header-logo header-logo

08 May 2024
Issue: 8070 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Caution urged on mass claims

Regulators have warned law firms working on financial product mis-selling claims not to breach their professional obligations

In a warning notice, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) expressed concern about improper practices in the mass claims sector, including ‘firms starting to act, and generate costs, before gaining a client’s consent’, ‘poor due diligence during client onboarding leading to low quality and/or inaccurate claims being progressed’, and ‘failures to act promptly or adequately in response to client instructions’.

The SRA said its existing concerns have been heightened by recent attention on the potential for mass claims over car finance customers being charged too much interest, which the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is currently investigating.

In particular, the SRA is ‘particularly concerned about potential issues regarding firms getting proper instructions from clients and supervising staff in relation to financial services claims when part of high-volume/bulk claim processes involving multiple clients’.

SRA guidance issued alongside the warning notice covers the areas of concern as well as wider areas such as working with third parties and levels of charges.

Paul Philip, SRA chief executive, said: ‘How mass claims are handled is a topic which regularly causes us, and others such as the FCA, concern.

‘Whichever mass claims area they are working in, solicitors’ obligations are very clear. We expect the profession to treat clients as individuals, not just a number within a group. This means, for example, communicating with them clearly, giving them a proper assessment of their specific case and related decisions to be made, and asking them for consent before taking any actions in their name. Basically, making sure they adhere to their overall obligation to act in their clients’ interests at all times.’

Issue: 8070 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Regulatory
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll