Rachel Reeves considers overruling supreme court in £44bn car finance scandal

manic111 said:
I've had a quick skim of the key parts of the judgment (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0157_0158_0159_judgment_2bb00f4f49.pdf). Paras 267-290 are interesting, and are the basis for the rejections of the majority of claims.

In short, the SC held that it was true that the consumer placed some trust in the dealer, but no more than in a shop assistant or waiter. Those are also people who are selling as part of their service, and most people would agree that in usual circumstances, a shopkeeper would not have a duty to get the best deal for the customer. A customer is entitled to shop around, as is someone taking a car on finance. That seems like a pretty reasonable analogy to me.
Click to expand...

There's a difference, financial products can be confusing for some. Going for dinner or getting food products from a shop is not the same as taking out financial products that will keep you locked for years and can cause you serious future problems.
 
Last edited:
Tram said:
There's a difference, financial products can be confusing for some. Going for dinner or getting food products from a shop is not the same as taking out financial products that will keep you locked for years and can cause you serious future problems.
Click to expand...

Surely there's also the aspect that getting credit checked has a negative impact on your ability to get further credit - I'm not sure if this applies in this case, would the customer be offered the rate by the lender before the full check?

Otherwise the grocery analogy would be more like Sainsbury's putting the price of your loaf of bread up (or even outright refusing to sell you one) just because you looked in Tesco first
 
Last edited:
Haggisman said:
Surely there's also the aspect that getting credit checked has a negative impact on your ability to get further credit - I'm not sure if this applies in this case, would the customer be offered the rate by the lender before the full check?

Otherwise the grocery analogy would be more like Sainsbury's putting the price of your loaf of bread up (or even outright refusing to sell you one) just because you looked in Tesco first
Click to expand...

Big difference in both, price of bread will not impact your financial credit, does not lock you in and its recoverable because it is a low amount, it is a one off small payment.

Taking out credit is a long term agreement and locks you in with a much larger payment every month.

If you lose £1 and you lose £10k what will impact you the most? What are long term repercussions for you. I believe the banks were let off, both the dealer and the banks had a responsibility to be open they were not.

If you give someone an incentive they will do their best to sell you the product that gives them the best commission. And you as the person who is purchasing needs to know about this, if you don't then you really can't make proper choice, this causes information asymmetry.

I feel the judges lacked the understanding of information asymmetry when making a choice as a buyer.

The two versions give can't be compared.

The consumer was ripped off, the government or HM treasury should not have signal their outcome they would have liked.
 
Last edited:
Tram said:
I feel the judges lacked the understanding of information asymmetry when making a choice as a buyer.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear - Supreme Court Judges lack understanding.... That's your take away from this.

Lord Reed experience and understanding of the law sounds really poor when you look at his career.... :cry: :cry:

Robert John Reed, Lord Reed of Allermuir took up appointment as President of the Supreme Court on 13 January 2020, succeeding Lady Hale of Richmond. Upon this appointment, Lord Reed became a life peer.

Prior to his appointment as President, Lord Reed previously served as Deputy President of the Supreme Court from 7 June 2018 and was originally appointed as a Justice on 6 February 2012.

He studied law at Edinburgh University and undertook doctoral research in law at the University of Oxford. He qualified as an advocate in Scotland and as a barrister in England. He practised at the Scottish Bar in a wide range of civil cases, and also prosecuted serious crime.

He served as a senior judge in Scotland for 13 years. From 2008 to 2012 he was a member of the Inner House of the Court of Session, and from 1998 to 2008 a member of the Outer House of the Court of Session, where he was the Principal Commercial Judge.

As well as sitting on the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he is also a member of the panel of ad hoc judges of the European Court of Human Rights. Lord Reed is also the High Steward of Oxford University.
Click to expand...
 
booyaka said:
So just to be clear - Supreme Court Judges lack understanding.... That's your take away from this.

Lord Reed experience and understanding of the law sounds really poor when you look at his career.... :cry: :cry:
Click to expand...

It does not matter what education he has, just because you highlight his education does not mean he wasn't indirectly influenced and used that education to his advantage.

I have met some really knowledgeable people that have never been to university, and I have met PhDs that well were not that great compared self-taught individuals.
 
Last edited:
Tram said:
It does not matter what education he has, just because you highlight his education does not mean he wasn't indirectly influenced and used that education to his advantage.

I have met some really knowledgeable people that have never been to university, and I have met PhDs that well were not that great compared self-taught individuals.
Click to expand...

So your now suggesting that Supreme Court Judges have been influenced into making a decision...

Ok - Sure.....

b0rn2sk8 said:
Tram, what you are arguing is effectivly a conspiracy theory because you dont like the decision of the judges.
Click to expand...

100% this - he's just making things up as per most of his posts across the forums....
 
booyaka said:
So your now suggesting that Supreme Court Judges have been influenced into making a decision...

Ok - Sure.....



100% this - he's just making things up as per most of his posts across the forums....
Click to expand...

You hold too much trust with those in power. you believe what you want, that is your choice. If you believe it was fair that is your right, I believe the outcome was not the right one.
 
Last edited:
b0rn2sk8 said:
Again what you have stated is a conspiracy theory - you literally have no evidence to back up your belief.
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have they were not signaled by the govenrment?
One thing I do know the Briiish government has a long history of distraction and denial. There is plenty of evidence of distraction and denial.
 
Last edited:
Tram said:
What evidence do you have they were not signaled by the govenrment?
One thing I do know the Briiish government has a long history of distraction and denial. There is plenty of evidence of distraction and denial.
Click to expand...
That’s not how that works, you made the claim, it’s your responsibility to provide the receipts not the other way round.

We all know you don’t have any because you made it up.

You also need to make your mind up, is it the government who has been influenced or is it the judiciary because they are not the same thing.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
That’s not how that works, you made the claim, it’s your responsibility to provide the receipts not the other way round.

We all know you don’t have any because you made it up.

You also need to make your mind up, is it the government who has been influenced or is it the judiciary because they are not the same thing
Click to expand...
Both have been and possibly for different reasons. As I said there is plenty of evidence of distraction and denial.
Bob Boothby, Jeremy Thorpe, Peter Mandelson ( British passport to indian billionare etc...) the list goes on, it even covers whole industries.
 
Last edited:
Telling the consumer about the referral fee exposes the commercial relationship between the service provider and introducer. to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest. This is set out for most industries and should be applied in all industry.
 
Wondering if my CBG shares are going to explode on Monday?
Did the news come out before or after markets closed?
 
Last edited:
darkgen said:
Precisely. Hope the judgement goes the right way and hits the commercial entities, where malfeasance has been identified. The UK Gov should bore off and focus on trying not to waste and defraud taxpayer money.
Click to expand...


They are tho

They're protecting us from any 18+ content on the internet instead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom