Company: LLOBF
Filing Date: 2025-08-04
Form Type: 6-K
Source: 0001654954-25-008903
Chunk: 0

Company: Lloyds Banking Group plc
Filing Date: 2025-08-04
Form: 6-K
Chunk 0
---
### SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

#### Washington, D.C.20549

#### FORM 6-K

#### Report of Foreign Private Issuer

#### Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16a

#### of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
<div align='center'>04 August 2025</div>

#### LLOYDS BANKING GROUP plc
<div align='center'>(Translation of registrant's name into English)</div>

#### 5th Floor

#### 25 Gresham Street

#### London

#### EC2V 7HN

#### United Kingdom
<div align='center'>(Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports

under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

Form 20-F..X.. Form 40-F

Index to Exhibits</div>

Item

No. 1 Regulatory News Service Announcement, 04 August 2025

re: Motor Finance Update

#### 4 August 2025

### MOTOR FINANCE UPDATE
Further to the Supreme Court's judgment on the appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision in Wrench, Johnson and Hopcraft, which was handed down last Friday (1 August 2025), the Group has undertaken an initial assessment of the impact of the judgment.

The judgment overturned the Court of Appeal's decision in relation to fiduciary duties and bribery by determining that motor dealers acting as credit brokers do not owe fiduciary duties to their customers and that the payment of commission in this context could not constitute a bribe. In one of the cases before it (Johnson), the Supreme Court considered whether an unfair relationship had arisen between the lender and the borrower for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Supreme Court confirmed that the test for unfairness was highly fact-sensitive and required consideration of all relevant matters. It determined that there was unfairness in the case of Mr Johnson and awarded a refund of the commission paid plus interest at a commercial rate to remedy that unfairness.

As previously stated, in establishing the existing provision the Group created a range of scenarios to address uncertainties around a number of key assumptions. These included a range of potential Supreme Court outcomes, regulatory responses and outcomes in relation to redress. Whilst the judgment announced on 1 August provides additional clarity, there remain a number of uncertainties that the Group continues to consider in its approach to provisioning. The Group's approach therefore continues to include the assessment