While the full detail is complex, the key message is clear: although a redress framework is now in place, the rules are far from simple. With different schemes, multiple exclusions, capped payments and detailed calculation methods, many consumers may find it difficult to understand whether they are eligible and what they could receive.

Below, we look at some of the main takeaways from the FCA’s final rules.

1- The average pay-out has increased

One of the headline changes is the increase in the average compensation figure.

The average pay-out has been uplifted from £695, as set out in the earlier consultation, to £830.

For many consumers, this will be one of the most significant updates, as it suggests the FCA has recognised the need for a higher level of redress than originally proposed.

2- There will be two separate schemes

The FCA has confirmed that there will be two schemes covering different periods of motor finance agreements:

• one scheme covering agreements entered into on or after 1 April 2014
• a second scheme covering agreements entered into before 1 April 2014, going back to April 2007

This means eligibility and the way redress is assessed may depend heavily on when the agreement was taken out.

3- Different APRs will apply to each scheme

The FCA has also confirmed different APRs for calculating awards under the two schemes.

For the earlier scheme, awards will apply an APR of 21%. For the later scheme, the 17% figure used in the consultation will apply.

The hybrid methodology has been adopted, although this will operate alongside caps on payments, which may limit the amount some consumers ultimately receive.

4- Some complaints will be excluded

Not all complaints will qualify.

The FCA’s final rules include excluded or non-eligible complaints, including loans where the values exceed 95% of average loan values.

This is one of several limitations built into the schemes and is likely to affect some consumers who may otherwise have expected to be included.

5- Lenders may reject complaints even where high commissions were involved

One of the more controversial points is that lenders can reject complaints where no better deal was available for the customer, even where discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) or high commissions were in place.

This suggests there is likely to be room for dispute. In practice, many complaints that appear strong on the face of it may still be rejected on this basis alone.

6- Higher-value agreements may fall outside the schemes

Also excluded are agreements where the loan amount exceeded the average loan by double.

In effect, this is likely to apply to premium vehicles with higher values, meaning some consumers with more expensive finance agreements may fall outside the scope of redress.

7- Pay-outs may still be some time away

The implementation dates of 31st June and 31st August suggest that actual pay-outs may not arrive until three to four months later.

That means many consumers may not receive compensation until later this year, with some payments potentially falling into 2027.

8- Lenders do not have to notify every excluded customer

Another important point for consumers is that, where a lender decides an agreement is excluded, there is no obligation to write to the customer.

This could leave some people unaware that their agreement has been assessed and ruled out, unless they take steps to investigate their position themselves.

9- Fewer agreements are now expected to fall within scope

The total cohort of relevant agreements is reduced by around 2 million, with total pay-outs and administration costs to lenders significantly reduced.

This is a major narrowing of the overall picture and may have a significant impact on the scale of redress ultimately paid.

10- Interest on awards will not fall below 3% per year

The FCA has stated that interest on awards will not fall below 3% per annum.

This provides at least a minimum safeguard in relation to the interest element of compensation.

Legal challenges may still follow

In the coming days or weeks, legal challenges to either scheme are likely to be announced.

Whether or not any such challenge delays the implementation dates remains to be seen. For now, consumers should be aware that the position may still develop further.

Why these rules may be difficult for consumers to navigate

Although the FCA has now issued its final rules, the reality is that these schemes are anything but simple.

The detailed methodology for calculating redress, combined with the exclusions, eligibility rules and caps on payments, creates a framework that is unlikely to be straightforward for the average consumer to understand without support.

For anyone who believes they may have been affected by motor finance mis-selling, understanding whether an agreement falls within the scope of the schemes, and whether a complaint could still succeed, may not be easy.

Think you may have a motor finance claim?

If you believe you may have been affected by motor finance mis-selling, Claim My Loss can help you understand your options and whether you may be entitled to compensation.

Start your claim

The post FCA Final Rules on Motor Finance: What Consumers Need to Know appeared first on Claim My Loss.

The FCA has turned its attention to legacy trail commissions, opening up discussion on whether these payments to financial advisers should finally be scrapped. For anyone currently pursuing financial adviser claims, this review could have significant implications.

What Are Legacy Trail Commissions?

Before January 2013, financial advisers working in pensions and investments didn’t primarily charge fees, they got paid in commissions from the pension and investment provider platforms like St James’s Place, Quilter, Aviva & Scottish Widows (to name a few).

