Cavity wall insulation claims handled by SSB Group (SSB) and Pure Legal Limited (Pure Legal)

We received reports that SSB's clients were unexpectedly being pursued to pay adverse legal costs in relation to their discontinued cavity wall insulation (CWI) litigation claims.

SSB had arranged after-the-event (ATE) insurance for clients to cover the other side's costs in relation to their CWI claims. ATE is a type of legal expenses insurance policy taken out to provide cover for legal costs and expenses incurred in litigation if a claim is unsuccessful. These policies are commonly used in litigation, including in what are sometimes called 'no win, no fee' cases.

However, in some cases, SSB’s ATE insurance providers declined to meet the costs as expected under the insurance policy, and so the defendants pursued SSB's clients for the costs of rebutting the claims against them. In other cases, it appears that ATE insurance was either not in place, or it was insufficient to meet client needs.

Our role is to identify any misconduct that brings a solicitor's right to practise into question and take appropriate action to protect the public. We can allege misconduct using a sample of files to demonstrate themes of misconduct. As such, it has not been necessary for us to look at every file - or rely on every complaint received - in order to allege misconduct against the firm, or any solicitors involved. Doing so would have significantly extended the time taken for our investigation, delaying action to protect the public.

Our investigation covered a range of key areas. We reviewed how the firm obtained its work, and how the claims were handled by staff, including whether clients were properly advised and whether their instructions were followed. We also looked closely at the ATE insurance obtained, and whether the solicitors complied with their obligations to keep the ATE insurers updated regarding the merits and progress of claims.

We also looked back to previous complaints made about SSB and this issue, and assessed their relevance to our enquiries.

We have now completed our investigation, having reviewed all the relevant evidence, and have decided on next steps.

We have taken action against a Jeremy Brooke, who worked at SSB and was involved in this work, by placing conditions on the way he can work in order to protect the public. These conditions were imposed on an interim basis, pending the final outcome of our investigation. We have now also decided to refer Mr Brooke to the independent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Further information on the conditions and referral to the SDT is available here:

Jeremy Brooke

The SDT has the power to issue unlimited fines and stop solicitors from practising – either for a limited period (a suspension) or indefinitely (striking off).

This referral has its own timetable, which will be determined by the SDT.

We have also taken action to prohibit two individuals, who aren't solicitors, from working in any firm we regulate. Further information on this can be found here:

Wesley Bower

Steven Westwood

Mr Bower and Mr Westwood are not solicitors, but they were directors and owners of SSB. Therefore, they had a joint responsibility for policy decisions taken by SSB and systemic failures within the firm.

They have been made subject to disqualification orders under Section 99 of the Legal Services Act. This aims to protect the public by banning them from working, or holding any role, in a law firm we regulate. This is the most serious sanction we can issue them. We found that they had acted unethically, including dishonestly, recklessly and without integrity, and had breached multiple rules.

Mr Bower and Mr Westwood were both ordered to pay £14,224 in relation to the SRA's costs of investigating the matter.

Finally, we also imposed conditions on the practising certificates of three further solicitors: Debra Allen, Lucy Flynn and David Toyn. We imposed these conditions, on an interim basis pending the final outcome of the investigation, as we believed that they were necessary in the public interest and/or for the protection of the public.

Having considered the findings of our investigation, we have decided that no action should be taken against any of these three individuals, therefore the conditions have been removed.  

We continue to investigate concerns relating to the conduct of Pure Legal Limited and are nearing the completion of a detailed review of relevant client files. We hope to have completed our investigation soon.

This review will consider whether there has been a breach of our rules and if so, which individuals at the firm may have been culpable for those breaches. We will then consider whether we need to put interim conditions on practising certificates. Interim conditions can restrict the type of activities a solicitor can do, with the aim of protecting the public while we investigate a solicitor.

At this stage, we will also be able to consider regulatory action against relevant individuals who were at the firm and will look to move forward with this process as soon as possible.

These cases have raised wider issues about whether the high-volume claims market is working as well for the public as it should be, and whether there are appropriate protections in place.

We are committing significant resource to tackling these issues. Further information on our work on high-volume claims can be found on our Hot Topic page.  

Our oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board (LSB) commissioned an independent review to look at the regulatory events that led to the collapse of SSB. The report identified regulatory failure in our work, for which we apologise. Please see our statement for further information.