14 million to get mis-sold car finance compensation!

26:11If the data had shown me that virtually everybody who got in touch with Toyota had got a response, I would be saying the anomaly is with you and you probably need to do anything. So having done a little bit of checking, I think it's probably just get a little bit frustrated that you haven't heard anything, but you're probably fine. Hannah sent the initial complaint, has a complaint reference number with the company. Does she need to do anything else or will she just automatically be receiving the compensation? Assuming she was missold, She will be contacted at some point in early 2026, maybe March, April, May, as I've said, and they will then say, we are going to pay, we plan to pay you this amount of compensation.

26:50If you want to do that, you don't have to do anything, but if you don't want to be withdrawn from that, you will need to opt out now. So no, she doesn't need to do anything more. Okay. Let's say, hypothetically, somebody who looked and sounded exactly like me bought a car in January 2024 on PCP. Handsome chap. Not particularly. OK. No. From the West Midlands? We're looking quite unpleasant from some ankles. OK. Anyway. Yes, it was me. So how would I know? All I remember is signing about 200 different pieces. January 2024. That is when the car was registered, yeah. OK. So let's just, good, because that's quite useful to explain the dates.

27:27There are three different dates that are relevant here. You've got April 2007, which is the furthest that you can go back. You've got November 2024, which is the most recent you can go to. And you've got January 2021, which is when discretionary commission arrangements were banned. So you did not have a discretionary commission arrangement. So that's one of the three categories of misselling gone. You may have been contractually tied. In other words, they may have told you we're getting from a whole group of lenders, but really only go to one lender. You may have had unfairly high commission. How do you know?

28:03You don't. That's the whole point is this is all about undisclosed misselling. If you were told, you weren't missold. So if you weren't told, the only way to find out is to say, were you contractually tied when you sold me? But what does told mean? Because I was signed hundreds of pieces of paper. Is it in your documentation? Did they tell you? You couldn't possibly read through the document. No, but let's just go back. Again, stop trying to make it too difficult. If you remember, I initially came and said there are two routes. There's the court route, the difficult route. Then there's the easy, simple route.

28:40The easy, simple route is that these firms, effectively, the regulator is saying you have to behave in a certain prescribed way. And I say there is some compromise in my view to this. And I said the other day when I was being interviewed about what's going on, I want these firms to accept this and not fight this by judicial review. If they accept it and not fight it by judicial review, certainly I, and I can't speak for other consumer groups, certainly I will accept it and suggest people use this route. If they go militant and try and fight it, then I might start saying people need to go to court, which they will not want.

29:12So the reason I'm making that point is under this system, you don't need to go back through that paperwork. The companies have to go through their paperwork and documentation about what was done and what was not done. You ask, was I contractually tied? How much was my commission? Is it over the unfair commission barrier? You write them a letter and you ask them that. That's what you need to do. And that is why we have a regulatory redress scheme, because there is clearly a misbalance of power between Joe Bloggs or Adrian Charles buying a car and huge car finance firms with 30 pages of legalese that nobody understands.

29:52That's why you have a regulatory redress scheme when what was happening is there was a sneaky way of misselling by the way that they were operating over the years. OK, Hayley, what happens if you already put your claim in via a third party? They're taking a percentage, so would the 700 go via them? OK, this is a big question, and this is one that we are planning to do some more work on. Many people went via claims firms. If you're going to go the court route, I can see why you would do that. But as I have been warning for at least a year, we were likely to see a simple system put in by the regulator that does not need you to be paying anybody to do it for you.

30:27So we're now in a very interesting position that we have quite a lot of people because of the huge amount of marketing and advertising that went through claims management companies. We had a warning put out by all the regulators who cover those claims management companies and law firms the other day about misleading claims that may have been put in by those firms. And effectively, what's being said is some of the firms say you must have an exit fee. If you decide to opt out and not go through the firm, then you pay an exit fee. One of the big problems with that is those exit fees are often payable immediately.

30:59So if you contacted the firm now and say, actually, I don't want you to do this for me. I'm going to opt out. I'm going to do it myself so I don't have to give you the commission because it's easy. Well, you may have to pay them an exit fee now under the contract that you signed with them. What the regulator is saying is you should not pay, you should only be paying for work that has been done. So if they're not going to be doing very much work for you, they shouldn't be charging you the full fee. When we ask them how much you should be charging or exactly how this works, we get, we're not there yet.

31:27And so my answer is going to mirror it to an extent. Over the next few weeks, we are going to be working on what the situation is for people who've signed up to claims management firms and the claims management firm is not going to be doing anything for them. But it is currently a vague and a grey area and claims management firms by definition are litigious firms because that is what they do and this needs to be worked out. I think certainly you did sign up to them. If they're going to charge you an exit fee, if that's fair and reasonable because they probably have done some work already, then you're going to have to pay it and you're going to have to work out which adds up best for you and if they have done work for you, you're going to have to pay them within what was contracted for the work that they have done, but they may not have done much work for you as it's all been on hold for a while.

32:09So we're in a grey area on that one at the moment, and it's something that we will be doing more work on, and we will be pushing both the... I mean, if you wanted to complain to the firm, by the way, just so everybody knows, if you do complain to the firm and you don't like what you get, then you have a right, if it's a claims management firm under most circumstances, to go to the claims management ombudsman, which is part of the financial ombudsman. But if it's legally regulated under the solicitor's regulatory authority, then you go to the legal ombudsman. So you have to find out which type of firm it is too, because there's two different regulatory processes for claims management firms.

32:40Okay. Lauren and Jimmy in County Tyrone have the same question. What if you've changed address? And I can't remember, Lauren said, I can't remember if the template letter included this information. It will have included your address and you should have put in your new address if you haven't. But that's very simple. Let's not get in touch with the firm that you've complained to, especially if they've had a reply and just update them to your new address. Say, by the way, my new address for correspondence is X. Well, I don't say it's X because obviously it will just, you know, it'll probably send it to Elon Musk.

33:08But, you know, put down what your new address is. Let's not make that too difficult. Ryan says, what if I can't remember? So within the window, I've had a title of six cars on HP or PCP. I think I've submitted a letter to once, at least once to one of them. How can I check this or should I just resend a letter to all? Or should I, and also should I send three letters to all to ask about the three types? You don't need to ask about that. If you have complained about one type, they have to consider all three types. So you don't need to do any more. So let's write that one off. If you don't know if you've complained, well, it's very tough to know what to say other than, well, if you're not sure, you might want to put a complaint letter into all of them.

33:47If you're telling me you don't remember who your agreement with is, that is a different matter. Again, let's just go back to the process, two-step process. One for people who've complained, you'll get an opt-out. One for people who haven't complained, but the firms have discovered that you were missold, you will be contacted anyway. So the cost of not complaining isn't huge. I think it slows things down. It's a bit more bureaucratic and they might not have your current address. So you're better off to complain, but it's not a huge amount. OK. Simon says, I put in a claim when you first highlighted this using your form.

34:22VW Finance came back and said I wasn't eligible. Does this change at all with this recent ruling? That's the bit I don't understand. I mean, you might say, well, no disrespect to VW or anybody else, but if they come back and say you're not eligible, well, you would say that, wouldn't you? Well, no, because what they asked, what the letter asked is, did I have a discretionary commission arrangement? Right. So there were two types of firms. There were firms that didn't do discretionary commission arrangements at all and firms that did sometimes do discretionary commission arrangements. So VW Finance was one of those that sometimes did it.

34:54So if you've complained to them, They've said you haven't got a discretionary commission arrangement. One would hope that the regulator is absolutely on top of this and will be spot checking that there will be veracity in the information. But now it means you still may have been missold via a contractual tie or unfairly high commission. But the fact that you have put a complaint in means you have put a complaint in and therefore they will have to investigate those and you will be in the contracted out letter, i.e. where they'll just tell you if you're being missold and you don't have to do anything.

35:26So you will be in that category, which it works that way. What if the company used for your finance is no longer in business? I have two agreements. Santander has confirmed a DCA on and this other one from 2007. I'm sorry, is the answer. You cannot be part of the regulatory process for a firm that has gone bust. So if the car finance firm is bust, you are not going to be paid out via the regulatory process. Now, maybe arguably, if there were liquidators to that firm and you would be a creditor of that firm, and you were to take the liquidators to court that you were owed the money on the back of it, you might get some money on the back, but you still can't go via the liquidation process via the FCA.

36:07The FCA redress scheme is only for firms that are still trading now. If another firm has taken over that old company's liabilities, you may be able to. But basically, for most people, if you want a simple and easy life, if the firm you got your car finance with has gone bust. You're not getting anything. Being straight. OK. And Gareth says, my dad took finance out on a car in 2010, but has passed away. Can his mum still make a claim? Yes. So you are still eligible. The person who is the primary beneficiary of the estate is eligible and the firm should be contacted by the executor of the estate or the primary beneficiary of the estate with proof of who the primary beneficiary is.

36:51in order for that claim to be pursued. I would say in those circumstances, I would strongly push you to put a claim in because clearly it gets much more difficult. Let's just, while we're on this, let's just talk old car finance because you said 2010. This is really interesting and difficult and complicated. So clearly, if you've got a car in the last six or seven years, you've got all the details. Even if you paid it off, credit reference agencies keep details of active lending for the last six years. So active lending for the last six years means even if six years ago was your last payment month for a car finance, you got out five years before that, it'll still be on the credit reference file.

37:36You've got data. You hopefully have documentation and you've kept documentation. It's fine. And the firms themselves are being told to turn over every stone to find out all the details of who had these car finance agreements and check them. And I'm hearing, and I haven't got this confirmed, there is access to credit reference agencies of more than six years data that the firms will be able to access. But I haven't stamped that yet. So I may be wrong on that. We're looking at whether that's possible. So the firms will need to identify. But let's be really blunt. If we start going back to 2007, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, you know, you're talking 13 years ago.

38:14It's much more difficult. And there is a high plausibility that even if you had a car finance deal, the firm will not know that now because they do destroy records and they are often encouraged through data protection to destroy records. So what happens in those circumstances? In those circumstances, you, the best thing to do is you have to find some evidence that you had car finance with them at that time. Now, that evidence could be an old credit reference file of yours. It could be an old bank statement that shows you were paying them, even better if you had the original agreements. It's interesting because when we talk about how long you keep documents for, the standard advice is you keep your statements for six years.

38:53I wrote a blog 10 years ago saying, I disagree with that. I would keep records of every agreement you've got because we don't know what the next PPI will be. and here it is and you should keep those documents keep them on your computer in a file just have them somewhere that you could go back and search them and that's future-proofing advice by the way now for everything else that's out there I'm not saying you need to keep every bank statement but every loan and agreement you sign up try and keep a record of it now if you have any data going back to that time then I would make a complaint even with the scarcity of data this was the registration number and I know I bought it through your firm what the regulator will likely do not confirmed yet is even if there's scant details, it will look, and it did this in PPI and say, were people who were getting the type of loans that you were getting at that time in the same circumstances systemically being missold in this way?

39:46If they were, then we will assume that you were missold in that way. If they weren't, we will assume you weren't missold in that way. So even scant details from the early period may be enough to get the claim through. But if you have no details and it's sold and the firm has no details, then nothing's going to happen and you just have to say, well, you know, that's it. Okay. Jim in County Tyrone, he thinks, I might have misunderstood his question. I think he's right. He said, if I haven't complained and I wait on the finance company to proactively contact me, how will they do this if I've moved house?

40:19Well, they should try and find your latest address, but I presume we are going to be saying and going to be campaigning out there for everybody to update with the finance company if you have moved address because they may not have it. What I'm suggesting you do is you contact and put a complaint in, then they have your address and you include your old address and you include the car details. This is why I'm saying you want to be in the I've complained group. You don't want to be in the I've not complained group because while it should work, there are clearly going to be people who fall by the wayside in that group.

40:53So you're asking me what to do, put a complaint in them, tell them your address. Okay. That's my answer. Laura wants to know if this all applies for loans for a motorcycle. Yeah, this is for any motorised vehicle bought as a domestic or a consumer purchase, not a business purchase. So motorcycle, yes.

41:16Motorhome, yes. Domestic use van, yes. Car, yes. But if you're an old employee decorator and you buy a van. Well, then if it's for business use, it's for business use. The more important point I was about to make, the one everybody asked me, caravan, no. Caravans do not have motors. Therefore, even if you bought a caravan on a similar type of deal, it is not included in this scheme. That doesn't seem fair, but anyway. Motorhome, yes. Caravan, no. Got it, because caravan's got no motor. And this is actually motor vehicle compensation. It's technically, I call it car finance. It's motor vehicle finance compensation is technically what it is.

42:00Any other business? Do you know what? I'm going to do some more questions, I think, in the pod only bit. But I think at this point, Adrian, we all need something a little bit more relaxing and a little bit more chilling. Rosie and I certainly do, but maybe not for you. Can we play the theme tune, please?

42:19I want Rosie just to give me a... She is not allowed to. Rosie will know the answer. She is not allowed to help you. Rosie, I won't poke her face, please. I'm just looking at you, Rosie, listening to it. So the score, Adrian, the mastermind score, where I ask you questions rather than you ask me questions, is you currently have 11 right and 23 wrong in this three-option multiple choice, which means it is now statistically likely that if we'd written the options on three scraps of paper, Place them on the floor beneath a three-toed sloth and each week picked whichever one it pooped on the most.

42:57That would be a more successful method of answering than you have been. You are now and have officially limboed below random chance. Random chance, you would have been 11. You've made your points. 11, right, 22 wrong. So. It's nearly time for the news. In a shock, I'm throwing you a bone. All right. This week's question is one I have explained to you before in a very similar way to the way I ask it now. In fact, I have done the explanation looking you in the eyes twice on the show. Yes, this is a sympathy question, everybody. Adrian, you should get this right. Does that add pressure? Yes. Good.

43:40So, no elaborate set up, no preamble, just the question. If you bought a high-tech smartphone brand new 18 months ago and it's now failing through no fault of yours, you haven't damaged, you haven't misused it, it's now got a fault. How long are you protected where by law they must repair it or replace it for free? Is it A, the warranty length, which we'll say in this case is one year. B, there's no fixed time. It's just what's reasonable. C, two years as the EU electrical law was incorporated into UK law post-Brexit. So, it's a faulty phone. You haven't done anything wrong. You bought it 18 months ago.

44:28How long is your protection? The warranty length, which we'll call a year. It could be two years, but in this case, I'll say it's one year. There's no fixed time. It's just what's reasonable. Or two years as the EU electrical law was incorporated into UK law post-Brexit. I think I remember when you told me you boiled it down very kindly to me and using the example of a tin whistle. If I bought a tin whistle for a quid and it conked out after a year, that was not unreasonable. But if this is a high-tech smartphone and you said high-tech, you made that point. Not any old smartphone. and 18 months through no fault of my own, you said.

45:13So I would say that is unreasonable. It is not a reasonable length of time. So I'm going for B. You're saying there's no fixed time. It's just what's reasonable. I had a big bone, been chewed by a dog. I tossed it up in the air. It span around a few times. You put your hands out in that correct cricket catch to see if you could catch it. It fell down. You pushed your hands together over the bone. Did it slip out? No. Play hallelujah. Oh, beautiful. That's friendship. I gave you an easy one. So just to explain it to everybody who is listening. Yeah, look, it's really important to understand there are consumer rights laws when you buy something that say goods must be of satisfactory quality as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time.

46:04Those are your legal rights. If you take them back within a month, if it's faulty, you're entitled to a full refund. If you take it back after that, you're entitled to a repair or partial refund or a replacement. There is no time limit, though. Reasonable time, exactly as Adrian beautifully explained, and it was a tin whistle. It's actually a plastic whistle, but I'm going to let you have the tin whistle, but it was a pretty good memory, is the way that I tend to explain it. So it is what a reasonable person would say is reasonable. Well, there's just a grey area. It is and ultimately it's a judge who would decide it but what we do is and I've done before where I've got juries of people just as an example and said okay I've got 10 people here, what would you say is reasonable?

46:43And we'd go in here and I think we would all say that a whistle breaking after 18 months if it costs 50p or a quid well that's pretty reasonable, it's not fair but if I've spent two grand on a smartphone and through no fault of my own it's not working after 18 months well that is perfectly reasonable. Now what happens and the reason I do this question and the mischief I'm looking to solve in this question is I cannot tell you how many people go to high-tech shops where the retailer and the manufacturer are the same. So I'm talking Apple and Samsung, to be honest. And they go in and their phone's broken after 18 months and they take it in and they say, sorry, you're out of warranty.

47:18And you never bought the extra warranty. Well, it doesn't matter. They say you're out of warranty. And my answer is warranty smarranty because the warranty is a contractual obligation that you were given by the manufacturer. Absolutely fine. it's nice to have and it's good. But you have legal rights with the retailer. Now, in this case, the retail, if it's Apple, Apple is a retailer and a manufacturer. They're answering you as a manufacturer. You're going into the shop. You're asking them as a retailer. Under the retail rights law, the sad fart rule, satisfactory quality as described, fit for purpose and last a reasonable length of time.

47:49You have retail rights and you're saying, I don't care about your warranty. You do it politely and nicely. It's not the customer service people's fault. You're saying under the law, this item must last a reasonable length of time. It has not lasted a reasonable length of time. Therefore, you are responsible for repair or replacement. Now, if you push that and you understand that the warranty is irrelevant, because I'm asking you as a retailer and your rights, your legal rights are always with the shop you bought, the place that you have the contract from, then you need to enforce it. And that is, I mean, we should teach this in schools.

48:18You buy something, your rights with the retailer. If items are faulty and you take them back, then they have to give you a full refund within 30 days or repair or replace afterwards. Of course, it's a grey area. I mean, let's say we've got a jury of you and Rosie here. My smartphone breaks after four and a half years. It costs two grand. Is that reasonable? I mean, the amount of yacking you do, I'd be amazed if it lasted that long. I wouldn't give you money back. Okay. So, so you see that of my jury of two. Yeah. You're both saying that's unreasonable. So, you know, one and a half years you're saying is reasonable.

48:51Four and a half years. Now, if I went up every month, at what point do we stop? Right, that is the podcast over and done with. I think we got through a huge number of people's questions. And with podcast producer Matt, Matt, is there anything I didn't manage to answer? OK, there is one thing that people have been asking. Almost, I almost made it. Go on, what is it? So close. Is this amount lower than the amount that we first thought? Yes, it is. And there are probably three reasons for that. The first is the original figure that was being quoted as an average was£1 ,200 per person on a discretionary commission arrangement.

49:28Now, that figure was because that is based on the calculations that the financial ombudsman was using on a case-by-case basis at the time, which effectively said, take the interest you paid and subtract from it the minimum interest you could have paid if they hadn't added extra interest in order to pay extra commission. So you had the difference between the interest you were paid and the minimum interest. But even at the time, I was saying there were no guarantees that the regulator was going to follow that form of methodology. And I suggested it may well follow something called a plevin methodology from PPI, where it chose what it was a reasonable interest rate.

50:07And you get the difference between the interest rate you were charged and a reasonable interest rate, which isn't that far from how it has actually constructed what it's doing. I won't go into that again because you heard it earlier and it's complicated. The second point is possibly because the FCA has used a different measure for what it's saying now to after the Supreme Court hearing a couple of months ago. Then it said claims will likely be less than£950. Now it says claims will be an average£700. And those two, of course, not inconsistent. It could be less than£950 and an average£700. I suspect it did that because it hadn't fully decided what the compensation level it was going to give was at the time.

50:52So it went with a most people get less than rather than an average, because to do an average, you have to know exactly how you structure the redress scheme. And within that, I think there is a nub here. Now, if you look at what the court did in the narrow instance of the Johnson case, it effectively gave people back all their commission. And if you gave them back all the commission, that would be nearer£900 and£700. But what's actually happened here is the regulators come up with this hybrid model of you get somewhere between the total commission and what we calculate as the market lost back, which is less.

51:27That's the average£700 figure. So whether there has actually been a material change because of the way it's calculated it or it's a communication change, I don't have a way of knowing. Both are possible. And of course, you may say, why is it giving less? Well, I mean, The answer, I suspect, I don't know they'd say this overtly, but I strongly suspect the answer is because it had to come up with a solution that was legally robust, but wasn't so expensive that we would see judicial review coming from any of the car finance firms. In other words, it's a slight compromise, which is why I started this by saying you may well get awarded more if you go to courts, but then there are costs associated, especially if you've got lawyers or claims management firms with it.

52:08And so that is part of the compromise here in order to get this, what will hopefully be quick, easy, fast and see far, far more people being paid out without having to use and pay fees to claims management firms. And the third reason people may feel it's less is because there have been some very exaggerated claims being put out there, certainly by some claims management firms on the back of the earlier court cases. Though, again, it's true that if you do go to court, you may be paid out more. So there is a balance to be had in that. I think when you wrap all of that up together, yes, the figure is definitely lower than when we started.

52:44Whether it's unjustifiably lower, hopefully I've given you enough information so you can decide that for yourself. And a final thought on this. The regulator is saying most people will be paid two thirds or more of the commission. And if you go to court, you would get the commission. And a claims management firm typically takes 30 % of what you get paid. so the commission minus 30 % and you get two thirds of the commission or more is indicating to me I think the FCA is subtly trying to say hey people are still going to get as much in their pocket going this route as they would do going to court after fees I mean let's not dot the i's and cross the t's on those particular exact amounts but I think that's the subtle messaging it's trying to come out with there I haven't done the adding up on it yet and we haven't quite seen the detail on it so I'm not making a judgement I'm just telling you the message it's putting out on that I think that's everything isn't it?

53:35There is one more thing I just realised I haven't said, and I am dotting every I and crossing every possible T. So let's go super techno geek nerd for a second. I talked earlier about the compensatory interest that you will get, which is bank base rate. So every year when the base rate changed, it will change. So if you're over an eight year period, they'll be tracking the base rate over this period plus one percent. But I have noticed in the documentation, they are saying that if you can prove that you suffered more harm than that compensatory rate of interest, then you may be able to argue for more interest.

54:12So let me try and give what I think they're trying to they're getting at, although I'm not 100 percent sure yet and I need to do a little bit more work on it. I think if your loan was so expensive that you had to do other borrowing elsewhere that was also expensive, say you had to use a credit card and you were paying 18 percent on that. You could argue that to put you back in the position you would have been, bank base rate plus 1 % does not do it because you were paying 18 or 19 % interest on your credit card. And you could make that argument once you get the interest given to you. Now, again, none of that is going to be relevant until March, April, May next year.

54:48And it's certainly something we will be doing work on to try and come up with a when you should be asking to be given more interest and when you shouldn't be asking to be given more interest. and they will want it to be provable at the time. So there is a slight possibility interest will be bigger for some and someone will need to be working on that. And Rosie is still sitting next to me. And Rosie, you're going to be working on working exactly what, she's very clever, luckily, on exactly how that works. And then we will try and work out what our stance is and what we should guide people through on that.

55:15So just a final little note. But I, you know, I go back to where I started on this. This is absolutely massive. It's 14 million arrangements. It's an estimated payout of£8.2 billion, although I have a little bit of scepticism because that involves a huge number of people doing this and I am slightly worried about people thinking when they get contacted about their opt-in that they didn't know they had a car finance mis-selling, that they're going to think it was a scam and we really do have to do some work on that. But this is still relatively early stages. This is a consultation document, although it's a hard consultation, unlikely to change too much.

55:50That closes in November and then we'll get the final redress scheme somewhere next January. So everything I say has some slight caveats on it, but I hope you've set you up with the main messages from me are, if you had an HP or PCP deal between April 2007 and November 2024, I would strongly suggest you get a complaint in to ask, did it have a discretionary commission arrangement or was it contractually tried or was my level of commission high? You could do that yourself, although there will be free tools available. My free tool isn't yet. I mean, you could actually use it now and be fine because they'd have to consider all three cases, even if you only put a discretionary cushion arrangement complaint in.

56:30But I would say, give me a month and I'll have that done. And other people probably have tools and things and template letters available. And the regulator has a template letter available. And so I would strongly urge you to put your complaint in if you want the money, because I think it will make the process easier. But I would also say if you don't do that, that doesn't mean you won't get anything. It just means it may take longer and it might be a bit more difficult for them to track you. And that is my final summary. And probably this podcast has been enough where we should finish. That's it for this week.

57:01Please do spread the message about this podcast to anyone who's interested in car finance. There are so many questions and confusions out there. I hope this will start to clear things up for people and make sure they get put on the right track. or on the right road is probably a better analogy. So just tell your friends that you've been listening to the latest The Martin Lewis Podcast and why not subscribe too? And then your pockets will be pleased with you. And if your friends subscribe, their pockets will be pleased with them and you too. It couldn't be any better. We tend to put out a new episode every Thursday and also the Question Time podcast on a Monday too where you can ask me absolutely anything and everything.

57:39Normally I tell you what to do if you haven't enjoyed it. But you know today, I'm spent. I got meals, I got to pay, so I'm going to work for the world and every day. I got a mouth, I got a feed, so I'm going to make sure everybody eats. Martin Lewis is the founder of moneysavingexpert.com. But of course, other consumer and price comparison websites are available. You can get in touch with Martin's podcast production team by emailing martinlewispodcast at bbc.co.uk. The offers and rates mentioned in the podcast are correct at the time of recording. However, if you are listening on demand, it's worth double checking as details can date.

58:20Remember to subscribe on BBC Sounds and leave us a review however you listen.