The result was that some advisers looked for ways to justify using the providers that paid the highest commissions over the providers that best suited their client needs, leading to consumer detriment and inconsistency across the industry.

The commissions were paid from the fees the platform providers collected, so naturally the higher the fees, generally the better the commission which was not good for consumers.

What the FCA did to fix it (Retail Distribution Review)

In 2012 Trail commissions were outlawed under the Retail Distribution Review back in 2012, however arrangements already in place before that date were given a free pass. Under these deals, advisers continue to receive payment simply for having originally placed a client into a product, with no obligation to provide ongoing advice or support in return.

The issue is that whilst decent advisers have services their client regularly, and moved customers away from the higher charging commission generating products of the past, other advisers have simply left those clients alone and continued to earn from them.

What is so unfair about this?

Low value customers being ignored
The fact that advisers have been able to continue earning money for the clients they do nothing for is shocking.
If advisers were to review these clients they would have to move them to a cheaper product, however they would then have to charge a fee which would probably negate the saving. The issue then becomes, do these clients really need

These clients have no redress for lack of servicing
In spite of the above, these clients actually have no cause for redress as it stands. So unlike a client who is paying an annual service fee, because their fee is commission, the adviser has no responsibility to carry out annual reviews. It’s a massive contradiction in regulation which should be addressed.

What is happening now?

In a paper published this morning alongside broader advice reform proposals, the regulator said it wants to understand the impact these commissions are having on the market. It laid out four possible routes forward: keeping things as they are, improving transparency for affected consumers, setting a firm end date, or phasing them out gradually to give advice firms time to adjust.

Despite a sharp drop since 2012, trail commission income has levelled off in recent years, still accounting for 12% of adviser revenue in 2024, totalling £674m. Smaller firms and those authorised before 2013 are the most reliant on these payments.

The FCA voiced concern that legacy commissions may be holding back modernisation and preventing consumers from getting value for money. It also acknowledged that pulling the plug would hit some firms harder than others, particularly self-employed planners nearing retirement and those looking to sell their business, where commissions factor into firm valuations.

For now, the regulator is gathering views rather than formally consulting, but the direction of travel feels clear.

Our Thoughts

If it’s not commercially viable to service a customer by charging a fee because they don’t have enough money in their pension or investment, then advisers should refer the client to a lower cost solution and stop earning money that is being deducted from people’s pensions and investments, which should be going towards their retirement. The likelihood is that in the modern day these commission yielding products would never be a justifiable selection today.

Our Experience

Sadly we see it all the time with SJP claims, where somebody has been paying excessive fees, and SJP advisers have been earning a commission for the last 20 years, yet because it’s not classed as an advice fee, they don’t have to pay redress.

It’s the same churn, the same lack of support, the same unnecessary changes resulting in some clients being tens of thousands of pounds worse off, but because the original transfer took place before a certain date, in spite of having been a client for decades in some cases, there are ’no ground for claim’, whereas in contrast somebody who moved a month later, could be entitled to thousands.

We believe a market should exist for redress on commissions where clients have failed to provide any kind of ongoing support, however provided the commissions were disclosed and were not discretionary (the adviser couldn’t increase the fees to generate higher commissions), regardless of suitability, as it stands these clients have to accept the losses.

Our Advice

Regardless of the above, it’s always worth checking if there are other grounds for claim. General Adviser Negligence can give grounds for complaints and claims. Some advisers when faced with a complaint, especially if still being paid commissions, may be prepared to offer settlement.
We can manage direct complaints on our no-win no-fee agreement, however be advised we may not be able to progress the matter the Financial Ombudsman if the adviser is not willing to make settlement.

For more information, book a free consultation with one of our financial advice experts today.

The post FCA News – Financial Advisers sitting on legacy commissions appeared first on Claim My Loss.

But that’s not always the case.

Every year, financial advice firms across the UK close, dissolve, or enter liquidation. And when they do, it can directly affect your ability to raise a complaint or recover losses if something has gone wrong.

Recently, we’ve added several firms to our website that are no longer operating, including:

• Nexus Independent Financial Advisers Ltd
• MHMW1 Ltd (formerly M L Robinson Financial Advice Ltd)
• Logic Investments Ltd
• Hanson Financial Partners Ltd
• G60 Ltd
• WJR Financial Solutions Ltd
• Donre Advisory Ltd

These are just a handful of examples, but they highlight a much bigger issue.

Why This Matters More Than You Might Think

If you received advice years ago, you may not have thought about it since. But financial products, particularly pensions and investments, can take time to show their true performance.

