But why is this happening, and who can make a claim? Sky News explains...
The scandal
When you buy a car on finance, you are effectively loaned the money for the vehicle, which you pay off in monthly instalments. These loans carry interest, organised by brokers (the people who sell you the finance plan).
These brokers earn money in the form of a commission (which is a percentage of the interest payments).
Before January 2021, some car finance lenders had what was called a "discretionary commission arrangement" (DCA) with brokers.
Under these arrangements, brokers earned more commission if buyers were put on a higher interest rate - this incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates, which meant many were unfairly charged too much.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned this practice in 2021, but many consumers complained they had been overcharged before the ban came into place.
Following legal action and an investigation, the watchdog said that car finance firms had either broken the law or its rules by not properly informing customers about commission paid by lenders.
Who will be eligible for compensation?
Car finance agreements taken out between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024, where commission was payable by the lender to the broker, will be considered for compensation.
But these will be split into two separate schemes. One will cover deals from 6 April 2007 to 31 March 2014, and the other covers deals from 1 April 2014 to 1 November 2024.
Around 12.1 million car finance deals will be eligible for compensation, with the average payout coming to £829, the FCA said.
People will only be considered for compensation if they were not told details of at least one of three car finance arrangements between their lender and their broker.
These three arrangements are:
1. A discretionary commission arrangement (DCA) - this would have allowed the broker to adjust the interest rate the customer would pay to obtain a higher commission.
2. A high commission arrangement - this covers any deals where the commissions were equal to or greater than at least 39% of the total cost of credit and 10% of the loan.
3. Contractual ties - these arrangements would have seen a lender given exclusivity or a right of first refusal.
This will apply except in cases where the lender can prove there were visible links with the manufacturer and dealer.
However, there are some exceptions.
Cases will be considered fair if:
- The commission was £120 or less for agreements beginning before 1 April 2014 and £150 or less from that date.
- The borrower wasn't charged interest.
- The DCA wasn't used to earn discretionary commission.
- The lender can prove, in certain limited circumstances, that it was fair not to disclose one of the arrangements above or that the consumer did not suffer any loss.
How do I get compensation?
If you had a car finance agreement between 6 April 2007 and 1 November 2024, it's worth filing a complaint with your lender, if you have not done so already.
Consumer champion Martin Lewis told BBC Radio 4 that many people will "have no idea" if they were mis-sold car finance unless they do.
The FCA advises that people submit a complaint to their lender using a template letter on its website.
It said there was no need to use a claims management company or law firm, warning that doing so could mean you lose over 30% of the money you get.
Those who have already complained, or who complain by 31 August, are most likely to be among the first to be compensated.
However, even if you do not lodge a complaint, lenders will also be expected to reach out to those customers who may be eligible.
How long do lenders have to tell drivers how much they're owed?
To give firms time to prepare, the FCA has applied a "short implementation period".
This means they do not have to take action before 30 June for loans taken out from 1 April 2014 or 31 August for those taken out earlier.
From these dates, lenders will have three months to inform drivers whether they are owed compensation and how much.
Customers who have made inquiries about their car loans should be told whether they are eligible and how much they could receive by the end of this year.
Firms also have until the end of 2026 to contact people with affected car loans dated since April 1 2014, who have not made a complaint.
They will have until the end of February 2027 to complete this for those with older loan agreements.
Lenders will only contact people who have not complained if they are likely to be owed money.
Consumers must respond within six months of these dates if they wish to join the relevant schemes.
Anyone not contacted has until 31 August 2027 to make a claim.
When will compensation be paid?
Millions of people should receive compensation this year, the FCA said.
Lenders should aim to hand over payments to people who have already complained, or those who complain before the end of the implementation period, by January 2027.
This group of people will be the first to receive payments.
Nikhil Rathi, CEO of the FCA, said lenders, if they wanted to, could start handing out payments tomorrow, now that the rules of the redress scheme had been laid out.
But he warned that this was very unlikely.
"We will be pleased if lenders can start moving much faster, as consumers have been waiting a long time now," he said.
The FCA expects the vast majority of claims to be settled by January 2028.
But consumers who are concerned that their lender is not following the rules of the scheme can complain to their lender or the Financial Ombudsman Service.
West Yorkshire Police named the victim as Chloe Watson Dransfield from Gomersal, West Yorkshire.
She was found unconscious with stab wounds in the city at 5.55am on Saturday.
In a statement, her family said: "My beautiful princess Chloe. I cannot put into words how I feel that you are not here with me.
"You are my life, my world, my best friend and I know that I am yours. I cannot live without you - I need you.
"You are stunning, confident, loyal, honest and my family-oriented princess.
"When you walk into any room it lights up with your bubbly personality. There is so much I could say. There's a big hole in my heart that can never be filled."
They added: "Your two sisters and big brother will always love and miss you to infinity. You will always and forever be in our hearts. Love Mum, Connor, Courtney and Cienna."
Police were called to Kennerleigh Avenue, in the Austhorpe area of Leeds, on Saturday morning following reports that a young woman had been found unconscious.
Four people remain in police custody on Monday after they were arrested on suspicion of murder.
A fifth person, a 17-year-old boy, was arrested on Monday on suspicion of murder. He remains in custody.
Flowers have been left at the scene for the teenager.
One of the messages said it was for "my beautiful girl" and "rest easy my Chloe. Love you forever my crazy girl".
Two women taped a photo of Chloe to a box on the roadside next to bouquets of flowers.
A relative, who set up an online fundraising page, said on the site her "life was sadly taken in tragedy, 16 years young, didn't even make it to her 18th".
'Innocent beautiful soul'
They said: "I wanted to create a GoFundMe to help give her the best send-off possible. She didn't deserve this.
"She was so full of life. Such an innocent beautiful soul taken too soon."
The initial four arrested include two women aged 18, a man aged 19 and a 17-year-old boy, who were all arrested at a nearby address.
Police statement
Detective Chief Inspector James Entwistle, who is now leading the investigation, said: "Our thoughts remain with Chloe's family at this incredibly difficult time. Our specially-trained officers continue to provide them with support.
"Our investigation into her death is ongoing and five people arrested on suspicion of murder remain in custody, as we continue to establish the full circumstances of this incident.
"I am appealing to anyone with any relevant information to contact us."
The UK, Germany, France and Italy criticised the legislation, saying in a joint declaration it will "significantly expand the possibilities for imposing the death penalty".
The allies called the law "de facto discriminatory" and said that by passing it, "Israel risks undermining its commitments to democratic principles".
Iran war latest - Trump's obliteration threat
The death penalty "is an inhumane and degrading form of punishment without any deterrent effect", adding that rejecting it "is a fundamental value that unites us", the four nations said.
Israel's far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who wore noose-shaped lapel pins in the run-up to the vote, has campaigned for tougher punishments for Palestinians convicted of nationalistic offences against Israelis.
"We have made history," Mr Ben-Gvir said, in a post on X. "Any terrorist who goes out to kill should know - he will be sent to the gallows".
He was also scathing about criticism from the European Union, adding: "we are not afraid, we do not yield".
Law allows 'extrajudicial killings'
But the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the law "constitutes a decision to carry out institutionalised extrajudicial killings according to racist standards".
"The ministry affirms that Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land and that Israeli laws do not apply to the Palestinian people," the statement added.
Opponents of the bill, under which executions should be carried out within 90 days of sentencing, said it is racist, draconian and unlikely to deter attacks by Palestinian militants.
The bill's critics include Israelis and Palestinians, international rights groups and the UN, some of whom fear the death penalty could end up being applied solely to Palestinians convicted of murdering Jewish citizens of Israel.
The sentence will be applied by a military court to anyone convicted of murdering an Israeli "as an act of terror".
Such courts try only West Bank Palestinians, who are not Israeli citizens. The bill says military courts can change the penalty to life imprisonment in "special circumstances".
Israel's courts, which try Israeli citizens, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, can choose between life imprisonment or the death penalty in cases of murder aiming to harm Israeli citizens and residents or "with the intent of rejecting the existence of the state of Israel".
'Discriminatory by design'
Amichai Cohen, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute's Centre for Democratic Values and Institutions, said the distinction is discriminatory as it means, in effect, Jews "will not be indicted under this law".
In addition, the West Bank is not sovereign Israeli territory, so under international law, Israel's parliament should not be legislating over it, Mr Cohen said.
The Association of Civil Rights in Israel said it had petitioned the country's highest court to challenge the law, calling it "discriminatory by design" and "enacted without legal authority" over West Bank Palestinians.
Read more on Sky News:
Will another vital sea route close?
Paintings worth millions stolen
Israel has the death penalty on its books, but the country hasn't put anyone to death since Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1962.
The bill will not apply retroactively to any of the militants Israel currently holds who attacked the country on 7 October 2023.
Gerard Hutchings, 66, carried out unnecessary strip searches on 18 young men, aged in their late teens to early 30s, in custody at police stations in Hampshire between 1999 and 2007.
He made the men remove their clothes before subjecting them to sexual assaults, Bristol Crown Court heard.
Hutchings had denied five charges of indecent assault, five of causing a person to engage in a sexual activity without consent and one of misconduct in a public office. A jury found him guilty on all counts.
The former police inspector previously admitted to 17 counts of misconduct in public office.
The 18 victims, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were being subject to an unjustified and illegal strip search by Hutchings while being handed a caution or reprimand for minor offences like shoplifting or possessing cannabis, the court heard.
He also sexually assaulted some of them during these procedures.
Eight victims gave evidence during the trial, outlining how they felt during these unwanted strip searches.
One man, who had been arrested for shoplifting, described how he was "humiliated" by Hutchings.
Hutchings, from Southampton, will be sentenced on 24 July.
He was previously jailed for 16 months in 2008 after admitting to 11 counts of misconduct in a public office for similar offending.
Hutchings was sacked by Hampshire Police in 2007 following the complaints.
In 2020, the force launched a new investigation after receiving a report from a man who was similarly searched by Hutchings in 2005.
Officers identified a further 17 victims from 373 people who were named in Hutchings' police notebook.
Read more from Sky News:
Millions of drivers owed compensation
Radio 2 DJ Scott Mills sacked by BBC
Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Rob France said: "When someone comes into contact with our officers and staff, they should be treated with respect and professionalism.
"Hutchings' behaviour was vile and degrading and clearly nowhere near the expectation we have of our officers."
He thanked the victims for recounting their experience and investigators for their work on the investigation.
The mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, and one of the twins took the case to court after the other brother was named as the father on the child's birth certificate.
The pair launched the legal action as they wanted to be legally recognised as having parental responsibility for the baby, known as child P.
A family court judge declined to remove the name of the alleged "father" on the birth certificate, prompting the woman and the other twin to take the case to the Court of Appeal in London.
But a panel of judges there have now ruled it is "not possible" to know for sure who the father is.
The court heard that DNA testing could not distinguish which of the men was the father, although scientists may potentially be able to do so in the future.
But Sir Andrew McFarlane, sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, did say that the twin on the birth register would no longer have parental responsibility until the court hears further arguments.
In a judgment handed down earlier this month, he said: "Currently, the truth of P's paternity is that their father is one or other of these two identical twins, but it is not possible to say which.
"It is possible, indeed likely, that by the time P reaches maturity, it may be possible for science to identify one father and exclude the other twin, but, for the coming time, that cannot be done without very significant cost, and so her 'truth' is binary and not a single man."
Read more from Sky News:
BBC DJ sacked over 'personal conduct'
Paintings 'worth millions' stolen in Italy
Tributes paid to teenager after murder arrests
Judge Madeleine Reardon previously found that "both brothers had had sex" with the woman "within four days of each other in the month when P was conceived", and that it was "equally likely that each of the brothers is P's father".
Sir Andrew said that the first twin "was not entitled" to be registered as the father and that any parental responsibility he had "shall cease" as a result.
However, the judge added that he was "wholly unpersuaded" to declare that the man was not the father either.
Sir Andrew said: "The failure to prove a fact means that that fact is not proved; it does not mean that the contrary is proved.
"There is a distinction between something being not proven, and making a positive declaration that the fact asserted is not true."
The case continues.