Claims management company wound up over misused client funds


PPI form

Insolvency Service found “many examples of misconduct”

A Bradford-based payment protection insurance (PPI) claims management company, has been wound up by the High Court, following an investigation by the Insolvency Service (IS).

A spokesman for the IS said Redress Financial Management, trading under the name ‘Redress Claims’, charged customers an up-front fee of between £95 and £395 plus a percentage of the fee recovered, for its services.

He said the service had investigated the company, after receiving information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), and found “many examples of misconduct”, including misusing client funds and taking unauthorised payments from clients.

Redress was also found to have failed to operate a proper complaints procedure, to the detriment of its customers, and failed to file statutory accounts and returns. The IS said the firm’s sole director was Naman Ahmed Hussein.

Alex Deane, investigation supervisor at the IS, said: “This company operated with flagrant disregard for the rules governing claims management services and proper financial controls.

“The investigation and subsequent legal action taken by the service were long and complex, and I would like to thank officials from the MoJ for their assistance in bringing the company’s activities to an end.”

The petition to wind-up Redress Financial Management was presented under section 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 on 7 October 2013. The company was wound-up on 19 November 2014.

In a separate development, Richard Render, a Manchester-based director of Total Care Consumer Solutions, who traded as a claims and compensation consultant, was disqualified as a company director for six years from next month for failing to pay tax and paying himself instead.

The disqualification, which follows an investigation by the IS, means that Mr Render cannot control or manage a company without leave of the court until December 2020.

Robert Clarke, head of insolvent investigations for the north at the Insolvency Service, said: “Company directors have a duty to ensure businesses meet their legal obligations, including paying taxes and must not benefit themselves at the expense of creditors.”

Tags:




Blog


Why law firms are getting AI supervision wrong

The profession’s response to AI supervision failures misunderstands the nature of LLM output – there needs to be for a shift in the culture.


Beyond the PII premium – rethinking risk

Professional indemnity insurance renewal is often treated as an annual pricing exercise. But it is also a chance to show how effectively you identify, manage and mitigate risk.


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Loading animation