header-logo header-logo

18 February 2016
Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

MoJ proposes clampdown on claims farmers’ fee rates

High fees charged by claims management companies (CMCs) are to be capped

Consumers targeted by CMCs over payment protection insurance and similar claims are often hit by rip-off fees of as much as 40% of any compensation. The Financial Conduct Authority has reported that, since 2011, over £21bn has been paid out to consumers for Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claims alone. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) estimates that CMCs may have taken as much as £3.5bn in charges since that date. For the year ending March 2015, more than 200,000 new PPI claims were received by the Financial Ombudsman Service, of which 79% were lodged by CMCs on behalf of consumers, and around 20% came from consumers directly.

MoJ proposals launched last week would cap the completion fee at 15% for bulk claims such as mis-sold payment protection insurance, and cap the overall charge for claims worth more than £2,000 at £300. The maximum completion fee for other types of financial claims would be 25% of the final amount of compensation awarded. CMCs would also be banned from charging upfront fees for financial claims before any work is carried out, from charging cancellation fees of more than £300 for bulk claims, and from charging referral fees for introducing a consumer to a third party.

Justice Minister Lord Faulks says: “Some claims management companies charge as much as 40% of the final compensation awarded for very little work. This has got to stop.”

Kevin Rousell, head of the Claims Management Regulator, says: “We want to make sure that people who use CMCs can be confident they are getting value for money and are not being exploited.” The regulator has cancelled more than 1,000 CMC licences since 2010.

The MoJ is holding an eight-week consultation.

Issue: 7687 / Categories: Legal News
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