The legislative backdrop (why these amendments exist)
Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill repeals parts of the CCA. Critically the Bill looks to repeal the CCA's automatic sanctions, including unenforceability without a court order and unenforceability until a breach is remedied, plus the disentitlement to interest and default sums during non-compliance. HM Treasury views these sanctions as disproportionate because they are often triggered by technical non-compliance with no evidence of consumer harm. HM Treasury's view is that customers are adequately protected by the FCA rules and powers.
The story so far
To date the reform has been scrutinised rigorously in the House of Lords. Critics expressed concern that moving consumer credit protections out of primary legislation and into FCA rules would dilute Parliament’s role in setting and scrutinising these safeguards. They argue that this approach shifts substantial power from Parliament to the regulators, particularly the FCA, without, at this stage, providing clear detail on what will replace the statutory provisions to be repealed. We explore the early stages of Parliamentary debate on the reform in our article here.
Current state of play: further proposed amendments to the reform and outcome
Leave out Clause 1
This amendment effectively removes the foundation clause for the CCA Reform in the Bill. It was intended as a probing amendment to force debate on the Government's intentions and on parliamentary and industry oversight of the new regime, rather than a genuine attempt to delete reform altogether. The core concern was that too much is being done through delegated powers, with too little parliamentary scrutiny, as consumer credit moves from the CCA regime to FCA led regime under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). While it was accepted that a more flexible framework has benefits, the critics stressed that flexibility must not come at the expense of accountability.
The amendment was later withdrawn following the Government's response who wanted to press ahead with Clause 1 and the reform on the basis that the FCA is the appropriate body to lead consumer protection in this area, building on its post‑2014 consumer credit role and ensuring consultation and parliamentary engagement on future rules.
Notably the House agreed to a compromise amendment (Amendment 93) which (if retained in the final version of the Bill) will require HM Treasury to lay before Parliament a report explaining how the FCA proposes to exercise its delegated powers in relation to consumer credit under the new FSMA based regime, before those powers are brought into force. The amendment is designed to preserve meaningful parliamentary oversight at a time when increasingly significant policy choices are being shifted out of primary legislation and into the regulatory framework under FSMA. This shift in the reform trajectory is likely to affect both the timing and the transparency of the FCA’s exercise of its new consumer credit powers.
Duty to ensure non-diminution of consumer credit protections
The amendment proposed to insert a new clause requiring the Treasury and FCA, when repealing or replacing CCA provisions, to secure that the overall level of consumer protection is "not diminished". The protections that must be maintained expressly include statutory sanctions on the legal enforceability of agreements where a firm has failed to comply with conduct or information duties. The aim was to stop the shift to FCA rules from quietly weakening consumer protection, and specifically to keep statutory unenforceability alive rather than letting it be repealed. This is the most consequential amendment for firms as it would seek to preserve the very unenforceability sanction the Bill is designed to remove. Some of the common reasoning for this amendment debated in the House included:
- “Tail risk” often arises from bad conduct that takes time to emerge, so consumer remedy should not simply expire.
- Reform was acceptable only if consumer protections and rights of redress were preserved.
- Increasing access to services while weakening protections would expose vulnerable customers to greater risk.
The Government maintained that the existing sanctions were tailored to an outdated Office of Fair Trading regime with limited powers and are no longer needed given the FCA’s stronger consumer protection remit and access to redress via the Financial Ombudsman Service. It nevertheless confirmed that key safeguards will remain in legislation, including section 75 CCA and the unfair relationships provisions (sections 140A–140D).
Consequently, these amendments were not moved to a vote.
Assignment of loans and continuity of protections on sale or transfer
These amendments were proposed to preserve statutory rights when credit agreements are sold, assigned or securitised and to prevent predatory interest rate variations by inactive lenders or SPVs. The House raised a structural concern about how consumer credit is handled when loans are securitised and sold on. Critics linked this issue to mortgage prisoners and warned similar problems could arise with student loans if sold into private markets. They stressed that once sold, these loans must carry with them the standards of respectable financial products and that borrowers must be protected from predatory interest rates. However, following the Government’s response these amendments also did not progress through the Report stage of the Bill.
Next steps
The Bill had its third reading in the House of Lords and its first reading in the House of Commons on 15 September 2026. A revised version of the Bill has been published on the Parliament website, incorporating Amendment 93 above into the new Clauses 52 and 56 of the Bill. A date for the second reading of the Bill in the House of Commons has not yet been announced.