By the time concerns arise, the firm that gave the advice may no longer exist.

And that changes things.

1- Your route to making a complaint may change

If a firm is still active, you typically complain directly to them first.

But if they’ve closed, your claim may need to go through the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) instead.

2- There are time limits to be aware of

Even if a firm has gone out of business, strict deadlines can still apply to when you can bring a claim.

Many people miss out simply because they didn’t realise something was wrong early enough.

3- Records can become harder to access

When firms close, accessing advice files, documentation, or even confirming what happened can become more difficult.

This can make building a claim more complex, but not impossible.

If my financial adviser relationship has been transferred to another firm, who is my claim against?

There are different ways in which client relationships or client bases are transferred between organisations.

Regardless of whether you were ‘sold’ or simply moved to another firm, how the transfer was recorded affects who is liable for what.

Typically, most transfers between firms happen under something called ‘Novation’, this is a re-assignment of rights, dated at the time of transfer. This means that the responsibilities of the new adviser only start from the date of the novation, i.e. that the previous advice still sits with the previous adviser.

The can have massive implications if not recognised early, as if your claim is against a former advice firm who is no longer trading, then you have a limited amount of time to make a claim against that advisers Professional Indemnity Insurer, otherwise you are limited to a making a claim against the FSCS which limits the value of your claim significantly and can mean you do not get the full financial redress you are entitled to, you can learn more on our article why acting now matters.

Common Situations We See

We often hear from people who:

• Transferred out of a final salary pension and are now worried about the outcome.
• Were advised to invest in higher-risk products without fully understanding them.
• Took out interest-only mortgages or unsuitable lending arrangements.
• Haven’t reviewed their financial decisions in years.
• Have been paying higher fees than they should have done for extended periods of time.
• Clients who were unaware they no longer have a financial adviser (orphaned clients).

In many cases, they only start asking questions when something doesn’t feel right.

A Simple Check You Can Do Today

If you’ve received financial advice in the past, it’s worth asking:

• Is the firm still authorised and trading?
• Has the company name changed?
• Has it been dissolved or gone into liquidation?

Even a quick check can give you clarity, and potentially uncover issues you didn’t realise were there.

What If the Firm Has Closed?

If the firm that advised you is no longer in business, you may still be able to claim compensation.

This is where the FSCS can step in, but the process isn’t always straightforward.

That’s why many people choose to get help understanding:

• Whether they have a valid claim
• What evidence is needed
• Which route applies (either via the firm or the FSCS)
• How much they may be entitled to recover

Why Ongoing Awareness Matters

Financial advice isn’t just a moment in time, it can have long-term consequences.

Checking in on past advice, even years later, isn’t about dwelling on the past. It’s about protecting your future.

Because if something wasn’t right, you deserve the chance to put it right.

Concerned About Advice You’ve Received?

If you’re unsure whether advice you received in the past was suitable, or whether the firm is still operating, it’s worth getting clarity.

At Claim My Loss, we can help you understand your position and guide you through the next steps.

Learn more about our expert support using the link that helps you raise a claim against financial advisor.

The post Why You Should Regularly Check If Your Financial Adviser Is Still in Business appeared first on Claim My Loss.

That’s good news for consumers, but it’s important to understand what’s changing, what isn’t, and where you may (and may not) have a claim.

Why are the rules changing?

In 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority-commissioned Woolard Review warned that BNPL products were growing rapidly but sitting largely outside regulation.

Many “Pay in 3” agreements were structured to avoid regulation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Because they were:

• Interest-free
• Repaid in 12 or fewer instalments
• Paid back within 12 months

They were exempt from most consumer credit rules.

That meant:

• No formal affordability checks in the way you’d expect with a loan or credit card
• No automatic right to take complaints to the Financial Ombudsman
• No section 75 protection in most cases

From 15 July 2026, most third-party BNPL lenders will move inside regulation.

Which BNPL brands operate in the UK?

The main third-party BNPL providers in the UK include

• Klarna – offers “Pay in 3”, “Pay in 30 days” and longer-term finance.
• Clearpay – offers “Pay in 4” over six weeks.
• PayPal – offers “Pay in 3” alongside other regulated credit products.
• Laybuy – Previously more active in the UK with weekly instalments.

It’s important to note that:

• If the lender is separate from the retailer, the agreement is likely to fall within the new regulatory regime from July 2026.
• If the retailer itself is providing the instalment plan (sometimes called “merchant credit”), it may remain outside the new rules.

