10Jan

The Claims Management Regulator at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has imposed a £3,000 fine on MG Financial Limited. The company, based in Halsall, Lancashire, and which assists with claims regarding payment protection insurance and packaged bank accounts, was the latest company to be disciplined for failing to obtain leads in the correct manner.

The enforcement notice says the company failed to comply with two sections of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014:

• General Rule 2d – the requirement to maintain appropriate records and audit trails
• General Rule 2e- the rule that requires claims management companies to take reasonable steps to ensure that referrals, leads or data have been obtained in accordance with the MoJ’s rules and with relevant legislation

In recent months, Rule 2d was also breached by Theclaimteam.com when special conditions were imposed on its authorisation, by JAS Financial Advisory Services when its authorisation was cancelled, by Thomson Legal when conditions were imposed on its authorisation, by Paul Norton when his authorisation was cancelled and by Arb Advisory when it was fined £119,500. Thomson and Mr Norton were also in breach of Rule 2e.

The MoJ notice does not give specific details of MG’s misconduct. However, many CMCs who have breached Rule 2e have fallen foul of the regulator because they failed to check that all persons on a list supplied by a third party had indeed consented to receiving marketing communications.

The MoJ has re-iterated many times that CMCs cannot attempt to blame third parties for breaches of the laws and rules relating to marketing. The regulator will treat any marketing communication of any kind issued on behalf of an authorised CMC in the same way as if the CMC themselves had made the communication. So, if a third party sends unsolicited marketing texts, makes calls to individuals registered with the Telephone Preference Service or issues a misleading print advertisement, then the CMC will be held accountable. The CMC will also be held responsible if it relies on the false assurance of a data supplier that all individuals on a contact list have consented to receive communications.

The information shown in this article was correct at the time of publication. Articles are not routinely reviewed and as such are not updated. Please be aware the facts, circumstances or legal position may change after publication of the article.