liam grady

[Liverpool FC @LFC]

Ticketing update: Liverpool FC has completed a full review of its ticketing approach and can now share the next steps ahead of the 2026-27 season ℹ️

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Following the club's ticketing review, here are the upcoming changes which aim to improve ticketing across our three priority areas: ticket access, supporter journeys, and protection from abuse.

Full details:
https://t.co/nEeNn0fPG1

[MerPol Liverpool FC @MerPolLFC]

LFC V CFC @LFCHelp @spiritofshankly @LiverpoolDSA @HillsboroughSu1 Zero tolerance for any tragedy or homophobic comments. 12 arrests at this match last season (home & away). If your in any doubt don't say it. Simple as that.

[LFC SALES INFO @Lfcsalesinfo]

Membership renewals started yesterday

Full 42.99
Light 26.99
Junior 20.99

[Dejan Lovren @Dejan06Lovren]

10 years ago today, I lived every boy’s dream in a Red shirt.
Scoring against Borussia Dortmund in the Europa League at Anfield — the lights, the noise, the Kop roaring as we fought back in one of the greatest European nights this club has ever seen.
That goal, that moment, that Liverpool shirt… it’s etched in my soul forever.
Still gives me goosebumps. Thank you to every teammate, every fan, and everyone who made that night magic.
This one’s for the memories that never fade. ❤️ You’ll Never Walk Alone

Good luck tonight LFC. BELIEVE!

[Netflix @netflix]

It's happening.

Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua. This autumn from the UK. LIVE only on Netflix.

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Additional sales have been announced for our game at the Hill Dickinson against @Everton. Information can be found here: https://t.co/fh3LOQLUTt

[Spion Kop 1906 @SpionKop1906]

Listen to the heartbeat.

NO TO TICKET PRICE INCREASES

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

LFC has now received the full 5% ticket allocation for our @ChampionsLeague trip to @PSG_English on Wed 8 April, increasing our allocation to 2,376. Tickets will go on sale on Sunday 5 April.
Full details can be found here;

https://t.co/WM6E3s0jxI

[Paul Carlier @Carlier_J87]

CAR FINANCE - Join the fight to expose the scandal.

Take less than a minute to help expose the ongoing car finance scandal and force proper redress and hold the firms properly accountable.

Copy and paste this complaint below (that I have already submitted), feel free to add add your own comments and add your own name, and send to:

[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

(And be sure to copy your MP). The more who complain, the more we force them to finally act lawfully, ensure proper redress and see these firms and FCA held accountable for this scandal.

JOINT REPORT  AND COMPLAINT TO REGULATORS

Regulatory Asymmetry and Consumer Risk in Motor Finance Enforcement and Redress

To:

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)
Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)

1. Executive Summary

This report and complaint raises serious concerns regarding the unequal regulatory focus demonstrated by the recently announced multi-agency taskforce targeting claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms involved in motor finance claims.

While coordinated regulatory action has been directed toward consumer representatives, there is no equivalent public evidence of coordinated enforcement activity against:

- motor finance lenders;
- their in-house legal teams;
- their external legal advisers;
- their marketing, sales, and complaint-handling functions.

This imbalance creates a material risk to consumers, particularly in the context of an impending redress scheme likely to be designed, administered, and valued by the same lenders whose conduct is in question.

2. The Taskforce Announcement – Key Concern

The FCA’s announcement of a joint taskforce involving the FCA, SRA, ICO and ASA demonstrates:

- coordinated enforcement;
- intelligence sharing;
- proactive intervention;
- public messaging aimed at discouraging use of legal representation.

However, the focus of this coordinated effort is directed at firms representing consumers, rather than those responsible for:

- designing the underlying financial products;
- implementing commission structures;
- drafting agreements;
- handling complaints;
- and denying wrongdoing.

This creates a clear appearance of regulatory asymmetry.

3. Aggregate Effect of FCA Action Against Consumer Representatives

The issue is not limited to isolated actions, but the cumulative (“aggregate”) effect of FCA conduct, including:

- Public announcements of investigations into CMCs and law firms
- Removal of large volumes of advertising
- Direct intervention into onboarding and fee structures
- Public messaging discouraging use of legal representation
- Statements emphasising that consumers “do not need a lawyer”

Taken together, these actions:

3.1 Create a Distorted Market Environment

Consumers are being actively steered away from independent legal advice at the precise moment when complex redress decisions must be made and settlement terms assessed.

3.2 Risk Undermining Access to Justice

Consumers may lack the expertise to challenge valuation methodologies, identify omitted heads of loss, or properly assess settlement terms where no independent advice is obtained.

3.3 Mischaracterisation of Economic Outcomes

There is a risk that regulatory messaging understates the potential value of claims and therefore misrepresents the net benefit of independent legal representation.

4. Access to Independent Legal Advice (ILA) and Settlement Fairness

The current regulatory approach, which actively discourages or downplays the need for consumers to obtain independent legal advice prior to accepting settlement offers from motor finance lenders, represents a significant departure from established legal and commercial practice and gives rise to serious concerns as to fairness and consumer protection. In virtually all comparable contexts involving financial institutions, it is standard—and often required—for individuals entering into settlement agreements to obtain independent legal advice, particularly where the agreement involves the waiver of rights or resolution of disputed claims.

Indeed, lenders themselves routinely insist upon such safeguards when contracting/settling with unrepresented parties, frequently requiring confirmation that independent advice has been obtained and, in some cases, contributing to the cost of that advice.

Against that background, regulatory messaging which discourages consumers from seeking legal representation—especially where they are negotiating with the very institutions alleged to have engaged in unlawful, misleading and/or criminal conduct—creates a clear and unacceptable inconsistency, materially increases the risk of uninformed or under-valued settlements, and undermines a fundamental safeguard designed to ensure that agreements are entered into freely, fairly, and with full understanding of their consequences.

In circumstances where an individual is entering into a legally binding settlement with an opposing party—particularly a sophisticated financial institution—there is a well-recognised importance attached to independent legal advice. This is especially so where there exists a clear imbalance of information and bargaining power, and where the agreement may involve the release or compromise of legal rights.

Such safeguards exist for a reason. Independent legal advice serves to ensure that:

- the individual understands the nature and consequences of the agreement;
- any waiver of rights is informed and legally effective;
- the terms of settlement are fair, complete, and not misleading;
- and the agreement is not susceptible to later challenge.

In the context of motor finance redress, these considerations are particularly acute. Consumers are being invited to accept settlements from lenders who:

- designed and implemented the underlying agreements;
- controlled disclosure of commission arrangements;
- responded to and denied prior complaints;
- and now stand to determine the value and structure of redress.

Where consumers are simultaneously discouraged from obtaining legal advice, the risk is that settlements are accepted without full understanding, compensation is under-valued, and valid rights are unknowingly waived.

The issue is not whether all consumers must obtain paid representation, but whether regulators are ensuring that consumers are not discouraged from obtaining independent advice and are not placed in a position of negotiating with an adversary without appropriate safeguards.

This divergence from established practice is particularly difficult to justify where the counterparty to the settlement is itself alleged to have engaged in the conduct giving rise to the claim.

The additional irony….

This approach is particularly difficult to reconcile with the underlying purpose of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which is expressly designed to ensure that consumers are placed in possession of all material information necessary to make informed decisions. A regulatory approach that discourages independent advice, while facilitating lender-controlled settlement outcomes, risks undermining the very statutory protections that the redress scheme is purported to address.

5. Absence of Equivalent Enforcement Against Lenders and Their Legal Representatives

The most striking feature of the current regulatory response is not the action taken, but the absence of equivalent enforcement activity directed at those responsible for the underlying practices.

While enforcement has focused on firms representing consumers, there is no comparable level of transparency or visible action in relation to:

- lenders;
- their legal advisers;
- or those involved in designing and defending the relevant practices.

This raises legitimate questions as to whether enforcement priorities are aligned with the source of consumer harm.

6. Regulatory Prioritisation, Consistency and Institutional Response

The pattern of regulatory activity described in this report gives rise to serious and legitimate concerns as to whether enforcement action in this area has been applied consistently, impartially, and in accordance with the FCA’s statutory objectives.

In particular, the concentration of coordinated, multi-agency action against claims management companies and law firms—many of whom have played a role in identifying, evidencing, and advancing issues relating to motor finance practices—contrasts sharply with the absence of equivalent, visible enforcement activity directed at lenders and their legal advisers.

This divergence is difficult to reconcile solely by reference to risk-based prioritisation or consumer protection considerations.

This concern is reinforced by the apparent inconsistency between the FCA’s earlier and more recent characterisation of the underlying practices. The FCA’s 2024 position, as reflected in its detailed submissions to the High Court, appears materially broader than the conclusions reached in its 2019 Final Notice.

This issue was raised directly with the FCA at its Annual Public Meeting in October 2025, where the question was put by an expert:

“You said in 2024 that this practice was unlawful and a breach of long-standing law dating back to 2007… Why didn’t you say that in 2019?”

No substantive answer was provided. And because the FCA cannot answer it without exposing the disturbing truth behind the previous regulatory approach.

It is also relevant to note that the actions of claims management companies and law firms in advancing consumer claims have not only brought greater scrutiny to the conduct of motor finance lenders, but appear also to have exposed questions regarding that disturbing truth, the adequacy, and completeness of the FCA’s earlier regulatory response. In this sense, claimant-side activity has played a dual role: both in securing redress for consumers and in bringing into sharper focus issues relating to prior regulatory handling of those matters.

In such circumstances, the absence of clear reasoning as to how enforcement priorities have been determined gives rise to a legitimate concern that regulatory action may not be fully aligned with the principles of consistency, proportionality, and objectivity and instead conceived as little more than a retaliatory witch-hunt by the FCA and into which it has dragged other regulators.

7. Consumer Risk in the Redress Scheme

The combination of:

- actively discouraging legal representation;
- whilst allowing lender-controlled redress design to lenders;
- and lack of transparency

creates a material risk of under-valued and improperly scrutinised settlements.

8. Requests to Regulators

I request confirmation of:

- enforcement activity relating to lenders and their legal advisers who conceived and drafted commercial agreements with dealers that they knew to feature one or several unlawful if not criminal practises;

- the basis for enforcement prioritisation;

- safeguards for consumers;

- and cross-agency coordination and investigation relating to lender conduct be it in respect to the various unlawful if not criminal lending practises, the false representations when denying my original complaints, the false marketing and advertising of these agreements as being ‘sold subject to status’ when they clearly were not.

9. Conclusion

The current regulatory approach demonstrates decisive action against consumer representatives, but a lack of equivalent visible enforcement against those responsible for the underlying conduct.

This imbalance creates a material risk to consumers and raises serious concerns as to regulatory consistency, fairness, and accountability.

Clear explanation and transparency are now required.

I look forward to response from all of the members of the task force.

Regards

@premnsikka
@TransparencyTF
@IFSAPPG
@APPGJustice
@APPGbanking
@andyverity
@jameshurley
@BBCHelenCatt
@paullewismoney
@kevinhollinrake
@WB_UK
@LauraTrottMP
@CommonsTreasury
@hmtreasury
@stugoo17
@ArsenalTrader78

#carfinance #redress #fca #blackhorse #fla #witchhunt

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Accessible parking, along with coach and mini bus parking, for the @ManCity game this Saturday must be booked using the following link https://t.co/6dI1D88ndz

[Liverpool FC @LFC]

Liverpool FC can confirm it will increase general admission ticket prices limited to inflation for the next three seasons, while freezing junior and local general tickets at £9 each. 🔗 https://t.co/dQm6oWjhh5

[UEFA Champions League @ChampionsLeague]

Ticket sales for general public open for 2026 UEFA Champions League final in Budapest 🎟️🏆

#UCLfinal

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Following UEFA’s decision that away supporters will not be permitted to attend the Galatasaray fixture at Anfield, seats within the visitors’ section will be released for sale to home supporters. Information can be found here: https://t.co/bmar8slO19

[Manchester Airport @manairport]

⚠️ Customer Information

Since October, Ryanair passengers have been checking in at Terminal 1 - Departures A and using the new security lanes before entering the Terminal 3 Departure lounge. ​

From 00.01 on 5th March 2026, the Terminal 1 – Departures A entrance will be renamed Terminal 3 Departures to better align with the customer journey. ​

Arrivals remain unchanged. All Ryanair flights arriving at Manchester Airport will continue to arrive at Terminal 3 Arrivals.​

To align with these changes and for consistency across the site, we will also be renaming all of our car park products. From 5th March 2026, all parking locations will adopt a new numbering system (P1–P16) to help customers more easily identify their designated parking product.

For more information ➡️ https://t.co/iUauFIPNyN

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Supporters attending either of this week’s fixtures against Wolves should be aware that trains post-game will not run directly to Liverpool. Supporters should make alternative travel arrangements using these links: https://t.co/f4dD9CVGxO https://t.co/4JcQogFG6S #WOLLIV

[Taggy’s @taggysbar]

If you got problems updating your NFC pass for West Ham match, this work:

Log in to your account, download NFC pass again without deleting the old pass. It updates then.

It worked fine for me 👍🏼

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

🎟️ Away ticket info confirmed⚽️

Details are now available for Liverpool’s Premier League away fixture vs @Wolves at Molineux.
🗓️ Tuesday 3 March
⏰ 8:15pm GMT
ℹ️ Full selling details can be viewed here 👇
https://t.co/QmJ0KwrRbk

[Liverpool FC Help @LFCHelp]

Supporters on the Season Ticket Waiting List are reminded that they must've completed SSO before 5pm GMT on Monday March 9, 2026 or will be removed from the list.

If you've been contacted to complete this and need support, see our FAQ here:

https://t.co/GclWkLYgR9

[liam grady @liam_grady87]

@An_dyclark @Lord_Sugar @bbcapprentice 🤣🤣