Regulators have made it clear they’re frustrated with what they consider to be ‘sausage factory’ claims firms. High-volume operations charging fees for something consumers could technically do themselves.

But there’s an interesting tension at play here.

It’s these same firms that often make redress possible in the first place, by acquiring enough client complaints to force the companies responsible to be held to account.

Without the marketing, outreach, and complaint volumes generated by claims companies and solicitors, most consumers would never have known about issues like mis-sold PPI, unsuitable pension advice, or unfair car finance arrangements.

Individual complaints rarely trigger industry-wide change. It’s only when the numbers become too large to ignore that regulators, ombudsmen, and courts are forced to act.

So, while the regulators’ message is that people should be able to claim directly, the truth is more complicated. The system relies on claims firms to highlight problems, even if it later criticises how they operate.

Summary

Regulators may want people to handle claims themselves, but the reality is that without claims firms, most wouldn’t even know they had a right to complain. It’s often the work of these firms, through awareness campaigns and collective action, that exposes large-scale financial wrongdoing in the first place.

Conclusion

Redress only happens when enough people speak up. Claims firms make that possible. While the regulator’s focus is on keeping costs low for consumers, the real challenge is making sure ordinary people still have a clear, accessible route to justice. Because without that, the biggest financial scandals would stay hidden, and thousands would never get their money back.