The chancellor’s intervention in the engine finance scandal is rejected by the Supreme Court – Magazine of the Car Concessionaire

The intervention proposed by the Chancellor in the engine finance scandal has failed after the treasure commitment to give evidence to the Supreme Court was rejected.

The car concessionaire reported in January that Rachel Reeves had written to court In an effort to protect the broader economy of the United Kingdom from the consequence of the current scandal.

In the presentation, the Treasury argued that it should be allowed to provide evidence in the next appeal of the nearby brothers against last year Landmark Court of Appeals Court.

The Foreign Minister argued that the decision had “the potential to cause considerable economic damage and could affect the availability and cost of motor finance for consumers.”

The application added that the case could “generate a perception that regulation in the United Kingdom is uncertain” with the treasure asking that “any remedy is proportional to the loss that the consumer really suffered and avoids conferring an unexpected gain.”

The intervention was recently Welcome to Lloyds Banking Chief Group But it does not seem to have impressed the Supreme Court.

The judges have now rejected the request, which means that the treasure will not be able to give evidence to the crucial hearing.

The news has already had a great impact on the prices of the actions of the lenders, with values ​​that collapse immediately after the decision.

Close Brothers and Lloyds experienced falls of 8.5% and 3.5% respectively yesterday (Monday) in the afternoon.

The result of the decision of the Supreme Court is that the FCA is now the only third that can make presentations in the case.

The control agency has previously argued that if the appeal fails, it could have the potential to ‘destabilize’ the banking industry in the United Kingdom.

Since it was installed in the highest court in the United Kingdom in 2009, official bodies, such as Treasury and FCA, have been requested to intervene in cases.

In response to the last decision, a government spokesman said: “We respect the Court’s decision not to grant our application to intervene in the Hopcraft case and monitor it closely.”

‘Consumers deserve responsibility’

The news that the treasure will not be allowed to intervene in the case has been held by consumer groups, who have described it as “welcome news.”

The legal firm Slater & Gordon represents hundreds of clients, who say they owe ‘responsibility and repair’.

Elizabeth Comley, director of group actions on the team, said: “It is welcome to hear that the Supreme Court has decided that the Foreign Minister of the Treasury will not be able to intervene in saving the financial institutions that locked consumers in agreements that were not any. Transparent Nor fair.

‘The consumers we represent deserve responsibility and repair when they have been harmed and it is crucial that there is a clear separation of powers in matters of this magnitude.

“The recent decision of the Supreme Court that the Government cannot be included as a party interested in the unusable car financing hearing underlines the need for decisions to be made independently and transparently, without political influence.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uboiyzkraq