For several months now, the FCA has been publicly reassuring motorists that they will not need solicitors to pursue compensation under its proposed motor finance commission redress scheme. BBC Radio 4, Which?, and Martin Lewis have echoed that sentiment, and in some cases criticised law firms for offering No Win No Fee representation.
From our perspective, that message is not only premature but risks leaving consumers at a real disadvantage.
A leading King’s Counsel involved in this area of law has now confirmed what many practitioners already suspected: the redress model is highly complex, riddled with practical and legal difficulties, and almost certain to face a Judicial Review. This is not a straightforward compensation process.
Who Is Jonathan Kirk KC, and Why Should Consumers Listen to Him?
Jonathan Kirk KC is one of the foremost legal authorities in consumer credit and financial services regulation. Based at Gough Square Chambers, a premier set specialising in consumer finance, he is routinely instructed in high-value, technically complex regulatory disputes.
Critically, he was involved in the landmark Supreme Court motor finance commissions case — the very decision that forced the FCA to consider a mass-redress approach in the first place. His perspective is not academic commentary; it comes from someone who helped shape the current legal environment.
So when he raises concerns, they deserve serious attention.
“I would be absolutely astonished…” — The KC’s Warning
Jonathan Kirk KC does not mince his words:
“I would be absolutely astonished ift here was not a judicial review of this scheme in the current form that it is.”
“There are so many practical difficulties… The calculation of this is supposed to be compensatory. It’s so complex and doesn’t have any kind of rational basis that I think it’s inevitable.”
This is not a small procedural quibble. It is a KC saying the fundamental design of the scheme is legally indefensible.
The Advantage to using Lawyers
Whilst we understand there is a fee and you can do this yourself, for free.
The FCA’s public stance is that the scheme will be simple, guided, and consumer friendly. But Kirk KC’s remarks point in the opposite direction:
“There are so many practical difficulties.”
“It’s so complex… [the scheme] doesn’t have any kind of rational basis.”
Even the FCA has had to extend its consultation window because stakeholders — including lenders — said they needed significantly more time to understand the underlying calculations and data assumptions.
If lenders, trade bodies, and specialist barristers are struggling to interpret the model, it is unrealistic to expect the average motorist to submit a correct claim, challenge an unfair outcome, or protect their position if the rules shift mid-process
Lenders Are Not Preparing to Pay —They’re Preparing to Fight
Despite the FCA’s reassurance that consumers can manage without legal support, the lenders’ stance is telling a very different story.
Kirk KC notes:
“I know that the lenders are gearing up.”
“All the soundings we’re getting is that there is a lot of pressure being placed on the FCA, and that this is a bit of a cock-up really.”
This is clear evidence of resistance. Lenders are assembling legal teams, challenging the FCA’s methodology, and preparing for litigation and procedural delays.
A Judicial Review Could Freeze or Rewrite the Scheme
A Judicial Review would not simply be a headline — it would have practical consequences for every affected consumer.
As Kirk KC explains:
“With any judicial review, you’ve got to bring it promptly, and in any event within three months.”
“The FCA have responded to all of the court litigation by deferring and delaying… I would anticipate they would delay.”
Should a challenge be issued, the scheme could be paused, rules may be amended after claims have already been submitted, compensation levels could be reduced or recalculated, and cases may stall for months, possibly well into 2026.
Even Industry Bodies Are Saying the Methodology Is Flawed
This is not just a dispute between the FCA and lenders. Trade organisations are raising their own concerns.
Paul Bentley of the NFDA has said:
“We’ve gone back and asked for another [extension] with the sole purpose of trying to point out that the methodology is flawed.”
If the organisations who stand to be held liable question the core methodology of the scheme, they will inevitably pushback wherever possible. That is not a process a consumer should walk into unrepresented.
Conclusion: This Is Exactly the Type of Situation Where Specialist Legal Representation Helps
The FCA’s narrative is that consumers can proceed alone. The evidence from barristers, lenders, trade bodies, and the consultation process itself strongly suggests otherwise.
The scheme is complex. Key calculations are disputed. Industry resistance is intensifying. And a Judicial Review is more likely than not.
As Jonathan Kirk KC summarises:
“I would be absolutely astonished if there was not a judicial review… It’s so complex… I think it’s inevitable.”
In this environment, firms such as Complex Law LTD play a crucial role. Our job is to ensure that consumers are not marginalised, misinformed, or disadvantaged in a process that is shaping up to be one of the most significant and contentious financial redress exercises in recent years.
Motorists deserve clarity. They deserve proper representation. And they deserve a fair outcome — not just the FCA’s reassurance.
.svg)
