High-volume consumer claims

1.1 Summary of key findings

As part of its work to better understand consumers' experiences of high-volume consumer claims (HVCCs), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) commissioned YouGov in 2025 to undertake an independent, multi-method research study.

Research was conducted between July and November 2025, and included a rapid research review of existing evidence, 10 cognitive interviews with consumers to test survey question design, an online quantitative survey of 15,247 adults in England and Wales, and 30 online interviews with consumers who have experienced making a claim. As with any consumer research, the answers provided are based on people's recollections and cannot be independently verified.

The ability to pursue a HVCC is viewed as an important mechanism for consumer protection and for holding large organisations to account. However, this research indicates that adults in England and Wales generally do not feel well informed about HVCCs, particularly regarding the process and associated fees. While most are aware that it is possible to make a claim independently, many also believe that if a law firm or claims management company (CMC) is used, they (the organisation) will retain most of the compensation.

Around one in five adults has made a HVCC, while a larger proportion – approximately one quarter – believe they have been eligible to make a claim but chose not to. The most common claims pursued relate to cars (such as car finance i.e. motor finance commission, or diesel emissions), whereas data breaches are the most common category in which people feel eligible but have not claimed.

Interviews show that consumers tend to have modest expectations of HVCCs, often assuming that the process will be slow and bureaucratic. Although many feel they have little to lose by submitting a claim, uncertainty around compensation and fees remains a significant concern. This uncertainty may be tolerated for smaller, low-complexity claims but is more problematic for those dealing with stressful or higher-value issues.

Most participants' understanding of HVCCs derives from media coverage or advertising, with some reporting direct approaches from CMCs or law firms. Additional research is often undertaken only after the claims process becomes more complex or lengthy than expected, and participants felt that better information earlier on might have influenced their choice of provider and whether they made a claim.

Sign-up forms from CMCs and law firms were generally perceived as simple. However, some consumers did not realise that by completing these forms, they were formally consenting to progress their claim. Overall, information from law firms was considered clearer than that provided by CMCs, and those using law firms felt more consistently informed. Dissatisfaction often stemmed from delays, limited communication, or unexpected fees, particularly when the experience did not align with what had been presented at the outset.

Participants valued being able to 'hand off' responsibility for the claim, but many reported having to chase updates and resubmit evidence they had already provided. Successful claims reinforced confidence in consumer protection and the ability to hold large organisations accountable. Conversely, disappointing outcomes – particularly those related to unexpected fees (experienced by 11% of claimants) or a perceived lack of justice – reduced trust and willingness to engage in future claims.

The research also highlights areas where those who could be considered vulnerable are more likely to need support in the process of a HVCC. For example, those living in the most deprived areas are more likely to cite a lack of support as a barrier to making a claim. They are also more likely to be confused about the fee structures, and less likely to realise they have been signed up to a claim.

Furthermore, people from lower social grades or those limited by a disability or health condition are less likely to have conducted their own research in relation to a claim. It is important that consumers feel able to use HVCC processes, and these findings highlight several opportunities to improve clarity, transparency and communication.

1.2 Data table of key findings

The table below summarises some of the key findings from the survey research.

