º£½ÇÊÓÆµ

Oops.

Our website is temporarily unavailable in your location.

We are working hard to get it back online.

PRIVACY
Professional Services

Lloyds Banking Group boosts motor finance provisions by £800m, shares rise despite regulatory challenges

The FTSE 100 banking giant - which owns the º£½ÇÊÓÆµ's largest motor finance lender Black Horse - had sent aside £1.2bn in provisions. The extra provision takes the total to just short of £2bn.

Lloyds Bank

Lloyds Banking Group announced on Monday morning that it would set aside an additional £800m for motor finance provisions, following a regulatory redress scheme that fell "at the adverse end of the range of previous expected outcomes."

The FTSE 100 banking giant, which owns Black Horse - the º£½ÇÊÓÆµ's largest motor finance lender, had previously allocated £1.2bn in provisions. This extra provision brings the total to just under £2bn, as reported by .

Despite this, shares in the company rose by over one per cent as markets opened on Monday, reaching 83.85p.

Last Tuesday, the Financial Conduct Authority stated that it anticipates its redress programme will cost up to £11bn and cover 14.2m agreements dating back to 2007.

Following this news on Tuesday, Lloyds' share price surged 3.5 per cent to 86.22p, with many viewing the scheme – falling at the low end of cost expectations – as a positive outcome.

However, analysts have expressed concerns about the "forensic" level of governance expected from lenders throughout the scheme as they strive to demonstrate their deals were not "unfair".

Lloyds explained the increased provision: "Reflects the increased likelihood of a higher number of historical cases, particularly DCA, being eligible for redress, including those dating back to 2007 and also the likelihood of a higher level of redress than anticipated in the previous scenario based provision, reflecting the FCA's proposed redress calculation approach, which is less closely linked to actual customer loss than previously anticipated."

The lender stated the FCA's interpretation of "unfairness" fails to correspond with the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in its August judgment.