The identity of the lender matters.

What’s changing from 15 July 2026?

BNPL agreements provided by third-party lenders (where the lender is separate from the retailer) will become regulated credit agreements.

This means:

1. Proper affordability checks

Lenders must assess whether you can realistically afford the repayments, particularly if you’re taking out multiple agreements.

2. Clearer information

You should receive clearer explanations about:

• What you’re agreeing to
• What happens if you miss payments
• How it may affect your credit file

3. Support if you’re in financial difficulty

Firms must treat customers fairly if they fall into difficulty and offer appropriate forbearance.

4. Ombudsman access

You’ll be able to take complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service if the lender doesn’t resolve your issue properly.

5. Potential section 75 protection

Where the agreement qualifies under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, the lender may share responsibility with the retailer for:

• Goods not delivered
• Faulty goods
• Misrepresentation

This is a significant shift in consumer protection.

What isn’t changing?

It’s important to be clear:

• Agreements taken out before 15 July 2026 will generally remain exempt.
• Instalment plans offered directly by retailers (merchant credit) may still fall outside the new regime.
• Not every purchase will qualify for section 75 protection, transaction value and agreement structure matter.

So timing and product type are crucial.

What should consumers be aware of?

1. BNPL is still credit

Even if it feels like a budgeting tool, it is borrowing. Missed payments can:

• Lead to collections activity
• Affect your credit file
• Escalate quickly if you have multiple agreements

2. Stacking agreements increases risk

Many people use several BNPL plans at once. Individually they may seem manageable, together they can become unaffordable.

Under the new rules, lenders should take this into account. If they don’t, that could form the basis of a complaint.

3. Disputes about goods are not always lender disputes

If an item is faulty or not delivered, your first port of call is still the retailer under consumer rights law.

However, under regulated agreements, the lender may also share responsibility in qualifying cases.

When could someone potentially have a claim?

From 15 July 2026 onwards, there may be grounds for complaint where:

• You were given multiple BNPL agreements that were clearly unaffordable
• A lender failed to carry out proper affordability checks
• You were in financial difficulty and were not treated fairly
• Incorrect defaults or arrears were recorded on your credit file
• A qualifying purchase was not delivered and the lender refused responsibility

Each case depends on the facts. Not every rejected refund or retail dispute will be a valid financial claim.

Who is unlikely to have a claim?

• Consumers with agreements taken out before the rule change
• Simple retail complaints where the retailer has complied with the law
• Cases where repayments were affordable and correctly administered

This isn’t a repeat of PPI-style mass redress. It’s about responsible lending and fair treatment.

The bigger picture

These changes recognise that BNPL has become mainstream credit. The regulation aims to:

• Prevent unaffordable or Irresponsible lending
• Protect vulnerable consumers
• Bring BNPL in line with other regulated borrowing

If lenders fail to meet those standards after 15 July 2026, consumers will have stronger rights, and clearer routes to challenge unfair treatment.

Concerned about Irresponsible Lending?

If lenders fail to meet those standards after 15 July 2026, consumers will have stronger rights, and clearer routes to challenge unfair treatment.

In the meantime, if you believe:

• You were lent money you couldn’t afford to repay
• Your credit file has been unfairly affected
• A regulated lender has failed to treat you fairly

You may be entitled to challenge it. https://claimmyloss.co.uk/irresponsible-lending-claims/

You can start your claim here: https://claimmyloss.co.uk/start-my-claim/

The post ‘Buy Now Pay Later’ is Changing on 15 July 2026 – What You Need to Know appeared first on Claim My Loss.

When the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) revealed its spending plans for 2026 to 2027, a £108 million management expenses budget that supposedly delivers real savings once inflation is factored in. I’ll be honest, I was surprised.

At first, I thought, does this mean fewer claims?
But no. I hadn’t read it properly. This was about costs, not compensation. It’s about how much the FSCS, funded by regulated financial firms because the FSCS covers their losses if they go under, is allocating to deal with claims.

So what was the report actually about? 

Around £97 million is for day-to-day operations, a 6 percent cut from last year. Another £11 million is earmarked for expanding its revolving credit facility. Strip out inflation and core running costs are down 11 percent in real terms, which on paper looks positive. 

The increased RCF funding relates to regulatory changes including new bank resolution rules and higher deposit protection limits. Working with HM Treasury and the Bank of England, the FSCS plans to double its credit facility from £1.45 billion to £3 billion, making sure it can pay compensation quickly if firms collapse while keeping public money protected during major defaults. 

The Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority are consulting on a £113 million levy limit for 2026 to 2027, a £4.4 million inflation only rise, with the same £5 million contingency buffer. The consultation closes on 10 February 2026. 

Efficiency improvements are expected to absorb most of the extra RCF costs. But if the FSCS is tightening budgets, it raises some fair questions about whether cost saving is happening in the right places.

Why am I writing about this? 

First, we are very lucky to have the FSCS. Very few countries have a lifeboat fund that steps in when firms fail. 

However, and this comes from real front-line experience, the FSCS could  increase spending in the right areas and actually save money. 

When a pension or investment claim is submitted, the FSCS applies 8 percent simple interest per annum while they process it. So, if the claim is £50,000 and it takes them 18 months, that’s a further £6,000 added. A 12 percent increase, purely because of delays. 

The FSCS handles straightforward claims very well, but complex pension and investment claims require huge amounts of detail, evidence and valuations within restrictive time frames. The FSCS simply cannot get through them quickly enough before something expires. 

We’ve had clients who were scammed out of their pensions, with a regulated financial adviser involved, which were upheld, where the final claim was obviously above the £85,000 FSCS cap. But the FSCS “could not” pay out until every valuation was completed. By the time one valuation was obtained, another had expired. 

The result would have been the same either way, £85,000 to the client.
But in one case, the client didn’t live long enough to receive it. It went to their beneficiaries. 

So yes, cost saving is good, but service should come first 

A simple, common-sense solution exists. 
If a client is clearly going to receive the £85,000 maximum, the FSCS could easily get them to sign a waiver confirming they understand the cap. That alone would save the FSCS time and money and would save clients a great deal of unnecessary stress. 

If you are facing any claim related issues, book a free call with our claim experts. 

The post FSCS News – Was there ever a better time to submit a financial services compensation claim than now? appeared first on Claim My Loss.

But one question people should be asking is why.

Why did it take a £430 million, overcharging scandal for SJP to apply a fair fee structure?

St James’s Place were the only wealth manager applying a 5-year redemption clause on pension transfers. That meant if people were convinced to transfer their pensions to SJP, and then decided it was not right for them, they could not transfer their pensions out without paying a fee.

In the first year that fee was 5%, 4% in year 2, 3% in year 3, 2% in year 4 and 1% in year 5, effectively trapping pension customers who wanted to take their business elsewhere.

It’s great that SJP have now applied a fair charging structure but what does this say about their values and ethics when it comes to pension compensation and treating customers fairly?

Why have the majority of SJP funds historically sat in the bottom but now they are suddenly performing?

For years and years SJP have not delivered strong performance. Don’t take my word for it, read this article on Yodelar from a 2018 study , read the article

Then look at this other article published in 2024:

read the article

For years, the largest wealth manager in the UK have not been able to deliver solid performance, and yet, suddenly, at a time when they are having to make financial redress to thousands of clients, they have miraculously started to deliver for people.

It’s very fortunate for them that they have, as this sudden boost in performance will actually reduce their bill when making redress calculations following successful St James Place claims.

Let me be clear, I would never say that SJP have only improved their performance to reduce the redress they have to pay, I’m sure it’s required in order to continue to be competitive. It’s just strange that they have not been able to do it before.

Why are more clients of SJP not coming forwards and investigating whether they are entitled to redress?

SJP have put aside £430 million for overcharging of fees, that is all.

If you transferred existing pensions to SJP you are likely entitled to more, much more.

The maximum a fee claim is worth is 1% per year. The lack of performance could be 3% or even higher depending on what you transferred from.

Use our Redress Calculator for a snapshot of what it could be worth.

Why can’t people separate Financial Adviser and personal relationships?

If you investigate a claim against SJP or any financial adviser, it’s not personal. It’s not against the individual, it’s against the firm. The firm has professional indemnity insurance and is regulated for a reason.

When pursuing financial adviser claims, many clients worry about damaging personal relationships, but it’s important to understand that these claims are addressed through proper regulatory channels and professional insurance.

If you have:

• Transferred existing pensions and investments to SJP
• Not received at least an annual review every year you have been or were with SJP
• Have received some money back from SJP without claiming

You owe it to yourself to investigate whether you are entitled to more financial redress. These are not insignificant amounts of money, claims can be tens and even hundreds of thousands of pounds and that’s money back into your pensions and investments to protect your future.

