header-logo header-logo

01 September 2025
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services , Consumer
printer mail-detail

Consumers at risk in large claims

Law firms are failing to protect clients’ best interests in high-volume no-win no-fee claims, regulators have warned

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) reported evidence of poor practice at several firms handling claims such as mis-selling of financial products, flight delays and data breaches, in its ‘High-volume consumer claims thematic review’.

The SRA has now taken the unusual step of requiring firms to complete a mandatory declaration confirming they understand and follow its rules. 

Its review, published in August, found evidence of firms not being transparent on costs, potential liabilities, merits, funding and referral fees.

Of 50 files reviewed, for example, 11 lacked client identity checks and 39 lacked sanctions checks. At one firm, the files contained no evidence that clients had given written consent to the firm’s retainer.

Clients were given no opportunity to read information about the after-the-event (ATE) cover they were taking out, in ten out of 23 ATE files reviewed.

For the review, it surveyed 129 high-volume claims firms—of 25 firms visited for in-depth inspection, only 11 could show they shared the required care information with all claimants and only 12 had records proving they did so regarding costs and funding. Consequently, the SRA is now investigating nine of the 25 visited.

As of the end of July, the SRA had 95 investigations for potential misconduct in high-volume claims work open on 76 law firms.

SRA chair Anna Bradley said: ‘There are widespread issues in the market, and this is harming consumers.

‘Where we see poor practice, we will take robust action.’

Welcoming the review, Law Society president Richard Atkinson said regulation must be ‘effective, balanced and targeted at safeguarding vulnerable consumers’.

Concerns about high-volume claims firms have escalated in the past 18 months after insurers pursued SSB Group clients for adverse costs for discontinued cavity wall insulation claims.

Issue: 8129 / Categories: Legal News , Regulatory , Legal services , Consumer
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll