SRA seeks input to enhance claims protection

19 Sept 2025News

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is inviting evidence on consumer challenges in high-volume claims to enhance regulation

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is intensifying its efforts to safeguard consumers in high-volume claims by seeking further evidence regarding ongoing challenges in the sector. High-volume consumer claims involve significant numbers of individuals filing against the same entity or concerning similar issues, and are prevalent in areas such as housing disrepair, data breaches, motor finance, and flight delays.

A recent Thematic Review by the SRA highlighted alarming shortcomings among law firms in their duty to protect clients’ interests during these claims. Currently, the SRA is investigating 76 law firms and has requested compliance declarations from over 500 firms to collect vital information for its ongoing inquiries. Anna Bradley, Chair of the SRA Board, stated that “the risks and issues we are seeing in the high-volume consumer claims market are unprecedented,” indicating the extent of the problem.

In a new Discussion Paper, the SRA identified five key challenges within the market and invited public input, which will aid in crafting future regulatory action aimed at promoting a safer claims environment for consumers. These challenges encompass transparency in claims processes, the risks associated with third-party litigation funding, adequacy of insurance for clients, regulatory adaptability to market changes, and necessary system-wide improvements.

The SRA is collaborating with multiple regulatory bodies and stakeholders to address these critical issues, holding events and webinars to engage directly with various parties. Feedback on the Discussion Paper is sought before 14 November, with responses encouraged via a survey or email. The insights gathered will inform future policy developments, as the SRA plans to consult on more specific regulatory proposals in the upcoming year.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...