And most importantly, if you’re a long-standing customer or former customer of SJP Wealth Management, should you not be asking,

Why didn’t they deliver this for me?

Book a call with our claim experts

If you are a new client of SJP, you are probably going to receive a pretty good service, enjoy some good returns and not be overcharged.

Mark FitzPatrick (CEO of SJP) said client engagement was ‘unseasonably high in the third quarter’, linked to the roll-out of their new charging structure in late summer. The new structure came into effect on 31 August this year after a delayed rollout.

FitzPatrick said: ‘As anticipated, clients and advisers successfully adapted to the implementation of our simple, comparable charging structure.’

He added: ‘We enter 2026 with confidence and the changes we have made, combined with our broader strategy to strengthen and grow SJP, leave us well placed to extend our long-term leadership in a highly attractive marketplace.’

Shares in SJP were up 1.5% at 8.30am this morning following the publication of the update.

Try our claim redress calculator

If you are a long-standing or a former client of SJP, especially since 2018, maybe you should be asking, did they deliver this level of service and performance for me?

If you believe you’re entitled to compensation or have concerns about St James Place claims, now is the time to investigate your options for pension compensation.

why not book a 15 minute no obligation consultation with one of our SJP experts today.

The post SJP News – Look what you could have won – Fair Fees, Strong Performance, it must be nice to be an SJP customer today appeared first on Claim My Loss.

We released a video on this subject back in October 2025, which you can check out here:
Investment Scams in the UK – How to Spot Fraud and Get Your Money Back

What Are These Scams Set Up to Do?

Like most scams, the objective is simple. Scammers want to part you with your money.
This is done by presenting amazing offers that are too hard to resist.

Why Do People Fall for It?

Some scams are so sophisticated that you may wonder why the people involved do not just do something legitimate. The reality is that theft carries no overheads or obligations. Once they have your money, they are gone, and with A.I. these scams have become significantly harder to spot.

What Are the Implications for People?

It’s about more than money.

Often, it is the most desperate people who are targeted. In the UK at the moment, the consensus is that people are struggling more than ever. When someone offers an opportunity to make more money through an investment, to join a special investors club, to learn to trade crypto, or to invest in timeshare, scammers carefully select their targets.

The repercussions can be catastrophic, both financially and emotionally, as victims often feel too ashamed to talk about it and are left harbouring feelings of regret and failure.

When it comes to investing, this is one of the reasons regulations exist. Before sending money to anybody, make sure you thoroughly research the company involved, especially if money is being sent overseas.

In June 2025, we reported on a scam involving the CEO of one of the UK’s largest fund managers, Hargreaves Lansdown.
In this situation, an A.I. avatar of the CEO had been created, and potential investors were invited to an exclusive investor group.

WhatsApp Scam – How Fake Hargreaves Lansdown Groups Can Still Lead to Compensation

What you see is no longer what you get, and it has been going on longer than you might think.

Social Media and Data Mining

Firstly, data mining has been a major issue for years. Personal data is available for purchase, and many of the free competitions you see across social media exist solely to capture your information.

Today, it is very easy for criminals to find out details about you just from your social media accounts. For example, whether you have children, whether you are married, whether you are a homeowner, or where you holiday. LinkedIn will often reveal where you have worked and the type of role you do.

Data companies profile this information and make it available for purchase.

Before clicking “accept” to enter a competition or taking a quiz to predict your astrological future, stop and think. Are the questions you are answering things you are comfortable with anybody knowing about you?

How Is A.I. Changing the Landscape?

Sadly, A.I. is playing many complex roles in supporting scams.

Firstly, A.I. is incredibly effective at analysing data. Scammers use A.I. to quickly link information across multiple data sources, allowing them to collate everything into one profile. They then use that information when contacting you to gain your trust.

For example, someone who knows your name, date of birth, address, phone number, email address, companies registered to your name, who you bank with, and where you have worked has a far better chance of impersonating someone you trust.

A.I. also enables the creation of realistic impersonations of real people. Technology such as Grok and Synthesia can create lifelike avatars of public figures or people you may recognise, convincing victims to part with money through investment scams, romance scams, or so-called honey traps.

How Do Scams Tend to Work?

Scammers are selective about who they target and are not averse to sharing data with one another. They refer to victims as “marks”. A mark is usually someone who has already shown vulnerability to scams.

