Financial Mis-selling — No Win No Fee
Financial mis-selling claims arise when financial products are sold inappropriately or without proper disclosure. Common claims include PPI (historical), SIPP pension mis-selling, and car finance commission non-disclosure — an area of law currently under active development.
What Are Car Finance Commission Claims?
Direct Answer: Car finance commission claims (DCAs) arise when dealers received secret commissions from lenders without disclosing them to borrowers. The Court of Appeal ruled in 2024 that these undisclosed commissions were unlawful. Claims for PPI, SIPP pensions, and car finance can be brought on a no win no fee basis.
This is a rapidly developing area of law. In January 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd (t/a Motonovo Finance) and related cases that motor dealers acting as credit brokers owed fiduciary duties to consumers and could not receive commission from lenders without the consumer's fully informed consent. The FCA paused its review to await the Supreme Court's decision on the lenders' appeal, heard in April 2025.
Note: This is an ongoing and rapidly evolving area. The legal position may change following the Supreme Court's judgment. Consumers should seek up-to-date legal advice.
What Is SIPP Pension Mis-selling?
SIPP pension claims typically involve consumers who were advised by an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) to transfer their defined benefit (final salary) pension into a Self-Invested Personal Pension (SIPP), often invested in high-risk, unregulated investments such as overseas property, storage pods, or carbon credits. Where the advice was unsuitable, the IFA's professional indemnity insurer or the FSCS may compensate the loss.
What Are the Available Redress Routes?
- Direct complaint — to the firm that sold or advised on the product
- Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) — independent adjudication for complaints against regulated firms (awards up to £430,000)
- FSCS — compensation of up to £85,000 if the firm is insolvent or no longer authorised
- Court proceedings — civil claims on CFA or DBA for larger or more complex cases
Frequently Asked Questions
You May Also Be Interested In
Where this applies: This page covers England and Wales. The rules in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.
Sources for this page
Every rule stated above is based on the primary sources below. Each link goes to the legislation, court rule or regulator itself so you can check it. Last verified 2 August 2026.
- Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58 (conditional fee agreements)
The provision that makes CFAs lawful and enforceable. CFAs derive from this section, not from LASPO.
- Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, arts. 4–5 · in force from 1 April 2013
Art. 4 caps the success fee at 100% of base costs. Art. 5 caps what may be taken from damages in personal injury at 25% of PSLA plus past pecuniary loss, net of CRU, at first instance.
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 44 (incl. rr.44.13–44.17, QOCS)
Qualified one-way costs shifting and its exceptions. Rule 44.14 was amended with effect from 6 April 2023.
Who wrote and checked this page
- Written and published by
- Edward & Amaury Solicitors (Edward & Amaury Ltd, company no. 12195443), regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under no. 800525.
- Legal review
- Checked for England & Wales by Edward & Amaury Solicitors — Solicitors regulated by the SRA (no. 800525) (verify on the regulator’s register).Review is recorded against the firm. The individual reviewer is not named on this page.
- Review dates
- Last reviewed 2 August 2026. Next review due 2 February 2027.
Fee rules change. California’s medical malpractice fee limits changed on 1 January 2023, and the QOCS rules in England and Wales changed on 6 April 2023. If you spot something out of date, tell us — we publish corrections.