8:00 am, February 25, 2026
A former insider at RCI Financial Services (RCIFS) has said the lender’s controversial decision to cut off family-run car dealer Mackie Motors was ‘grossly unjust’.
The dealer group’s founder, Kevin Mackie, is currently embroiled in action against Renault and Nissan, as well as their in-house finance provider, RCIFS, after banking and access to key dealer systems were pulled with seven days’ notice back in 2021.
The decision was led by RCIFS, following allegations of money laundering – something which Mackie has always denied and has never been charged with.
A trial is expected to take place in the High Court later this year and Car Dealer has now spoken to a whistleblower from within RCIFS, who has accused the firm of ‘targeting’ Mackie.
The insider, who has since left the firm, says that the group became ‘obsessed’ with Mackie after appointing itself ‘judge and jury’.
He alleges that senior management within the group held 8.30 meetings ‘every morning for two months’ to discuss the case, with an executive opening one of the sessions by saying: ‘Let’s get this b*****d, Mackie.’
The source, who did not wish to be named, added that RCIFS did not follow ‘proper procedures’ and ‘turned the heads’ of Renault and Nissan, both of whom then cut off Mackie Motors.
Speaking exclusively to Car Dealer, he said: ‘It is so grossly unjust what they did to him without any protocols or looking into the proper procedures.
‘They were judge and jury and they should have followed the proper protocols. There were five or six other lenders – like Santander and the Bank of Scotland – who were all involved with Kevin, had access to the same information and did not bat an eyelid.
‘What RCI did was, I think, based on articles from some years’ previous. They put two and two together, thought he was guilty and then off they went – it was shocking.’
When asked whether he thought the decision to axe Mackie had become personal for RCIFS, the insider replied: ‘Yes’.
He added: ‘I think they thought he was guilty but they can’t just make that judgment themselves without going through the proper process.
‘Kevin was a dealer of 45 years who had an unblemished record, who was one of the best in terms of customer service, and all the other parameters that they set. So why did they do it?
‘They thought he was guilty, and they did not follow procedure. They’re going to have to pay a big price, I think a very big price.
‘We had so many meetings about this at 8.30 in the morning, every morning, for two months to discuss this and make sure it went smoothly.
‘They started one of the meetings with the risk analyst saying “Let’s get this b*****d, Mackie”. I could have fallen off my seat to be perfectly honest but that gave an insight into just what they thought.’
‘Completely unacceptable’ termination raises ‘serious concerns’
Mackie Motors was initially locked out of manufacturer systems in late 2021, amid internal suspicions of money laundering.
Mackie strongly denies the claims and describes the accusations as ‘unfounded’. Within weeks of being shut off, the business was sold in a distress deal.
Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal previously ruled that RCIFS did have the right to cut off the dealership at seven days’ notice but a fresh case against Renault and Nissan – who were not included in the first action – is set to be heard in the High Court later this year.
Mackie also recently launched legal action against the law firm which represented him in that case, claiming negligence and breach of contract.
As well as whistleblower testimony from within RCIFS, Mackie has also been supported by Renault Retail Group’s former head of European operations, Len Curran.
In a statement issued to Car Dealer, he said: ‘From my experience, the manner in which Mackie Motors was terminated raises serious concerns.
‘The speed of the decision, combined with the absence of any direct engagement with Kevin Mackie, is completely unacceptable.
‘Clearly, somebody must have made the wrong call.’
‘Not action we undertook lightly’
Renault, Nissan and RCIFS say that the ongoing proceedings ‘repeat matters already litigated in previous proceedings’ and accuse Mackie Motors of ‘re-litigating’ the same facts under new legal theories.
The respondents have also issued two counter claims. The first seeks the repayment of a £250,000 interest-free loan, as well as £91,308.94 in interest and the second is asking for £280,943.32 in unpaid costs from prior proceedings, in addition to £52,333.84 in interest.
In response to an approach by Car Dealer, RCIFS said it had acted lawfully, with previous court rulings finding in the firm’s favour.
A spokesman for the bank said: ‘We will not comment on ongoing legal matters beyond noting that previous claims by Mackie Motors (Brechin) Limited were robustly dismissed by three separate courts, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal, all of which concluded that we had acted lawfully regarding our contract with Mackie Motors.’
Last year, the firm told Car Dealer that the step to cut Mackie off was ‘not action we undertook lightly’.
All three respondents outlined their defence in High Court documents sent to Mackie’s team last year, in which they claimed that Renault and Nissan were under ‘no obligation’ to provide cars or parts to their dealer networks.
In a statement issued at that time, a spokesman for Renault told Car Dealer: ‘Mackie Motors has pursued a long running campaign against our company.
‘This has resulted in three separate courts, including the Court of Appeal, dismissing Mackie Motors’ claims, including for alleged breaches of competition law.’
Meanwhile, a Nissan statement said: ‘Three separate courts, including the Court of Appeal, have dismissed Mackie Motors’ claims on this long-running topic, including for alleged breaches of competition law.’
