MoJ suspends Cartel Client Review

The Ministry of Justice has today suspended Cartel Client Review’s authorisation.

The MoJ had already confirmed publicly that it was investigating CCR.

It issued a statement today, which says: “As a result of this investigation, we have suspended the authorisation of Cartel Client Review, with effect from today March 18 2010.
 


“This means that CCR will no longer be able to carry out any claims management services. As with any suspended business, the MoJ will be monitoring the situation and considering next steps that may be appropriate.
 


“If you are a customer of CCR your agreement with them, as with any provider, is a private contractual matter between yourself and the provider in which MoJ cannot intervene directly because it is not a regulatory matter for which MoJ has responsibility.”

The MoJ regulates claims management companies by enforcing the Compensation Act 2006 and underlying legislation.

Enforcement action is taken against businesses which fail to comply with the conduct rules.

A range of informal and formal actions are available including warnings, undertakings and ultimately the suspension or cancellation of a business’s authorisation to trade in claims services.

The MoJ says removing a business’s authorisation is a serious matter which can only be taken after careful consideration of all the evidence and the consequences for clients of such action.
 

Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors provided legal services for clients of CCR but was recently closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

 

 

 

If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Mortgage Strategy and

Readers' comments (15)

  • At last a little sanity---let's get the parasites and the hangers-on out of the equasion and let reality return

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is a god after all

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank god, after all the green files that was getting dealt with...NOT, clients will now know they never was, I used to work here, HR left on fri, says alot doesnt it, the company has just sunk

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just shows you doesn't it. No such thing as a perfect business. I wonder where this will leave the rest of the industry

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why on earth has it taken the MOJ so long to take such action?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Incredible, hailed as the saviour for financial intermediaries all too willing to bite the hands that fed them for years - Beware of greeks baring gifts!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would like to know why it took so long for the MOJ to investigate when a lot of consumers were complaining!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Particularly nice to see the MoJ telling customers who have been cheated by these parasites to get on with it themselves. Another waste of time government body

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Let's put this into perspective before all the 'told you so's' jump on the cartel bandwagon.
    cartel has ripped people off before with his mortgage business. he has never been liked in this industry EVER! This was only the likely outcome of his next 'business'. he had NO ATE funding for the solicitors to claim on a CFA basis, it was going nowhere. meanwhile the MOJ sat on their backsides ( knowing wjhat was going on) and did ZILCH. Consumers should be made aware that, if they acted sooner, and not left it for 2 years and 5,000 complaints, nowhere near as many people would have been stitched up. They are to blame as much as Carl Writght is. Considering they have given carl Wright an authorisation to carry on doing this under his new company grass Roots, what does that tell you about the protection the MOJ are giving the consumer?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For the MoJ to turn round and say clients are have to find ways of recovering their own money is a disgrace, really, what is the point of them if they cannot invoke some sort of ruling stating that people need to be paid back what they have been conned out of?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Mandatory
Advanced search

Poll

Do you recommend fast-track to customers?

Current Issue

petitions
debate
Define Advice