If you have previously been a victim of a scam, be extra vigilant going forward.

What Are the Regulators Doing About It?

The Financial Conduct Authority, The Pensions Regulator, and other regulatory bodies primarily exist to prevent fraud and scams. This is why regulations are constantly being updated to tighten controls.

Some key examples are outlined below.

Scorpion – Pension Compensation Claims

“Scorpion” was guidance introduced by The Pensions Regulator in February 2013 and updated in July 2014.

It was initially aimed at identifying and warning against pension liberation and pension scams, particularly where people were pressured into transferring pensions into unsafe schemes.

The guidance placed responsibility on trustees and providers to:

• Look for scam warning signs
• Carry out additional checks on receiving schemes
• Issue the “Scorpion” warning leaflet to members

What Can You Do?

If the guidance was not followed, pension savers who lost money because firms failed to warn or check properly may be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman or Pensions Ombudsman for potential redress.

In October 2024, we successfully secured an additional £65,000 in compensation for a client using Scorpion guidance.

HT Legal Ltd Secures Landmark Pension Payout

2018 Banking Regulations – Crypto Claims & Romance Scams

These regulations were introduced as scammers increasingly tricked people into authorising payments, commonly referred to as Authorised Push Payment (APP) fraud.

On 7 October 2024, mandatory reimbursement rules came into force, meaning banks must reimburse victims for many authorised scam payments made via Faster Payments or CHAPS.

These measures give banks more time to delay suspicious payments. While this can sometimes feel inconvenient, it is designed to protect you and your hard-earned money.

What Can You Do If You Have Been a Victim of an APP Scam?

1) Scam payments you didn’t intend to make (APP scams)
If you were tricked into sending money, banks must generally reimburse you under the APP framework for eligible payments made on or after 7 October 2024. These rules do not cover crypto wallet transfers.

2) Payments you didn’t authorise at all
Unauthorised transactions must be refunded promptly unless gross negligence applies.

3) Crypto and investment scams
If funds were moved to a crypto wallet or non-bank account, reimbursement may fall outside APP rules, but claims may still exist based on bank conduct.

If a bank fails to act properly, you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which can order refunds, interest, and compensation.

How to Get Redress

• Report the scam to your bank immediately
• If reimbursement is refused, complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service
• Report the matter to Action Fraud or the police
• For crypto scams, pursue civil claims or ombudsman complaints where applicable

Summary

If you believe you may have been a victim of any of the above, we offer a free, no-obligation consultation with no judgement.

Scams today are sophisticated, and being a victim of fraud is not a reflection on you.

If you have lost money, do not simply write it off. You may have a limited window to bring a claim, and it costs nothing to find out where you stand. Book a call with one of our experts today.

The post A.I. & FINANCE SCAMS – What You Need to Know appeared first on Claim My Loss.

What Are the Criteria for a Business Energy Claim (BEC) ?

1. Claimant must be trading It is not possible to make a claim if the company or organisation who paid for the energy is no longer trading, however, insolvency practitioners and administrators could pursue a business energy claim if they believe this will help collect more money for the creditors of the business.
2. Defendant must be approved energy company and/or energy broker As Energy in the UK is regulated by Ofgem, most companies should meet this criteria but it is always worth checking who the parties involved were and whether they owe a fiduciary duty. This is key when considering a claim against energy brokers who may have failed in their responsibilities.
3. Minimum claim value of £10,000 This is not a hard and fast rule and largely depends on the individual circumstances. Cases below £10,000 are hard for solicitors to litigate on as the costs cannot be recovered, however, we would not let this dissuade us from investigating a claim for you as we do believe that a lot of smaller value energy contracts carried very high undisclosed commissions. The more people that raise complaints against specific energy providers, the more chance we can build a cohort to pursue a group action.

If in Doubt, Make an Enquiry

You have nothing to lose, our team can advise you on the next steps and you won’t be charged. We operate on a no win, no fee basis meaning we only charge fees when claims are successful which are fully disclosed at the outset. Schedule a call today.

What Documentation Will We Need to Obtain?

• Minimum: x1 energy bill (but the more the better)
• Copy of the energy contract between the Claimant and the energy company. (If the contract clearly states the LEVEL of commission, then it will not meet criteria. This is only the case on very recent contracts)
• Evidence of broker (This can be an historic email between the claimant and the broker or any documents that evidence the broker’s presence)

We can try and obtain documents on your behalf, however having dealt with business energy claims since 2023, it is much more efficient if the client obtains them for us.

