SRA faces censure over consumer protection failures

5 Mar 2026News

The Legal Services Board has formally censured the Solicitors Regulation Authority for failing to protect clients affected by SSB Law's collapse, highlighting significant regulatory shortcomings and indicating the need for urgent reform

In a significant move, the Legal Services Board (LSB) has publicly censured the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) due to its negligence in safeguarding consumers impacted by the collapse of Sheffield-based law firm SSB Group Limited (SSB). This development follows a series of serious failures by the SRA, particularly regarding its oversight of SSB, which specialised in 'no win, no fee' legal arrangements. Many clients of SSB found themselves facing unexpected financial burdens when the firm went into administration in January 2024.

The LSB’s censure marks the end of a statutory process triggered by an independent review that uncovered a troubling pattern of inaction by the SRA. Despite receiving over 100 reports outlining concerns about SSB from January 2019 to March 2024, the regulator failed to respond effectively to the warning signs. As part of its enforcement actions, the LSB has mandated the SRA to establish and publish performance targets aimed at addressing these critical failures within the next week, promising continued monitoring and potential further action if necessary improvements are not realised.

Catherine Brown, interim Chair of the Legal Services Board, expressed her concerns regarding the situation, stating, "SSB's former clients have paid a heavy price - many threatened with losing life-changing sums of money and facing serious personal distress. The SRA had repeated opportunities to act, and it did not. That failure allowed harm to grow, and it undermined public confidence in legal regulation." She stressed the importance of the SRA's commitment to implementing recommendations from the review, highlighting that the regulator must now demonstrate a genuine change in its approach to consumer protection.

The repercussions of SSB's collapse continue to affect its clients' daily lives. The independent review pinpointed six key areas where the SRA fell short, including delays in responding to warning signs, siloed working practices, and inadequate protections for vulnerable clients. These findings have prompted an apology from the SRA, with assurances of cultural reform, improved risk assessments, enhanced evidence-gathering methods, and better financial oversight.

Following this public censure, the SRA has set out specific performance targets designed to track improvements in its operations. The regulator is working collaboratively with the LSB to ensure that it not only meets the identified targets from the SSB review but also addresses broader issues from other past failures, such as its handling of Axiom Ince.

Under the new leadership of Chief Executive Sarah Rapson, the SRA is actively pursuing reforms to evolve into a modern and effective regulatory body that earns the trust of the public. Rapson remarked, “As the new Chief Executive, it is incumbent upon me to recognise and address the failings brought to light by the collapse of SSB.” She acknowledged the need for considerable change and emphasised her commitment to being proactive in identifying and mitigating risks to consumers in the legal sector.

In a bid to foster transparency and accountability, Rapson outlined a plan that focuses on quickly addressing potential harm to consumers, optimising resource allocation, and strengthening the SRA's overall regulatory framework. She expressed gratitude for the collaborative approach taken by the LSB and reiterated her priority to implement these changes with urgency.

As the SRA sets its sights on reform, the journey towards restoring confidence in legal regulation and ensuring robust consumer protection faces both challenges and opportunities for significant improvement.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com

Ofcom could face judicial review claim

Ofcom is facing potential judicial review over its perceived inaction regarding intimate image abuse on forums

Challenging solicitors’ bills: lessons from Biggar v Howard Kennedy

A recent SCCO ruling clarifies when clients can challenge solicitors’ bills and the threshold for “special circumstances”

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg and Republic of Zimbabwe v Border Timbers: sovereign immunity and ICSID award enforcement

A waiver of adjudicative immunity from the mere act of ratifying the ICSID Convention

Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey: unpaid court fees and the limitation period

An action is "brought" when the claim form is received by the court, even where the fee paid is incorrect.

Ansari v Chief Constable of North Wales Police: when does AF (No. 3) disclosure apply to phone seizures?

Schedule 7 stops, closed material proceedings and the limits of the AF (No. 3) disclosure standard

Attersley v UK Insurance: fixed costs apply to late Part 36 acceptance in ex-Protocol claims

Late acceptance of a Part 36 offer in an ex-Protocol claim does not entitle a claimant to standard basis costs, even where the case has since been allocated to the multi-track.

Barot v Secretary of State for the Home Department: time limits and the limits of merits in judicial review extensions

Extension of time refused where no good reason shown; underlying merits insufficient to rescue out-of-time applications.

CLC launches fast-track route for graduates

The Council for Licensed Conveyancers has introduced a streamlined qualification path for law graduates interested in conveyancing and probate careers

Tribunal to decide Addison Lee compensation

An employment tribunal is assessing total compensation for over 900 drivers claiming worker status amid contrasting figures from various parties involved in the case

Purani Swami Dharmanandan Dasji v Bhudia & Ors: High Court approves charity scheme for Swaminarayan temple

A new constitution for a £10 million Hindu charity, contested governance, and the limits of a founder's authority.

Townsend v Epsom and St Helier: NHS trusts cannot unilaterally withhold life-sustaining treatment on clinical grounds

Court of Appeal holds that all treatment decisions for incapacitated adults require a best interests analysis — there is no clinical carve-out.

Attorney General v Messi: EAT grants indefinite restriction of proceedings order against serial employment claimant

EAT imposes indefinite bar on claimant with over 50 unsuccessful employment tribunal claims since 2017.

BY v GC: costs orders, litigation conduct and the limits of r28.3

Knowingly false Form E disclosure warrants a costs penalty even where an SJE was already agreed.

Wiltshire Council v Secretary of State: fire damage cannot invalidate a lawful planning decision

A fire destroying a listed hangar eight days after a planning inspector's decision does not retrospectively render that decision unlawful.

SJ Interview: Ben Aram

Ben Aram is UK Managing Partner at Kennedys and co-head of its Corporate & Commercial division. A solicitor specialising in international arbitration and commercial litigation, he has led the expansion of the firm’s UK corporate practice and helped launch its global ESG group. In this interview, he reflects on law-firm leadership, scaling practices, partnership governance, and the skills lawyers need in a changing market.

Power Shifts, Responsibility Holds

From AI liability and freezing injunctions to private equity governance and regulatory reform, this issue traces a legal system adapting to new pressures while keeping accountability firmly human.