header-logo header-logo

12 July 2021
Categories: Legal News , Profession , Financial services litigation
printer mail-detail

SRA: Restricting fees in financial mis-selling claims

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has invited solicitors and law firm representatives to give their views on fee restrictions for financial product and services mis-selling compensation cases

It launched a discussion paper, ‘Restricting fees for some claims management services’, this week, setting out its approach and asking to what extent its rules should be aligned with the proposals of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates the vast majority of this sector.

Under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, the SRA’s rules must prevent excessive fees being charged for claims management activities connected to financial products or services.

Paul Philip, SRA Chief Executive, said: ‘This is an important piece of work for consumers and the firms we regulate.

‘Fees have to be set at a level that means the cost is affordable for people seeking redress, while ensuring that this is still a viable area of work for firms that provide this service for those who need it. So although the number of law firms involved may be small, the impacts for consumers could be significant.

‘I would urge firms currentlyproviding claims management in this area, and others who may be thinking about doing so, to read the discussion paper and let us know what you think.’

View the discussion paper at bit.ly/3xvpg5N and submit your views by 29 September.

The SRA will hold a webinar on its thinking in this area, on 14 July at 12.30pm. Register here: bit.ly/3hTYz4m.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll