65 CMCs warned over referral fee ban compliance in first quarter of 2014


Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Justice: mystery shopping exercise to probe marketing concerns

The Claims Management Regulator (CMR) has warned over 65 claims management companies (CMCs) about their compliance with the referral fee ban in the first three months of this year, it has emerged.

The CMR also revealed that it has launched a mystery shopping exercise to crack down on companies that buy and sell marketing leads in breach of the rules.

In its latest update on enforcement action, the CMR, based at the Ministry of Justice, said it had carried out a programme of “revisits and planned audits” of personal injury CMCs whose business models were causing concern.

A total of 85 business models were inspected and 65 warnings issued, but only one investigation started.

“Since the referral fee ban came into effect, the regulator has visited over 900 CMCs,” the CMR said.

At the start of 2013, around 2,300 regulated CMCs were operating in the personal injury market, a figure which had fallen to around 1,200 by the end of March this year.

Meanwhile, the regulator said it had identified 10 direct marketing businesses “potentially engaged in providing regulated claims management services without authorisation”. Investigations continued into two CMCs for non-compliant marketing, while a further two were warned about lead generation.

The CMR said it had launched a mystery shopping exercise “to help identify and tackle non-compliant CMCs that generate and/or buy and sell leads”.

On PPI, the regulator said it had warned several CMCs about inaccurate claims documentation and “began investigations where needed”.

The CMR said it had audited 30 PPI CMCs for the first time and re-audited a further eight to “check if they had followed the advice we had given during previous audits”. This followed the first phase of a large-scale review in the previous quarter.

The regulator added that it had issued a specialist bulletin to CMCs handling PPI claims, including advice on requesting updates from the Financial Ombudsman Service more frequently and the failure of some CMCs to deal with complaints from consumers by phone.

Tags:





Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Reports

Our latest special report, produced in association with Temple Legal Protection, looks at the role of after-the-event (ATE) insurance in commercial litigation post-LASPO. We are at a time when insurers, solicitors, clients and litigation funders work ever more closely to create funding packages that work for all of them, with conditional fee and even damages-based agreements now part of many law firms’ armoury.

Blog

16 October 2019

The new SRA accounts rules – a checklist for compliant software

There are a number of changes to the accounts rules from 25 November, which law firm managers and compliance officers will need to take into account in order for their firms not to be in breach.

Read More

Loading animation