SSB: Visible, measurable action needed from SRA
The collapse of SSB Law was not a one-off and a wider review of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA) handling of volume claims firms is needed, victims have argued.
The SRA’s apology for the errors made “must be followed by visible, measurable action that restores public confidence and delivers tangible justice for those affected”, they said.
The SSB Law Victims Support Group has published a letter sent to SRA chief executive Paul Philip ahead of his retirement on Friday “to ensure that the voices of those harmed are heard before the leadership of the regulator changes”.
It is copied to Legal Services Board (LSB) interim chief executive Richard Orpin and Lord Chancellor David Lammy and comes in the wake of the regulator apologising for its failures in overseeing Sheffield-based SSB.
A report by Northern Irish law firm Carson McDowell for the LSB concluded that the SRA missed several opportunities to step in earlier at SSB.
The letter said: “The independent review makes clear that the SRA did not merely fail to act – it took positive regulatory decisions which exacerbated consumer harm.
“Most notably, the SRA knowingly permitted the transfer of thousands of SSB client files to another SRA-regulated firm, JMR Solicitors, despite internal warnings from its own staff that doing so would cause distress to consumers, offer no genuine protection, and risk ‘the shunting around of poor-quality litigation through a sequence of collapsing firms’.”
The SRA shut down JMR as well soon after, with the files passed on to yet another firm, and the group said this decision represented “a profound dereliction of its statutory duty to act in the public interest and safeguard consumers”.
It argued that the circumstances of SSB were “not an anomaly”. The letter said: “The same regulatory failings have been repeated across multiple law firms, including Tegamus Law, Pure Legal, and others involved in mass-claim and consumer-funded litigation schemes.
“In each instance, the SRA was alerted to patterns of consumer harm and financial instability, yet its interventions came too late or not at all.
“These firms followed strikingly similar business models – acquiring high volumes of clients through aggressive marketing, outsourcing or automating case handling, and relying heavily on external litigation funding.
“When those models collapsed, consumers were left unprotected, and the SRA’s reactive stance allowed further harm to spread through the sector.”
Instead of applying lessons learned from earlier law firm collapses or initiating early intervention, “the regulator repeated the same systemic error, treating each collapse as an isolated event rather than a symptom of deeper market dysfunction”.
Tegamus Law is a firm that went into administration in 2019. It handled both personal injury and cavity wall insulation cases – the latter being at the heart of the SSB scandal – and a large number of its cases were transferred to Pure Legal, and some also to SSB.
The group highlighted the continuing impact on SSB clients: “For many, the damage extends far beyond financial loss. Families have faced court enforcement action, default judgments, and debt-recovery efforts arising from claims that should never have been pursued or were negligently managed.
“Victims have been left to manage spiralling liabilities, credit damage, and prolonged uncertainty – consequences that exist solely because the regulatory system failed to protect them when it had the power and evidence to do so. The emotional and psychological toll has been profound.”
This meant that the SRA’s apology “cannot close this matter”, the group said. “Until victims are acknowledged, supported, and compensated, and until the regulator acts decisively to reform its approach, the harm remains both ongoing and unremedied.”
Among its demands were that the SRA establish, in collaboration with the LSB and the Ministry of Justice, an independent compensation and redress scheme for affected SSB clients.
There should also be “a sector-wide review of the SRA’s regulatory handling of mass-claim and consumer litigation firms, including Pure Legal, Tegamus Law, and related entities, to identify systemic weaknesses and repeated risk indicators”.
Independent oversight of the implementation of the Carson McDowell recommendations was needed, “with progress reports made publicly available to Parliament and consumers”.
Further, there should be “space for consumer voices in [SRA] oversight panels or inquiry processes, ensuring that those affected are not merely subjects of investigation but active contributors to reform”.
The letter called on the SRA to proactively connect victims of failed law firms so they could form independent support groups.
The SSB group “has been a lifeline for hundreds of people, offering information, mutual support, and stability to those who might otherwise have faced isolation and confusion”.
SRA chair Anna Bradley commented: “We are sorry for the hurt and distress caused by issues with our handling of SSB, and we fully understand the concerns set out in the open letter.
“We recognise that an apology is not enough. Since SSB’s collapse our focus has been on action, so that we can better protect consumers. We are making changes to improve how we regulate and will implement recommendations coming out of the review.
“We will consider the suggestions proposed by the Victims Support Group, and I will be seeking to meet them in person as soon as possible.”
My cavity wall insulation file went from Joseph Fraiser Solicitor to Tegamus Law to Heselwood and grant Solicitor to SSB Law. I was pursued aggressively for cost totalling 25,000. I didn’t want to live. Nobody wanted to help. Not my MP, not the SRA. I contacted ofgem, trading standards DESNZ. NO ONE WAS INTERESTED