What Happens Next?

Solicitor’s Fee Agreement

We will send you a copy of our agreement to review and sign.

Expert Report

Once the client is onboarded the documentation is sent to an Expert Witness who will run a forensic report. The EW has the base line energy tariffs for the energy providers and will be able to accurately ascertain if there is a discrepancy and calculate the level of commissions paid (which will be true in almost all cases). There are then a series of calculations which happen however naturally the larger the bills and the longer they have been paying the more likely they are to reach £10,000 minimum claim value required.

Anti-Money Laundering – Know Your Client

If following the review you wish to proceed with your claim we will require Proof of ID and Proof of Address for the individual managing the claim.

Is My Claim Going to Be Enough to Qualify?

As a rough guide to calculating claim value look at 25% of the total contract (past and next 2 years). So, a total historic and next two years payments of £80,000 would equate to approximately £20,000 in potential claim value. PLEASE NOTE – It is possible to combine multiple contracts for the same company to reach quantum. We can go back up to 10 years.

If you believe you have been overcharged for your business energy & utilities, our mis-sold energy claims solicitors can help you make a claim for compensation. Contact us to get started.

The post What are the Criteria for Business Energy Claims? appeared first on Claim My Loss.

Businesses could be deemed to have unfair contracts on any or all of the following grounds:

1. Automatic renewal of the contract without notice or consent
   If your energy supplier automatically renewed your contract without your knowledge or consent, you may be able to claim.
2. Hidden fees and costs
   If your energy contract included hidden fees or charges that were not properly disclosed, you may be eligible to claim.
3. Misrepresentation of energy costs or charges If your energy supplier misrepresented the energy costs or charges, you may be entitled to claim. This can include:
   • Advertising one rate but charging a different rate
   • Failing to disclose additional charges (such as for meter readings or billing)
   • Providing incorrect information about energy prices
   • Failing to disclose important changes to contract terms
4. Inappropriate changes in rates If your energy supplier changed the energy prices or other contract terms without informing you, you may be able to claim compensation.
5. Inadequate advice and support If your energy supplier provided insufficient advice or support, you may have grounds for a claim.

If any of these situations sound familiar, you could be eligible to recover overpaid amounts.

Take action today – Schedule a call with our expert team for a free review of your energy contracts. We handle business energy claims on a no win, no fee basis.

The post Business Energy Claims – What you need to know appeared first on Claim My Loss.

The new higher limit kicks in on 1 December 2025.

This is actually the first proper increase we’ve had since 2017, and the main reason is to make sure the safety net keeps up with inflation and the way we all handle money these days.

What exactly does this mean for you?

If your bank or building society ever went bust (which, let’s be honest, doesn’t happen often but does happen), the FSCS would automatically step in and give you back up to £120,000 of your money – completely free and usually pretty quickly.

It’s £120,000 per person, per banking licence. So if you have a joint account with your partner, you’re both covered separately – that’s up to £240,000 for the two of you in the same account.

The PRA said they listened to what ordinary people said during their consultation, and pretty much everyone wanted a bigger safety net. Fair enough!

Temporary big balances are getting a boost too

We all have those moments when a lump sum lands in our account – selling a house, inheriting money, getting an insurance payout, a divorce settlement, or even redundancy pay. The FSCS already had a special rule for these “temporary high balances,” and that limit is going up as well.

From December, you’ll be protected for up to £1.4 million for six months in those situations. That’s a decent chunk of extra peace of mind when life throws a big cheque your way.

Why this actually matters

Martyn Beauchamp, the boss of the FSCS, put it really well: the higher limits give people “greater certainty that more of their money is protected.” And Sam Woods from the PRA said it helps keep everyone confident that their cash is safe in the bank.

In a nutshell, it’s one of those quiet changes that makes the whole financial system feel a bit more solid – and that’s good for all of us.

Our take on the Changes

The FSCS plays a crucial role not only when firms collapse, but also when poor advice or mis-sold financial products cause losses. The updated limits strengthen protection for savers, but they also highlight how important it is to understand:

• Where your money is held
• Whether the firm is FSCS-authorised
• Whether your products fall under FSCS deposit protection or investment protection.

If you’re unsure whether you were properly advised, or you’ve suffered losses due to mis-selling, Claim My Loss can help you understand your options.

The post FSCS Deposit Protection Limit Increases to £120,000 from December 2025 appeared first on Claim My Loss.