The Claims Protection Agency Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Financial Conduct Authority

A judicial review challenge to the Financial Conduct Authority’s decision to publicise an investigation by naming the regulated claims management company was dismissed. This continuation judgment records the factual and decisional context, including the distinction between a Naming Announcement and an Anonymised Announcement, the FCA’s consumer-protection concerns, and the potential prejudice to the firm. The court’s conclusions and essential reasons were given in Part 1 of the judgment and are not repeated here.

The claimant operated as a regulated claims management company in the motor finance claims sector. Following supervisory concerns about its marketing, customer communications and compliance with regulatory requirements, the FCA accepted voluntary requirements, commenced an investigation and decided to make a public announcement naming the claimant.

The claimant sought judicial review of that decision. Part 2 provides further confidential-context detail concerning the FCA’s decision-making memoranda, the proposed contents of the announcement, the consumer-protection rationale and criticisms advanced by the claimant. The court stated that its conclusions and essential reasons appeared in Part 1, designated [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin).

1. Disposition. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The continuation judgment expressly stated that the conclusions and essential reasons had been given in Part 1 and were not repeated.
2. The FCA’s decision concerned whether to publish an announcement identifying the claimant as the subject of an investigation, rather than publishing an anonymised announcement. The decision-making materials considered the FCA’s concerns about potentially misleading claims regarding compensation, failure to explain free-to-claim alternatives, high-pressure selling, excessive contact and arrangements for vulnerable customers.
3. The materials identified consumer-protection objectives. They included correcting information asymmetry, enabling existing customers to reconsider their contractual and other options, and maintaining confidence in the financial system. The FCA also considered the reach of the claimant’s marketing, the possible harm to consumers and the potential prejudice to the claimant from being named.
4. The claimant challenged aspects of the reasoning, including the use of a compensation benchmark informed by the recent motor finance litigation, the comparison between naming and anonymised publication, the relevance of a wider audience, and the assessment of prejudice. The judgment records those criticisms as illustrations of the arguments advanced; it does not reproduce the court’s assessment of them.
5. The investigation itself was not challenged as unlawful, unreasonable or unfair. The claimant’s voluntary requirements had prohibited new customer onboarding and new financial promotions pending FCA satisfaction that they could be lifted.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim. The court had earlier delivered Part 1 of the same judgment, designated [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin); this judgment constituted Part 2 and did not alter the stated disposition.