9:40 am, October 24, 2025
SNP MP Dave Doogan has launched a scathing attack on RCI Financial Services, saying that the ‘faceless foreign bank’ was ‘entirely responsible’ for forcing Mackie Motors out of business.
The Scottish politician is the local MP for Mackie Motors boss Kevin Mackie, who is currently embroiled in action against Renault UK Limited, Nissan Motor (GB) Limited and RCI Financial Services Limited (RCIFS).
The car dealer had his banking, and access to key dealer systems, pulled with seven days notice back in 2021, and the case is currently subject to a fresh High Court claim.
Defence documents were filed with Mackie’s team earlier this month, in which Renault and Nissan claimed they had ‘no obligation’ to supply cars or parts to their dealer networks.
In response, Mackie told Car Dealer that the argument left all dealers ‘operating on a knife edge’ and he now appears to have a powerful ally in the form of Doogan.
The politician is MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens, and has previously raised Mackie’s case in the House of Commons, where he labelled the situation a ‘cluster-fankle up’.
He has also taken the case to senior officials within both the Treasury and the Home Office, in order to raise concerns about the conduct of RCIFS in particular.
Speaking exclusively to Car Dealer, the 52-year-old hit out at the behaviour of RCIFS, which serves as the internal finance house of Renault and Nissan.
He said the firm had closed down Mackie Motors ‘without explanation’ and accused the it of trying to ‘break’ his constituent.
Explaining his own involvement in the case, he told Car Dealer: ‘I took the issue to government ministers.
‘We went all around the legislation and it does fall between two stools. It’s Treasury legislation, but there’s Home Office application of it.
‘I’ve met two chief secretaries to the Treasury; I’ve met two Home Office ministers on this; I’ve met with the FCA about it; I’ve met with Renault Credit International; Kevin himself has discussed issues with the police regarding certain elements of his used stock and everything is proving to be a challenge.
‘It is very easy for for each individual organisation to say: “Oh that’s not us – that’s somebody else”.
‘To be honest, nobody is entirely responsible for everything around this, except – I would argue –RCI, whose behaviour, regardless of the watery nature of the guidance, has been awful.
‘It shouldn’t be guidance – it should be regulation. It shouldn’t be left to the discretion of banks to follow the guidance or not. It should be regulation.
‘A Treasury in the UK – where we have such low growth – should be concerned when faceless foreign banks are putting well established British firms out of business, but apparently not!’
Dave Doogan (Andrew Milligan/PA Archive/PA Images)
‘Serious question marks over Renault and Nissan’
Mackie lost a previous High Court claim against RCIFS, when judges ruled that the bank was within its rights to withdraw funding at seven days’ notice.
The initial decision to withdraw funding came amid allegations of money laundering – something Mackie strenuously denies and has never been charged with.
Despite the previous ruling in favour of RCIFS, neither Renault and Nissan have appeared before any court in relation Mackie Motors.
Doogan says ‘serious question marks’ continue to linger over the brands’ actions, which he says were ‘not consistent with the terms of their contract’.
He also hit out at RCIFS, accusing the bank of failing to engage with Mackie and ‘ignoring’ Home Office regulations.
‘The courts are independent and they will do what the courts do – Kevin knows that,’ Doogan told Car Dealer.
‘He has been to court to argue about the seven day clause in his contract, which however unjust that might have been, was nevertheless in his contract and RCI, unsurprisingly, won that case.
‘Where I think they’re going to have a far harder argument in court is if they have to try and justify why they did what they did – why they ignored the regulations from the Home Office in the way that they did, why they didn’t act to find a way forward with Kevin Mackie and Mackie Motors as a going concern and why they didn’t seek to get Kevin to explain what their concerns were with his business and with his banking.
‘It was perfectly legitimate for RCI to have concerns. What is not legitimate is to shut down a business, where the National Crime Agency have not given you any indication of a crime having been committed.’
On Renault and Nissan, he added: ‘There are serious question marks about their due diligence and why they did what they did.
‘They acted – or appear to have acted – simply on the instruction of RCI, which is not consistent with the terms of their contract.’
‘Maintaining franchise dealership can be pretty onerous’
Elsewhere, Doogan says that the Mackie Motors case should serve as a warning to other franchise car dealers.
He believes that retailers, who invest hundreds of thousands of pounds to keep their showrooms up to date with the latest corporate identities, should be protected from having the ‘rug pulled from under them’ by their banking and manufacturer partners.
He added: ‘Maintaining your franchise dealership can be pretty onerous in terms of what you’ve got invest in your your premises.
‘You buy all that stuff off the manufacturer, and quite often finance it through the manufacturer, so you’re on the hook for often hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of capital investment in your property to create the environment the manufacturer wants their vehicles to be presented in.
‘That’s fine but I think a lot of retailers should be very interested to know what terms their contract is predicated on, and whether or not the manufacturer or their bank could come along one day, and for reasons best known to themselves, pull the rug right out from underneath them.
‘Although this is terrible for Kevin and his family, they were a well-resourced, well-capitalised business at the time, and Kevin has a range of other business interests.
‘If he had been a slightly smaller dealer who was much earlier in their career, goodness knows what this would do to somebody.
‘These banks have a responsibility to people’s welfare, and you cannot just treat people like that, especially when it’s inexplicable.
‘Even if there was some reason to explain it, it’s still heavy handed. It’s very heavy handed, without an explanation and it doesn’t make any sense.
‘I’d like to see his finances restored’
Whatever the result of his upcoming High Court claim, the last four years have inevitably taken their toll on Mackie and his family.
However, as his MP, Doogan is backing the ‘strong’ car dealer to continue fighting his corner and come out on top.
Asked what he would like to see happen going forward, he told Car Dealer: ‘I think Kevin may well still prevail and I would love to see that!
‘I would love to see him prevail. I would love to see his name restored locally, his reputation restored, and I’d like to see his finances restored at RCI’s expense.
‘These corporates, they rely on breaking people. That’s what they want.
‘Most people would have broken or submitted in the intervening years, but Kevin hasn’t, because he he’s got a strength of character and, to be fair, access to resources that many others wouldn’t.’
What do Renault, Nissan and RCI say?
Car Dealer reported earlier this week that Doogan had written to the bosses of all three companies in order to raise his concerns.
However, Renault’s Adam Wood, Nissan’s James Taylor and RCIFS’s Brian Williams all said they could not engage as a result of the ongoing High Court Action.
Prior to that, a spokesman for the bank told Car Dealer: ‘We are not able to comment on an ongoing litigation.
‘However, it’s worth noting that three previous courts, including The High Court and The Court of Appeal, found in favour of our actions regarding Mackie Motors Brechin Limited.
‘We value our relationships with Dealers very highly so it was not action we undertook lightly, and we never had reason to do so before or since.’
A spokesman for the French brand said: ‘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.
‘We are aware that Mackie Motors has now lodged a complaint with the European Commission and has issued further proceedings against us. We intend to seek the dismissal of those proceedings at the earliest opportunity.’
A Nissan spokesperson added: ‘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.
‘We intend to seek the dismissal of issued proceedings at the earliest opportunity.’
Renault, Nissan and RCI 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.
They 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.
The case is likely to be heard in the High Court next year.
RCI Financial Services referred Car Dealer to its previous statement when approached for comment.
