meta_id 3417245

On August 19, 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published feedback on motor finance redress scheme implementation plans, providing examples of good and poor practices, to help firms strengthen their delivery of the scheme. The motor finance redress scheme is currently partially suspended, but firms must comply with all rules which are not suspended . The FCA's review covered the following: 1. Operational Readiness Good Practice: Firms clearly show how their plans will work in practice. They provide detailed maps of the customer journey, operational workflows, decision points, controls, and escalation routes. They pay close attention to hand-offs, which is where delivery risk often arises. If using third parties, firms explicitly define the third party's practical role, how they will be overseen, and have strong contingency plans in case systems or data are incomplete or delayed. Poor Practice: Firms submit generic, high-level plans lacking specific detail on delivery. They rely heavily on third parties without clearly defining oversight controls or preparing contingency plans for late or missing data. 2. Population Identification Good Practice: Firms use an evidence-based approach to identify the affected consumer population. They actively test their assumptions and have clear, controlled methods for managing any limitations or gaps in their historic data. Poor Practice: Firms rely on untested assumptions to determine who is or isn't in scope for redress, and they fail to show how they will manage missing or degraded historical records, risking eligible consumers being left out. 3. The Approach to Group-Based Decision Making Good Practice: Firms effectively use group-based decision making to support fair, consistent, and timely outcomes. They are explicitly clear about which parts of the scheme are automated and which rely on human judgement. They demonstrate exactly how these group decisions will be made, recorded, quality-assured, and escalated when necessary. Poor Practice: Firms are ambiguous about the line between automated processes and manual human judgement. They fail to keep clear records of how group decisions are made, making it difficult to prove that consumers in those groups were treated fairly. 4. Redress Calculation and Payment Good Practice: Firms have robust systems to check calculations and control any manual data entry. They also proactively explain their controls for managing payment risks, specifically how they will prevent fraud, incorrect payment amounts, and duplicate payments. Poor Practice: Firms lack sufficient checks over manual calculation work and fail to put strong anti-fraud or error-catching controls in place ahead of the payout phase. 5. Quality Assurance and Oversight Good Practice: Firms have clear plans to test the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of their decisions and outcomes. Crucially, they have processes set out to promptly identify and address the root causes of any issues that arise. Poor Practice: Firms treat quality assurance reactively rather than proactively, addressing individual errors as they happen without investigating or fixing the underlying root causes in their systems. 6. Multiple Representative Issues Good Practice: Firms promptly identify cases where a customer has multiple representatives (such as claims management companies) acting on their behalf. If it is unclear who has the authority to act, the firm proactively works with the customer and the representatives to resolve the issue promptly, ensuring fair consumer outcomes and adhering to the FCA's prior guidance on the matter. Poor Practice: Firms fail to identify duplicate claims quickly, do not engage promptly to resolve disputes over who legally represents the customer, or allow these administrative issues to unnecessarily delay the consumer's redress.