Information on unauthorised claims management activity - June 2026

Please note that we have interpreted reports, complaints and intelligence submissions as three distinct categories of communications. Furthermore, we have defined the period of the last three calendar years as the last three full calendar years, 2023 – 2025.

Reports constitute formal referrals to our Scams, Promotions, Engagement and Perimeter department. Such reports can be based on various pieces of intelligence received from multiple sources, including consumer correspondence. Please see the table below for an annual breakdown of reports into unauthorised claims management activity received by this department:

In line with our current Complaints Scheme, a complaint is defined as 'an expression of dissatisfaction about the manner in which the regulators have carried out, or failed to carry out, their ‘relevant functions’. For more information about this, please refer to this link: Complaints against the regulators[1]. 

The FCA does not have the powers to adjudicate individual complaints made against the firms it regulates: such adjudication powers sit with the Financial Ombudsman Service ('the Financial Ombudsman'). Therefore, any complainants or enquirers expressing dissatisfaction about specific firms or individuals within the financial services sector would generally be referred to the Financial Ombudsman. You may find it helpful to visit their website here[2] for more information on this. 

While we log all instances when consumers call into our Supervision Hub, these would be recorded in our systems as contact records and would not be categorised as ‘complaints’.  

In this instance, we can confirm that we have identified the following number of consumer contacts related to unauthorised claims management activity, categorised as ‘Claims Management Companies, Scams and Unregulated Firms’:

However, to determine how many of these contacts contain an expression of dissatisfaction in relation to the issues you refer to and can therefore be construed as ‘complaints’, we would need to review and analyse the details of each contact on record. We are of the view that this analysis and determination would be tantamount to creating new information, which we are not required to do under FOIA.

Intelligence submissions constitute material received and handled by specialised teams for relevance and reliability. We can confirm that in 2023 we received 4 intelligence submissions with an additional 4 received in 2025. 

We can confirm that between 2023 and 2025, two investigations have been initiated into unauthorised claims management activity. 

Please see the table below for an annual breakdown of consumer warnings opened into unauthorised claims management activity between 2023 – 2025:

In relation to enforcement or supervisory actions, please note that we do not consider actions against unauthorised firms to be ‘supervisory’ in nature as we do not supervise unauthorised firms. 

Furthermore, we have interpreted ‘enforcement action’ to mean enforcement outcomes (for example obtaining a criminal conviction or civil restitution). We confirm that we have not had any enforcement outcomes between 2023 – 2025 in respect to unauthorised claims management companies arising from the reports above.

We have not commenced any criminal prosecutions in this time period for unauthorised claims management activity

As explained above, we consider enforcement actions to mean enforcement outcomes. On this basis, we can confirm that no enforcement outcomes have been recorded against unauthorised claims management companies or introducers between 2023 – 2025.

In line with our previous response, we have interpreted your request as ‘the number of websites relating to unauthorised claims management services that the FCA has requested to be removed or taken down in each of the last three calendar years’. 

Please see the table below for the number of takedown requests we have made in conjunction with third parties with an appropriate tag identifying it as a claims management entity. Please note that some of these takedowns may not have been executed or may have been temporary in nature, as breaches could be sufficiently rectified prior to an intervention or the relevant domain could be re-purposed following takedown. This does not include the number of domains that have been removed following direct engagement or correspondence with the relevant firms.

Please see our answer to question 2 (b) above.