CMC that has piled up complaints named “in the public interest”

Print This Post

4 August 2016


PPI claim: customer abandoned

PPI claim: customer abandoned

The Legal Ombudsman (LeO) has exercised its “public interest” power under the Legal Services Act to name a claims management company (CMC) responsible for a series of complaints.

It is only the second time that the LeO’s board – the Office for Legal Complaints – has used the power. The first time was in 2014 in relation to barrister Tariq Rehman.

Swansea-based JAS Financial Advisory Services Limited – trading as Litchfield Price, Hampton Rae and NLC Solutions – generated 92 complaints in the first six months of 2016.

According to the CMC register, the company is also being investigated by the Claims Management Regulator on suspicion of unprofessional conduct.

In a statement, the LeO said: “We have been advised by a number of complainants that, in the initial sales call, JAS told them that their claims would be resolved quickly, and that the upfront fee was refundable in the event that all claims were ultimately unsuccessful.

“We are concerned that, by failing to adequately progress claims, JAS are delaying payment of fees where a refund may be due. As the majority of their customers pay their fees by credit card, and are expecting a swift resolution, they are being disadvantaged by additional credit card interest charges due to their claims taking longer than can be reasonably expected.”

The LeO said JAS repeatedly took upfront fees, but failed to adequately progress claims; and was failing to keep customers updated as to the progress of their claims.

“Furthermore, we have seen a pattern of behaviour which shows that JAS are failing to respond to consumers’ complaints within an eight-week period. Additionally, they are failing to comply with all of our requests for information. JAS appear to have a very inconsistent approach to co-operating with the Legal Ombudsman; in some instances providing comments to preliminary decisions and in others providing no evidence at all.”

It gave a detailed example of one case where JAS “essentially abandoned” a customer’s claim for mis-sold payment protection insurance after she paid an upfront fee of £495.

Earlier this week, the High Court issued a two-year civil restraint order to stem Mr Rehman’s challenges to disciplinary and LeO decisions.

We have received several requests for help from people who have had dealings with JAS. Please contact the Legal Ombudsman at first instance for advice – click here for its website.



18 Responses to “CMC that has piled up complaints named “in the public interest””

  1. Good morning, I too have paid money upfront and have heard nothing since …I will start making phone calls but fear it won’t make any difference.

  2. Mark Clarke on October 27th, 2016 at 10:50 am
  3. So far have rang 9 times left two messages sent 3 emails and have not had a response to my request for my refund next stop formal complaint, I fear this will be a long battle.

  4. P Courtney Clegg on October 31st, 2016 at 5:00 pm
  5. I am in the same position. Their customer service team has been on training for over a week and no calls are being answered. Their website is also unavailable. I think I’ve been had.

  6. Anni Donaldson on November 16th, 2016 at 11:01 am
  7. Does anyone have a phone number? Its no longer on the website and I cant find any correspondence, This has been going on since March!

  8. Jonathan Kinsley on November 17th, 2016 at 5:18 pm
  9. Also going through the same thing was promised money would be paid back in September, after many phone calls found out from the CAB that the company had gone into liquidation and I can only presume I will never see my money again

  10. Michelle clarke on November 18th, 2016 at 3:11 pm
  11. I was ib the same position as everyone else having started my ‘claim’ in April 2015. However, I have now received a refund from my credit card company even though well over a year has lapsed since paying the £495. Would recommend everyone to check with their card issuer if they used a credit card.

  12. Tracey Leach on November 30th, 2016 at 11:25 am
  13. I too am in the same position as all the above people. I am guilty too of being ” taken in” by what appeared to be a reputable company. I have called them many times only to be greeted by an ansaphone stating their customer service team were in training. They should be prosecuted.

  14. Susan Joyce on December 1st, 2016 at 3:31 pm
  15. I have also paid £495 and have been trying to contact then without success.

  16. Ron Budhram on December 2nd, 2016 at 4:47 pm
  17. I paid the £495 the company finished up with more than me i phoned them and they promised me they would refund the money but now im calling its saying there customer service is in training whent online to ask a question and a error came up no contact details available, something should be done !!!!

  18. Robert scott on December 6th, 2016 at 8:51 pm
  19. I paid £495 in June. I have had £80 PPI from a store card I had when I was a student but had nothing else. The NLC solutions phone number does not seem to exist any longer and the website has vanished too! Not sure what to do!

  20. Claire S on December 12th, 2016 at 4:05 pm
  21. I paid the £495 the company finished up with more than me i phoned them and they promised me they would refund the money but now im calling its saying there customer service is in training visited online to ask a question and a error came up no contact details available, heard they have gone into liquidation but not informed company’s house yet so no idea who is doing the liquidation

  22. Mel h on December 15th, 2016 at 4:49 pm
  23. I’ve also payed £495.00, not heard a single thing and website and number does not work. Where do I stand. The money was paid by a credit card and now I’m being charged for the credit card bills. I believe they no intention of paying me anything.

  24. Luke tantum on December 29th, 2016 at 2:46 pm
  25. Despite receiving some compensation (taxed at source plus 20% admin fee deducted), it totalled less than the £495 fee payable at commencement. Promised and reassured me that this would be refunded in such circumstances. Goes without saying, unable to make contact with this company.

  26. Maggie on January 4th, 2017 at 9:54 am
  27. I paid Litchfield Price £495 in 2015. I have complained & recently noticed the website is down. Where do we go from here if they’ve gone into liquidation? I am in the process of contacting the Ombudsman

  28. Vanessa on January 6th, 2017 at 3:53 pm
  29. I cant believe that I was taken in by their promises , the alarm bells should have rang when they asked for the upfront payment …I paid by credit card …any info on what to do next would be very welcome

  30. Lynne Williams on March 9th, 2017 at 11:27 pm
  31. I too paid 495 two yes ago the number does not exist so I’m going to go through the Halifax to see if they can help

  32. Catharine field on March 16th, 2017 at 12:31 pm
  33. I too paid £495 in Sep 2015. After numerous phone calls on 8 Aug 16 they confirmed I had no legitimate claims. Then despite repeated attempts to contact them no refund has been forthcoming

  34. Di Davies on March 29th, 2017 at 12:32 pm
  35. I paid 495 in Nov 2014 and have constantly been battling to get my money back. I paid by credit card so asked my bank for a refund on section 75 .just heard that they are refusing it as I have no written proof of entering a contract with them and no terms and conditions. Can’t access the members site to get anything as it is now shut down….where do I go now ?

  36. Tina Kingscott on July 18th, 2017 at 7:00 pm

Leave a comment

* Denotes required field

All comments will be moderated before posting. Please see our Terms and Conditions

Legal Futures Blog

Do smaller law firms need artificial intelligence?

Peter Wallqvist

It’s hard to miss the recent buzz surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), especially in legal tech, with many of the top 200 firms utilising the technology in some manner. But what about the smaller firms? Do they need AI? Can their infrastructure cope with AI? There are misconceptions that AI is only suitable for larger firms – firms with huge budgets and millions of documents – and therefore unsuitable for smaller firms. But many smaller firms could be missing out on the truly transformative benefits.

July 26th, 2017