Check My Legal Fees News
Keep up to date with news and information from Check My Legal Fees
Fixing the Broken Promise of High Volume Claims
Liz Coll, consumer policy analyst and founder of Connected Consumers, published the following blog yesterday, 3rd December, for the Legal Services Consumer Panel.
Fixing the Broken Promise of High‑Volume Claims - Legal Services Consumer Panel
Liz Coll, LSCP Panel Member, discusses the high-volume claims market and "no win, no fee" advertising
You can link to the blog post itself above, but this is what Liz said : -
Most people will know 'high volume claims' through seductive 'no win, no fee' advertising promises, or sometimes from door-to-door marketing pushes for claims sign-ups.
The high‑volume claims market was meant to widen access to justice to ordinary people, when bringing an individual claim was pretty much impossible. Grouping similar claims together should means less financial risk, and an easier route through complex compensation processes.But while the principle behind high-volume claims is sound, the practice is not. It has become a system where fine print replaces frank conversations, and where the enticing mantra of "no win, no fee" obscures a harsher reality: that even successful claims often leave consumers with only a fraction of what they expected.
The collapse of firms such as SSB Law Group, which left thousands of clients stranded and in debt, was no freak accident. It was the inevitable result of a regulatory approach that has been too passive for too long. The Legal Services Consumer Panel has been warning for years that without standardisation and transparency, the market will continue to betray the very people it was designed to serve.
A five-part mandate for reform
The Panel's message is clear: the sector's approach must be rebuilt on a foundation of clarity and fairness. Our response to the SRA's discussion paper on improving the regulation of high-volume claims rests on five pillars:
1. Move beyond the illusion of consent:
The Panel's submission says burying risks in dense contracts is a regulatory failure. We want a short, consumer‑tested Key Facts Document that highlights the most critical truth: your compensation is not protected in full; our fees and insurance will be deducted from it. This should be paired with an interactive onboarding checklist, turning a signature from a hollow formality into a genuine moment of understanding, much like informed consent in healthcare.
2. Clean up misleading language:
2. Clean up misleading language:
The phrase "no win, no fee" is a dangerous half‑truth. The Panel wants the SRA to prohibit its standalone use and require that it always be accompanied by a bold, standardised warning explaining how deductions will reduce the final award. Marketing must be fair, clear, and not misleading, not just in principle, but in practice.
3. Protect the vulnerable majority:
3. Protect the vulnerable majority:
Regulations must embed a proactive duty of care, requiring firms to identify those who need more support and to implement reasonable adjustments, so the system serves everyone, not just the easy‑to‑serve. Again, look to consumer duties in other markets which are learning how to roll out a comprehensive strategy to protect consumers in vulnerable circumstances – which may have been deliberately targeted by pressure tactics and the misleading marketing slogans described above.
4. Prevent collapses before they happen:
4. Prevent collapses before they happen:
The SSB disaster revealed how over‑reliance on single funders and precarious finances can devastate consumers. The Panel has called for proactive financial oversight from the SRA: firms should routinely report on their stability and funding, giving regulators the data to act as an early warning system rather than reacting after collapse.
5. Tailor oversight to sector risks:
5. Tailor oversight to sector risks:
One‑size‑fits‑all regulation is inadequate. The Panel advocates for enhanced authorisation before firms enter the market, intelligence‑led compliance checks to keep them in line, and a dedicated code of conduct to consolidate these rules into a single, enforceable framework.
Restoring confidence and integrity
This five‑part mandate is more than reform; it is a blueprint for restoring confidence and integrity in this market.
By standardising transparency, restricting misleading practices, protecting the vulnerable, monitoring financial health and tailoring oversight, regulators can finally start to deliver on the promise of access to justice.
People who are part of a high-volume claim have already faced a financial loss and often a difficult, stressful experience – sadly the market as it is now only compounds this at the very time consumers need a transparent and fair system they can trust.
The time for this necessary evolution cannot wait.
Restoring confidence and integrity
This five‑part mandate is more than reform; it is a blueprint for restoring confidence and integrity in this market.
By standardising transparency, restricting misleading practices, protecting the vulnerable, monitoring financial health and tailoring oversight, regulators can finally start to deliver on the promise of access to justice.
People who are part of a high-volume claim have already faced a financial loss and often a difficult, stressful experience – sadly the market as it is now only compounds this at the very time consumers need a transparent and fair system they can trust.
The time for this necessary evolution cannot wait.
About the author
Comment for this post has been locked by admin.
