Representative APR and CONC 3.5: The Disclosure Rule That Catches Finance Ads

If you market consumer credit, the representative APR is the rule most likely to catch you out, because it looks like a presentation requirement and is actually a substantive one. A landing page can be beautifully built, fully approved and still in breach, because the APR on it was the wrong number or sat in the wrong place.

This is the standalone reference for that one mechanic. It goes deeper than the section it gets in most guides, because representative APR is among the most searched single compliance questions in UK credit marketing and it deserves a page that answers it fully. For how it fits into a whole account, the verification, the bidding, the tracking, that lives in our guide to compliant financial services Google Ads. Here we go all the way into the rule itself.

What the representative APR actually is

Start with the definition, because everything follows from it. The representative APR is the APR at or below which you reasonably expect, at the date the promotion is communicated, that at least 51 percent of the agreements resulting from that promotion will be entered into.

Read that again, because it is doing more work than it looks. It is not the best rate you offer. It is not the rate you wish you could advertise. It is a prediction about who you will approve and at what rate, made before the promotion goes live, and it has to be honest at the moment you publish it.

The reframe that matters: the representative APR is a forecast about your own book, not a headline you choose for its marketing appeal. If you advertise a rate that most of your approved applicants will never actually receive, you have not made a tidy presentation choice. You have published a number you did not reasonably expect to apply to the majority of resulting agreements, which is a clear-fair-and-not-misleading problem at its root.

When the representative APR is triggered

The requirement does not apply to every credit promotion. It is triggered by specific content, and knowing the triggers is how you control whether you take on the obligation at all.

Under CONC 3.5, a promotion has to include the representative APR if it states or implies a rate of interest or an amount relating to the cost of credit, includes an incentive to apply, or makes certain favourable comparisons. Put plainly, the moment your promotion talks about cost or dangles an inducement, the representative APR comes with it.

Two worked examples make the line concrete. A promotion that reads “Borrow up to 10,000 pounds, 9.9 percent APR, representative, fixed monthly payments” states a rate and a cost, so it triggers the requirement and the representative APR has to be present and prominent. A brand-only message that reads “Personal loans, see if you qualify in two minutes” states no rate, no cost and no incentive figure, so on its face it does not trigger the requirement, though the rest of the page can still pull it back in.

That is the trap most accounts fall into: the implied rate. A figure that is not labelled as an interest rate can still trigger the requirement if it conveys the cost of credit. A large “from 99 pounds a month” splashed across a hero image is a cost-of-credit statement, even with no percentage in sight, and it brings the representative APR obligation with it. The trigger is about what the promotion communicates, not what you call it.

The no-less-prominent test as a design constraint

Once triggered, the representative APR has to be present and, under CONC 3.5, no less prominent than the cost-of-credit or incentive information that triggered it. “No less prominent” is the operative test, and it is where clean accounts most often carry hidden exposure.

Translate it to layout and the constraint is strict. The representative APR cannot be one scroll down from the monthly payment that triggered it. It cannot sit behind a toggle or an expandable panel. It cannot be 8px grey beneath a 48px headline rate. If the figure that pulled the customer in is large and bold and the APR that tells the real story is small and faint, the page fails, regardless of the fact that the APR is technically present.

The representative APR is a forecast about your own book, not a headline rate you get to choose for its marketing appeal.

The failure patterns are consistent and worth naming. The buried APR, present but visually subordinate to the headline figure. The below-the-fold APR, where the trigger is in the hero and the APR is a scroll away. The footnote APR, technically on the page but in the smallest type, doing none of the prominence work the rule requires. Each one is a real, common way to be non-compliant while believing you have ticked the box.

The 51% rule and what it forces on your book

The 51 percent threshold is where this stops being a marketing rule and becomes an underwriting one, and it is the part the generic explainers skip.

Because the representative APR is the rate at or below which you expect at least 51 percent of resulting agreements to be written, it is a direct claim about your own approvals. If your approved applicants mostly land above the rate you advertised, the representative APR was wrong at the point you published it. Not unfair, not badly presented, wrong, because the prediction it encoded did not hold for the majority of your book.

The operational implication is the one most firms have not structured for: marketing cannot set the representative APR alone. The number has to reflect what underwriting will actually do, which means the advertised rate is a cross-functional decision between the people writing the promotion and the people approving the loans. A representative APR set by marketing for its appeal, without reference to the real approval distribution, is a compliance failure waiting for someone to check the numbers.

The rule underneath: CONC 3.3.1R and the private right of action

All of this sits on top of one general rule that does not change. Under CONC 3.3.1R, every financial promotion has to be clear, fair and not misleading. The representative APR rules are a specific application of that broad standard to the cost of credit.

Here is why that general rule raises the stakes above a regulator-only risk. A breach of CONC 3.3.1R carries a private right of action under section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act, which means a consumer can sue directly for losses caused by a non-compliant promotion. That is a remedy they do not have for a breach of the Consumer Duty, which only the FCA can enforce. So a misleading APR is not just a supervisory matter. It is a door to civil liability that the consumer, not only the regulator, can walk through.

What is and is not changing under CP26/15

This rule is under active review, so it is worth being precise about what is moving and what is not. In April 2026 the FCA opened CP26/15, a consultation on simplifying CONC 3 by removing prescription that now overlaps with the Consumer Duty.

Two things are clearly staying. The clear-fair-and-not-misleading rule in CONC 3.3.1R is being kept deliberately, precisely because it carries the private right of action the Consumer Duty does not. And the obligation that a promotion tell the truth about cost, at a glance, is the principle the whole regime rests on, which is not the part up for removal.

What is genuinely open is the cost-disclosure machinery itself. CP26/15 includes a discussion paper asking whether the representative APR should remain mandatory when triggered, whether the representative example should survive in its current form, and whether the 51 percent threshold is still the right test. The FCA has acknowledged a wide view that the current APR disclosure has flaws, particularly on short-term lending and in character-limited formats. So the mechanics described here are current and binding, and some of them may be reformed.

The practical takeaway is the one to build on: do not design a landing page on the assumption these rules are about to disappear. They are live law today, the consultation closed in mid-2026 with an outcome still to come, and the underlying obligation to be honest about cost will outlast whatever specific form the disclosure takes.

FAQs

What is a representative APR?

It is the APR at or below which a lender reasonably expects, at the date a promotion is communicated, that at least 51 percent of the agreements resulting from that promotion will be entered into. In plain terms, it is a forecast about your own lending book, the rate most of your approved applicants will actually get, not the best rate you offer or a headline chosen for its marketing appeal. It has to be accompanied by the word “representative.”

When does a financial promotion have to show a representative APR?

Under CONC 3.5, when the promotion states or implies a rate of interest or an amount relating to the cost of credit, includes an incentive to apply, or makes certain favourable comparisons. A promotion that mentions a monthly payment or an interest rate triggers it. A brand-only message with no cost, rate or incentive figure does not, on its own. The trigger is about what the promotion communicates, so an implied cost figure like “from 99 pounds a month” can trigger it even without a percentage shown.

What does “no less prominent” mean in practice?

It means the representative APR has to appear at least as prominently as the cost or incentive information that triggered it. In layout terms it cannot be one scroll down, behind a toggle, or in small faint type beneath a large headline rate. If the figure that attracted the customer is bold and the APR that tells the real cost is buried or below the fold, the page fails the test even though the APR is technically present. Prominence is judged visually, as the consumer experiences it.

What is the 51% rule for representative APR?

The representative APR is defined as the rate at or below which you reasonably expect at least 51 percent of agreements resulting from the promotion to be written. This ties the advertised rate to your actual approvals. If most of your approved applicants end up above the advertised rate, the representative APR was wrong when you published it, which is a substantive compliance failure rather than a presentation one. It also means marketing cannot set the number alone, since it has to reflect what underwriting will actually approve.

Can a customer sue over a misleading APR?

Potentially, yes. The representative APR rules sit under CONC 3.3.1R, the requirement that promotions be clear, fair and not misleading, which carries a private right of action under section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act. That means a consumer can bring a claim directly for losses caused by a non-compliant promotion, a remedy not available for breaches of the Consumer Duty, which only the FCA enforces. A misleading APR is therefore a civil-liability risk, not only a regulatory one.

Is CONC 3.5 being scrapped?

Not as a whole, and not yet. In April 2026 the FCA opened CP26/15, consulting on simplifying CONC 3 and discussing whether the representative APR, the representative example and the 51 percent threshold should change. The clear-fair-and-not-misleading rule is being kept deliberately, because it carries the private right of action. The cost-disclosure machinery around APR may be reformed, but the consultation has not concluded and the current rules remain in force. Do not build on the assumption they have already changed.

Last reviewed: June 2026

This article provides general information about the representative APR and CONC 3.5. It is not regulatory or legal advice. The FCA’s financial promotion rules are under active review (CP26/15), and your obligations depend on your products, your permissions and your status on the FCA register. The examples here are illustrative, not FCA-issued. Check the current rules and take advice on your specific position before you launch.