FCA and SRA launch joint taskforce to crack down on claims management firms mishandling motor finance compensation claims
The Financial Conduct Authority has launched a joint taskforce with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and other regulators specifically to address poor handling of motor finance compensation claims by some claims management companies (CMCs) and law firms. The announcement came on 30 March 2026, alongside the FCA's publication of its final motor finance compensation rules. The taskforce targets conduct by claims handlers that may be harming consumers in the very process designed to compensate them — including practices such as excessive fee charging, misleading communications about likely compensation levels, and inappropriate mass-marketing of claims. CMCs are firms that pursue compensation claims on behalf of consumers, typically on a no-win, no-fee basis, and are regulated by the FCA under the Claims Management: Conduct of Business sourcebook (CMCOB). The joint nature of the taskforce is significant: CMC regulation sits with the FCA, but solicitors conducting claims work are regulated by the SRA. Where law firms are running motor finance claims operations — particularly high-volume, commoditised practices — they fall under SRA oversight. The taskforce signals that both regulators are prepared to use their respective enforcement tools against malpractice in this space. The motor finance redress scheme is one of the largest consumer compensation exercises in UK financial services history, covering an estimated 14 million agreements and potentially up to £8 billion in payouts. The scale of that liability has created a cottage industry of claims intermediaries, and the regulators' concern is that consumer detriment is being compounded rather than remedied.
Why this matters
The FCA–SRA joint taskforce creates a twin-track enforcement risk for law firms operating in the motor finance claims space: FCA action against CMC-regulated entities and SRA disciplinary proceedings against solicitors. This is a direct regulatory signal to firms that high-volume, fee-driven claims practices will face scrutiny, and it activates financial services regulatory, professional indemnity, and internal investigations work for those firms at risk. The 'why now' is the imminent operationalisation of the mass redress scheme, which the regulators want to proceed without being overwhelmed by a wave of intermediary-driven claims that inflate costs and delay consumer payouts. Lenders will also be watching: CMC-inflated claim volumes directly affect their liability exposure modelling.
On the Ground
On a matter advising a law firm or CMC facing taskforce scrutiny, a trainee would draft regulatory notification letters to the FCA or SRA, prepare a compliance gap analysis memo comparing the firm's claims handling practices against CMCOB requirements, and update a remediation tracker logging steps taken to address identified failures. Licence condition summaries covering the firm's FCA authorisation scope would also be standard junior work.
Interview prep
Soundbite
Dual FCA–SRA oversight of motor finance claims firms means law practices running high-volume claims operations now face simultaneous regulatory and professional conduct risk.
Question you might get
“A law firm runs a high-volume motor finance claims operation and has received a letter from the joint FCA–SRA taskforce. What are the firm's immediate regulatory obligations, and what conduct issues might it face?”
Full answer
The FCA and SRA have formed a joint taskforce to tackle malpractice by claims management companies and law firms handling motor finance compensation claims. This matters because it creates a two-regulator enforcement risk: FCA action under CMCOB against CMC-licensed entities, and SRA disciplinary proceedings against solicitors — meaning firms operating dual-capacity claims practices face exposure on both fronts. The 'why now' is the activation of a mass redress scheme covering 14 million agreements and up to £8 billion in payouts, which is generating a volume of intermediary-driven claims the regulators want to police aggressively. This will drive demand for financial services regulatory defence and professional indemnity advisory work at firms that have built out claims practices.
Sources
My notes
saved