The final rules differ materially from the October 2025 consultation. Firms that modelled exposure or planned operations against CP25/27 need to revisit both. The key changes are: 

• One scheme became two. CP25/27 proposed a single scheme. The final rules create Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 with separate rules instruments, implementation periods, de minimis thresholds and APR adjustment factors. Firms must operationalise two parallel processes. 

• Implementation periods introduced. CP25/27 proposed that the scheme start the day after the policy statement was published, with no preparation time. The final rules give firms 3 months for Scheme 2 and 5 months for Scheme 1, but obligations begin immediately (see timelines below). 

• High commission threshold raised from 35% to 39%. The consultation proposed 35%/10%; the final rules set 39%/10%. This alone reduces the eligible population from 14.2 million to 12.1 million agreements. Firms that modelled at the 35% threshold need to rerun their exposure estimates. 

• De minimis thresholds introduced – absent from CP25/27. Agreements where the total commission was below £120 (Scheme 1) or £150 (Scheme 2) are screened out entirely before any liability assessment. This creates a new pre-screening step that reduces processing volume. 

• Zero APR agreements excluded. A new carve-out not consulted on: where a motor finance agreement carried a zero APR, no relevant arrangement can exist. Firms with 0% promotional finance products should review their portfolios. 

• Captive and white-label tied arrangements are excluded. CP25/27 proposed no specific carve-out for manufacturer-affiliated networks. The final rules except captive and white-label ties where visible links existed between the lender, manufacturer and franchised dealer – significant relief for Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) affiliated captive lenders. 

• Three caps added to the hybrid remedy. CP25/27 proposed the hybrid remedy without caps. The final rules cap redress at the lowest of: 90% of commission plus interest; the realised total cost of credit (TCC) adjusted for a minimal cost of credit; and an unadjusted realised TCC cap. This prevents over-compensation on early-settled agreements (around 53% of all agreements). All three caps must be implemented in the redress calculators. 

• Rejected complainants reclassified from opt-out to opt-in. CP25/27 included consumers who complained and were rejected by the lender in the opt-out cohort. The final rules treat them as opt-in – they must be proactively identified and invited to join within the opt-in deadlines. 

• Requirement to contact consumers without relevant arrangements removed. Firms no longer need to proactively notify consumers where no relevant arrangement is present. This significantly reduces communication volumes. 

• Recorded delivery and prescriptive administrative content requirements dropped. CP25/27 required recorded delivery for consumer letters. This requirement has been removed. Administrative communication content requirements have also been simplified, though substantive regulated letter content (set out in scheme Annexes) remains mandatory.