Regulatory investigations into failed Sheffield cavity-wall claims firm SSB are set to run into the new year, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has revealed. SSB Group Limited, which traded as SSB Law, was placed into administration in January leaving debts of £200m and former clients facing heavy costs bills for unsuccessful claims. 

The SRA has opened an investigation into the firm. Meanwhile, the regulator's own conduct is under investigation by the Legal Services Board, which last week published an excoriating report on the SRA's handling of another major firm collapse, that of Axiom Ince. 

In a statement issued on Friday afternoon, the SRA said: 'We are progressing our investigation into SSB, Pure Legal [which collapsed in 2021] and the solicitors involved. We will take action to protect the public where we find evidence that solicitors have fallen short of the high professional and ethical standards we all expect. Such action can include seeking to restrict or stop a solicitor from practising. We have already taken action against a solicitor involved in this work, placing conditions on the way they work in order to protect the public.

Read more:

Ban no win, no fee’: collapse of SSB Law sparks CFA calls 

SSB Law finally enters administration as ceditors wait

'We recognise the significant distress for clients impacted in these cases, which raise serious questions about the conduct of solicitors and law firms. We have two immediate priorities – protecting the public and exploring all possible options for redress for affected clients.

'We are committed to moving as swiftly as possible to complete our investigation, which we originally aimed to do this autumn. Due to the volume of evidence and complexity of issues, we now anticipate we will have completed the investigation early in the New Year.'

The statement said that clients facing costs bills 'may be able to seek redress through making a negligence claim on SSB’s insurance'. One insurer has already paused claims against individuals on this basis, it said. 'We welcome this pragmatic approach. It recognises the immense distress this situation has caused individuals, removes the worry and burden of this unexpected debt, while still offering the insurance company a route to seek to claim its costs.'

The statement continues: 'More broadly, these cases raise wider issues about whether the bulk litigation market is working as well for the public as it should be, and whether there are appropriate protections in place. We are progressing work – including targeted visits to firms working in this area – to assess these issues and develop our evidence base. The issues we are seeing are complex and cut across multiple sectors and regulatory regimes. This includes claims management, finance and insurance. We are committed to working with a range of stakeholders in progressing this work and exploring potential solutions to make sure consumers are appropriately protected.' 

 

This article is now closed for comment.