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

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.

    Readers Comments

  • Mark Clarke says:

    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.

  • P Courtney Clegg says:

    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.

  • Anni Donaldson says:

    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.

  • Jonathan Kinsley says:

    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!

  • Michelle clarke says:

    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

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.


No larger firm can ignore the demands of innovation – that was the clear message from our most recent roundtable: “The law firm of the future”, sponsored by LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions. It comes in many forms, predominantly but not just technology, and is not simply a case of automating process. Expertise and process are not mutually exclusive.


20 September 2018
Simon McCrum

Why don’t lawyers do what you ask them to do?

Having been team leader, department head, division head and managing partner, I understand well the frustration (and anger) that managing partners and CEOs voice to me: “We’ve asked them a dozen times, but still they aren’t doing what we need!”

Read More