Stellantis’s UK finance arm booked a £69.4 million profit in 2024. A year later it booked a £69.3 million loss instead.
The swing came from one line in its accounts. Stellantis Financial Services UK Limited, the Redhill-based lender formerly known as PSA Finance UK, raised its motor finance redress provision from £37.1 million to £221.3 million across 2025, a six-fold rise in twelve months, according to accounts filed at Companies House and reported by Business Money.
That one lender’s number sits inside a much larger pool. The FCA expects the industry to pay £7.5 billion in compensation plus £1.6 billion in running costs across 12.1 million motor finance agreements written between 2007 and 2024, the same filing shows. Stellantis is one captive lender among dozens carrying this exposure on their books, which makes its six-fold jump a useful marker for how the rest of the sector may be moving too.
Three lenders are fighting to shrink that pool at the Upper Tribunal. Volkswagen Financial Services calls the scheme’s interest rate cuts a disproportionate interference with its property rights. Mercedes-Benz Financial Services says the regulator exceeded its legal authority, according to Mortgage Professional America.
Crédit Agricole Auto Finance says the redress formula has no rational connection to any loss. A separate campaign group, Consumer Voice, is arguing the opposite case, that the FCA formula is too generous to lenders, not too harsh.
A case management hearing in early October decided how much expert evidence the tribunal will allow on those arguments. The final hearing is now provisionally booked for five days from 14 December 2026, or nine days from 16 February 2027 if the evidential fight runs longer, per analysis from CMS. Judgment is not expected until some weeks after that.
Hold those two facts together.
Stellantis increased its provision six-fold before the tribunal has ruled on whether the FCA’s methodology survives at all. Every other lender in the scheme is making the same bet, in the dark, at the same time, and none of them can yet say if the number they have booked is too big, too small, or roughly right. A provision line that moves this much in one annual filing is not a rounding adjustment, it is a balance sheet repricing a legal risk nobody has priced correctly yet.
It is the position of a tenant and landlord paying disputed deposit money into an escrow account. Nobody spends it while the argument runs, but both sides still have to show it on their books as if the argument might go against them.
A provision is only ever a guess dressed as a number. Stellantis’s guess got six times bigger in a year, and the tribunal that will tell it whether that guess was even the right shape does not report back until 2027 at the earliest. For anyone holding or pricing lender risk in this sector, the gap between the number a lender has booked and the number a tribunal eventually rules correct is the trade, and it will not close quietly.
Sources: Business Money; Mortgage Professional America; CMS.