UK Financial Conduct Authority Permitted to Name a Claims Management Company under Investigation

• Following a judicial review, the UK Financial Conduct Authority has been permitted to announce that it is investigating The Claims Protection Agency Limited in relation to TCPA’s advertising and sales approach to motor finance redress claims.
• The record in this case shows that the FCA’s decision – now upheld by the Court – was driven by a member of senior management and reflects a well-publicised desire from the regulator to name more firms at an early stage of investigation.
• Buoyed by this judgment, it is reasonable to expect that the FCA will seek to publish the names of more parties under investigation in the future (where the “exceptional circumstances” test is met). FCA-authorised firms will need to be prepared to respond to such proposals by the FCA, noting that the regulator reportedly gave TCPA only 24 hours to respond in this instance.
• Whilst the Monetary Authority of Singapore also has the power to name certain parties who are under investigation, the UK financial services regulator’s ability to name investigatory targets may be seen as unusual. For example, in the US there is a longstanding tradition of maintaining confidentiality until charges are filed in court, and the financial services regulators in the UAE are obliged by law to ensure the confidentiality of ongoing investigations and investigatory targets. We are not aware of any intention for the US or UAE agencies to follow the FCA’s approach.

Background

In early 2024, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that it intended to make it easier for itself to publish the names of firms under investigation. This led to market-wide uproar as well as criticism in Parliament. Ultimately, the FCA dropped the majority of its controversial proposals, and instead announced a modified version of the standard that was previously in place.

In the FCA’s Enforcement Guide (ENFG), the test is now said to be that the FCA may make a public announcement that it has opened an investigation, including naming the party under investigation, in “exceptional circumstances,” including where it considers it desirable to do so, to:¹

1. Maintain public confidence in the UK financial system or the market;
2. Protect consumers or investors;
3. Prevent widespread malpractice;
4. Help the investigation itself, for example by bringing forward witnesses; or
5. Maintain the smooth operation of the market.

The FCA will also consider the potential prejudice which may be caused to any persons who are, or who are likely to be, a subject of the investigation.

According to the ENFG, the FCA may take a more measured approach by making a public statement about an investigation without naming or otherwise identifying the subject of the investigation, if it is desirable to do so “for the purpose of educating persons generally as to the types of conduct the FCA is investigating or to encourage compliance with the FCA’s rules or other requirements”.²

Decisions as to the publication of such information have to be made by a senior person in the FCA.

TCPA’s Case

It is known that car finance mis-selling is a concern for regulators, and in particular the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has announced that it is investigating a number of firms over the way in which it has advertised their services to the public in relation to motor finance claims.³ The regulators, including the FCA, the SRA, the Advertising Standards Agency and the Information Commissioner’s Office, have said that they are concerned about misleading statements and inappropriate sales approaches.⁴

We now know that the FCA is investigating The Claims Protection Agency Limited (TCPA), and that this investigation was opened in August 2025. Originally, members of the FCA’s “case team” – the day-to-day investigators – wrote a memorandum to the decision maker (who is understood to have been Therese Chambers, Joint Executive Director of Enforcement at the FCA), proposing that the regulator publish an anonymised statement about the opening of the investigation.

The senior decision maker then asked the case team to reconsider whether a named announcement should be made instead. Ms. Chambers was a public face of the FCA’s original proposals to expand its powers to ‘name-and-shame,’ and in this context her direction to the case team to revisit its conclusions would appear consistent with her previous public statements. The case team complied, wrote a second memorandum, and she signed off.

Ms. Chambers’ decision was notified to TCPA, with TCPA requested to comment within 24 hours. In under a week, TCPA had issued Judicial Review proceedings to challenge the FCA’s proposed publication. As is typical in such proceedings, the High Court swiftly imposed an anonymisation order.

The Judicial Review

The case was heard quickly, with a hearing in under a month after the Judicial Review was filed. A judgment was published 3 weeks later.

TCPA argued that the FCA’s decision was based on an unreasonable interpretation by the FCA of its own guidance and was a substantively unreasonable decision. In particular:

• The FCA’s second memorandum had incorrectly considered whether to name the firm in an announcement only against the alternative of not making any announcement at all. In doing so, TCPA argued that the FCA had failed to consider the making of an anonymised announcement.
• The FCA had incorrectly assessed whether this was an “exceptional” case, including it being “exceptional” as compared to other cases involving motor finance claims management services mis-selling; further, the FCA had failed to consider the “exceptional” need for naming, rather than not naming.

The High Court (Fordham J) held that none of these arguments succeeded, and determined that when the second memorandum was read as a whole, the FCA had sufficiently considered an anonymised announcement and that, on the basis of the facts, the determination that the “exceptional” threshold was met was reasonably open to the FCA.

In particular, the judge found that the FCA’s reliance on making a named announcement so that this could send a message to the particular customers of TCPA which was “designed and intended to alert customers that they may wish to consider their options,”⁵was adequately reasoned, even if there might be reasons which would also apply more broadly to other firms as well.

TCPA applied for permission to appeal the High Court’s determination, which was refused. On 2 January 2026, the High Court published the second half of its judgment, which could now proceed on a named basis (given that permission to appeal had been refused).

This second judgment gave additional analysis from the Judge for his determination that the FCA’s reasoning had been sufficient, particularly as to why TCPA’s case met the “exceptional circumstances” test. In this regard, it was noted that TCPA had already agreed voluntarily in August 2025 to cease onboarding any new customers, not to publish any new financial promotions, and to withdraw all existing financial promotions.

Consequences

This case is important, not least because it shows that senior FCA personnel remain keen to publish announcements naming firms under investigation; that the Joint Executive Director of Enforcement asked the case team to revisit its proposals from merely an anonymous announcement to a named announcement highlights the focus on this as a regulatory tool.

The High Court’s approach to the Judicial Review was deferential, particularly as to the FCA’s own determinations of regulatory importance and assessment of what is “exceptional”. The FCA is likely to be buoyed to make further determinations to publish named announcements by this decision of the High Court.

Given the publicity around motor finance claims, the FCA’s high-profile media campaign to warn consumers about what they should and should not expect from Claims Management Companies (CMCs), and the FCA’s well-publicised concerns about the poor practices from some CMCs, it is perhaps not surprising that the FCA felt strongly about naming the firm in question here, as it contributes to a growing public narrative from the regulator. It will be interesting if this imprimatur from the High Court means that the FCA will decide to be bold and use its powers in other sectors as well, or whether it will in fact be confined to this type of high-profile case of broad market importance.

Because firms are given very little time to respond to proposals from the FCA to make named announcements, firms would be well-advised to consider in advance of any issues what they might do in such circumstances. If a firm is already under investigation, at whatever stage, or there is reason to believe that an enforcement process may be on the horizon, the potential issues ought to have been considered as well. The steps may include:

• Ensuring that all members of legal/compliance to whom an FCA notification may be sent know what their first steps would be. This may involve instructing external counsel and asking the FCA for an extension in time to respond.
• Understanding what the firm’s approach is likely to be. In many, if not most, cases, firms are likely to want at least more time to consider the issue. Firms ought to consider who would be authorised to make a decision, including if the firm is given very little notice and the primary authorised decision maker is unavailable.
• Firms may also want to consider whether they are suitably placed to respond to any enquiries from stakeholders, if any announcement were made, and to consider if they have an appropriate public relations strategy.

Comparative Analysis

As mentioned above, when putting forward its original, broad naming-and-shaming proposals, the FCA repeatedly drew attention to the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) power to announce the names of targets of investigations. Beyond the MAS, however, and a small handful of utilities and competition regulators in the United Kingdome (UK), the FCA did not point to any other international regulators with a similar policy.

To the contrary, as we previously set out in our alert here, in the US there remains a longstanding and widely-accepted tradition of treating investigations as confidential until the time at which there is a settlement or when charges are filed at court. This applies in both civil and criminal matters, and whether the matter is aimed at a firm or a natural person.

Also in contrast to the position in the UK, the default position of the financial services regulatory regime in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is that investigations, including the identities of firms under investigation, are to remain confidential. The UAE has a number of different financial services regulators operating across onshore UAE (the UAE Central Bank) and in the financial freezones in Dubai (the Dubai Financial Services Authority) and Abu Dhabi (the Financial Services Regulatory Authority). All of these regulators are consistent in protecting confidentiality of ongoing investigations, subject only to limited exceptions (for example, disclosures to other regulators, criminal law enforcement agencies, or where permitted or required by law).⁶

^{1 ENFG 4.1.4 G.}

^{2 ENFG 4.1.8 G.}

^{3 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/regulators-join-forces-tackle-poor-claims-management-practices.}

^{4 https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/regulators-join-forces-tackle-poor-claims-management-practices.}

^{5 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/2614.html, para 34(i).}

^{6 UAE Law No. 6 of 2025, Article 26; ADGM Financial Services and Markets Regulations 2015, Articles 198 and 207(2); DIFC Law No. 1 of 2004, Articles 38 and 80A(2).}