View more on these topics

Claims firms must clean up their act, says Which?

Which? is calling on claims management firms to clean up their act after an undercover investigation by the consumer watchdog found misleading advice and unfair contract terms to be commonplace among such companies.

Posing as someone who thought they might have been mis-sold payment protection insurance, Which? mystery shopped 25 claims firms and identified problems at every single one.

It found that most of the firms did not follow the rules set out by the Ministry of Justice, and that two thirds of the companies failed to advise the caller about the Financial Ombudsman Service, despite being required to do so.

Six firms repeatedly told the caller they had more chance of success or would receive more compensation using a claims firm than by submitting a claim independently.

Which? says that WeFightAnyClaim told the caller they had over a 90% chance of claiming through them, or under a 10% chance of claiming by themselves.

Which? says there is no proof that this is true, and that claims firms are prohibited from making such statements.

The investigation also found that three of the firms – Aims Review, WeFightAnyClaim and Tucan Claims – charge upfront fees, and some asked callers for payment over the phone.  

Which? and are calling for both cold calling and asking for payment over the phone to be banned, as they believe these practices can created a pressured situation where consumers are unable to consider their options.

Which? also says that the investigation found many firms’ contract terms to be unfair.  

It says the typical fee charged by a claims firm is 30% of the compensation received (25% plus VAT), but the definition of compensation varies. It says that consumers might assume the fee would be calculated based on the lump sum of money paid to them, but some firms include a reduction in future loan repayments as part of the compensation, meaning some people could receive far less than they expect or end up owing money to the claims firm.  

Richard Lloyd, executive director of Which?, says: “Claims management companies must clean up their act. All too often, consumers are being misled about their chances of success and how much they’ll have to pay – the last thing people need if they’ve already fallen victim to the PPI mis-selling scandal.  

“We look forward to the MoJ taking swift enforcement action where appropriate, based on the findings of our investigation.”

Martin Lewis, creator of, adds: “Even if the claims handling companies all played it by the book, with mis-sold PPI payouts of £3,000 to £5,000 now being commonplace, the price charged is far too high.  

“Reclaiming is easy for many, just a case of making a call or writing a letter. Yet claims handlers often charge over 30%, which for many means losing over £1,000 of their payout and for most, it’s just not worth using these firms.”

On Monday Mortgage Strategy launched its Make Claims Firms Pay campaign, calling for claims firms to be made to pay for unsubstantiated claims against brokers. To sign our e-petition click here.


MS Leader: Ambulance-chasers beware

Mortgage Strategy kicks off its Make Claims Firms Pay campaign this week. The objective is simple we want the government to include a clause in the Financial Services Bill whereby claims firms are made to pay a £500 fee to the Financial Ombudsman Service for every claim against a broker that is deemed to be without merit.

July’s fall takes average house price to £207,690

House prices fell 1.5% year-on-year in July, data from the Department for Communities and Local Government shows. Prices were up 0.3% compared with June, taking the average house price to £207,690.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up
  • Post a comment
  • Emma 22nd September 2011 at 2:55 pm

    I work in a complaints environment and have been astounded by the pushyness of these claims management firms – they get in touch and ask if the customer held PPI, when they are told that the customer didn’t hold PPI they take it to the ombudsman for us then to prove for a second time that the customer did not have PPI. I say make the claims firms pay the fee to the ombudsman when it is clear they are wasting everyones time. And consumers need more information out there highlighting they don’t need to go direct to a claims firm and get charged for it when they can do it for free.

  • Brian Mclean 21st September 2011 at 12:31 pm

    You can get a claims management company that only charges 15% so they should all not be treated the same. Why is it always companies that have failed the test get their name blasted by Which and the so called moneysavingexpert. What about the good companies out there. How many cases has Which or moneysavingexpert taken to court in the interest of the public for consumer matters? but they want the publicity of slating companies. I say get involved in the market before you comment on it in the future. Consumers have a right to have their financial products checked by anyone but no company should use allegations against a broker unless they have evidence to do so therefore i think the campaign is wrong.