.

Two other published figures describe the scheme as a whole. The regulator’s estimate of about £830 is an average across the whole scheme, used together with an assumed claim rate of 75% to size a total cost of roughly £7.5 billion. Both are modelling of the scheme in aggregate. Neither is a per-person figure, neither is an entitlement, and neither can be applied to an individual agreement. Any calculator that multiplies your agreement by an average is producing a guess, not an assessment.

Who assesses an individual case

The lender named on the finance agreement. Under the scheme as confirmed, it is the lender that applies the criteria to its own historical agreements and reaches a determination. A dealer did not run the scheme, and a marketplace has no visibility of anyone’s finance agreement at all. Autoza is not a party to any finance agreement and cannot assess, register or progress a claim.

If you do not know which firm holds the agreement, the credit agreement itself names it, and the FCA Register records which firms are authorised and their status. A complaint about a regulated credit agreement, or about the firm that provided it, goes to that firm first; the Financial Ombudsman Service is the statutory scheme that considers such complaints afterwards. For a complaint that is not about commission, the Ombudsman says you have six months from the date on the firm’s final response, and it usually cannot help after that. For a complaint under the redress scheme, the FCA says to contact the Ombudsman by the date given in your lender’s redress determination letter, or it may not be able to help. How the ombudsman route interacts with the redress scheme while the suspension stands is a matter for the FCA’s own current guidance rather than for this page.

The dates that are still running

The suspension did not stop everything. Dates still run for telling a complainant they are not owed compensation, because they are expectations on firms rather than deadlines for a consumer to act — and each one reaches a bounded group rather than everyone holding an agreement of that age. The FCA’s wording is that your lender should tell you by these dates.

• 18 November 2026 — if your agreement began on or after 1 April 2014 and you complained by 30 June 2026.
• 18 January 2027 — if your agreement began before 1 April 2014 and you complained by 31 August 2026.
• Complained after those cut-offs? Then the response is due within five months of the lender receiving the complaint, not on either fixed date.

Two exceptions disapply the dates altogether: where the lender considers the complaint was out of time when the scheme was made, and where the complaint is about a contractual tie and the lender says no compensation is owed because there were visible links between the lender, the manufacturer and the franchised dealer. Both are themselves part of what the Tribunal is being asked to decide.

The consequence matters more than the dates do, and the FCA states it plainly: if you do not hear from your lender by one of these dates, that does not mean you are owed compensation. It may mean an exception applies, that you complained outside the relevant cut-off, or simply that the lender is late.

A determination that no compensation is owed can therefore still arrive during the suspension. A payment cannot, because calculating and paying redress is the part that is suspended.

What the regulator has said about claims management companies

The FCA has said there is no need to use a claims management company, and that using one could cost over 30% of any payout. Complaining directly to the lender named on the agreement is free.

While the suspension stands, any statement that money is payable now is not correct.

Matters this is often confused with

Three separate things get folded into the same question. They have different legal bases, different decision-makers and different timescales.

• A fault with the car. That is the Consumer Rights Act 2015: a 30-day short-term right to reject, and a presumption that a fault appearing within six months of delivery was present at delivery — section 19(14) attaches that presumption to repair or replacement, price reduction and the final right to reject, not to the 30-day right. Note that section 24(10) of that Act makes motor vehicles an exception to the usual bar on deducting for use inside the first six months. On hire purchase or PCP, section 20(14) limits any refund to the part of the price actually paid — deposit plus instalments — rather than the price of the car.
• Section 75. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 attaches to a cash price of more than £100 and no more than £30,000, and does not reach dealer-arranged hire purchase or PCP, because the finance company is itself the supplier. Above £30,000, section 75A can give a narrower claim against the lender for the dealer’s breach of contract (it does not mention misrepresentation) under a “linked credit agreement” for credit of £60,260 or less, if the dealer cannot be traced, has not responded, is insolvent or the buyer has taken reasonable steps without getting satisfaction; our answer on section 75 sets out the conditions.
• Voluntary termination. A separate statutory right under sections 99 and 100 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to end a regulated hire purchase or PCP agreement early. It is about ending an agreement you hold now, not about how it was sold.

The same in every part of the UK

The Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and FCA regulation are United Kingdom-wide. Nothing on this page is limited to Great Britain in the way an MOT fee, the first-MOT age or a clean air zone is, and the redress scheme reaches agreements sold in Northern Ireland on the same terms as those sold in England, Scotland and Wales. What differs between those jurisdictions is the court and procedure that would apply if a dispute ever got that far.

How to check the current position

Two places, in this order: the lender named on your finance agreement, which is the firm that assesses eligibility and holds the records; and fca.org.uk, which publishes the scheme documents and the current consumer position. Because this is live litigation, a date on any third-party page — including the 9 October 2026 date on this one — tells you when it was checked, not that it is still current.