Table 1. Key findings from survey research

Key finding	Figure
Incidence of high-volume consumer claims	21% made a claim in the last five years
Eligibility for high-volume consumer claims	26% thought they were eligible to make a claim (for a category they hadn't already claimed for) in the last five years
Who handled the claim process	Of those who made a claim in the last five years: 27% primarily used a law firm 29% primarily used a claims management company (CMC) 40% progressed the claim themselves
Experienced a problem while making a claim	54% of those who made a claim experienced a problem relating to it, which would equate to 11% of the general public
Most common problems experienced while making a claim	The process taking too long: 28% Lack of communication or transparency: 17% Lack of trust in the process: 15%
Overall satisfaction with the outcome of the claim	59% of those with a resolved claim are satisfied with the outcome 72% of those who used a law firm are satisfied 55% of those who used a CMC are satisfied
Most common reasons why people pursued a claim	Felt like there was nothing to lose: 44% For a financial reward/ refund: 42% Led to believe there was a strong chance of success: 36% NET Financial reasons: 52% NET Influenced by other people or their success: 39%
Ways people became aware of HVCCs	In the news: 61% Adverts online/ on social media: 41% Adverts on the TV: 34% Through your own research: 22% Adverts on the radio: 22% Being contacted by a CMC: 18% Through friends/family or other word of mouth: 17% Adverts in public places or flyers: 9% Contacted directly by a law firm without asking them: 9% Through consumer groups: 7% Through your work/ job: 5% Other: 3%
Proportion who used a law firm/ CMC and did not say this information was provided	If the law firm/ CMC entered you into any agreements with insurers or funders: 89% If there was a cooling off period:  87% What potential liabilities you may face: 86% How much it would cost to pursue your claim: 79% That you could progress your claim yourself: 84% How much you might receive if you won: 74% How long the process would take: 73%
Most common reasons for dissatisfaction with solicitor or CMC representative	Claim took too long/ they were slow: 41% solicitor 47% CMC representative They didn't keep me informed: 39% solicitor 45% CMC representative They didn't explain things clearly: 33% solicitor 34% CMC representative
Did not feel in control	24% disagreed with the statement 'I felt in control during the claim process'

2.1 Research objectives

The SRA regulates solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, working to protect consumers and uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. Its regulatory remit includes overseeing the education and training required to qualify as a solicitor, licensing individuals and firms to practise, setting professional standards, and enforcing compliance where those standards are not met.

As part of its 2023–2026 strategic priorities, the SRA committed to strengthening its evidence base to support more proactive, risk-based regulation. A key strand of this work concerns high-volume consumer claims (HVCC) – an area in which recent cases have highlighted potential risks to consumers, including unexpected costs, variable quality of advice, and concerns around marketing practices and funding models.

To inform its policy development and build a robust understanding of the HVCC landscape, the SRA commissioned YouGov in 2025 to undertake an independent, multi-method research study.

The objectives of this research were:

• Estimate the incidence and nature of HVCC across England and Wales, providing a clearer picture of how widespread these types of claims are and how they operate.
• Generate actionable insights to improve consumer outcomes, including identifying where detriment arises and what good practice looks like for firms working in this space.
• Improve understanding of consumers' knowledge and experiences of HVCC, including:
  • how clients become involved in claims
  • the role and influence of advertising and other information sources
  • clients' awareness of their rights, responsibilities and the processes involved and
  • the factors shaping both positive and negative experiences.
• Compare consumers who engage in HVCC with those who choose not to pursue a claim, or who resolve their issue through other means.
• Identify impacts on people who may be at greater risk of vulnerability, recognising that certain groups are more likely to use 'no win, no fee' arrangements and that some groups may face particular risks.
• Enhance understanding of key features of the HVCC market, including the use of Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs), After-the-Event (ATE) insurance, and the role of Claims Management Companies (CMCs).

This research will play a role in supporting the SRA's wider programme of regulatory work on HVCC, providing the evidence needed to assess consumer risk, inform regulatory responses, and strengthen public protection in a rapidly evolving area of legal services.

3.1 Overview of approach

The findings in this report are based upon a multi-stage research programme summarised below.

Identify

• A rapid research review of existing evidence
• Eight stakeholder interviews, across consumer groups, consumer organisations, and legal firms

Test

• Ten cognitive interviews with consumers. checking understanding of key terms
• Testing the proposed definition of HVCC in an initial survey of 2,000 GB adults
• Pilot of the full survey to 200 adults

Quantify

• A large-scale quantitative survey of 15,247 adults in England and Wales in October 2025

Explore

• Thirty in-depth interviews with consumers who have experienced HVCC
• AI thematic analysis of free-text survey answers

The research materials for each stage were designed by YouGov and the SRA, with the intention of providing evidence to inform policy development around high-volume consumer claims (HVCCs). Further details of each stage can be found in the separate technical report (PDF 54 pages 265KB).

3.2 Guidance on analysis

The data in this report represents the views of a nationally representative sample of adults who live in England and Wales. The demographic make-up of the sample is specifically constructed to reflect the actual adult population in England and Wales. Therefore, when looking at data at the total population level, for example, the proportion who have experienced HVCCs, inferences can be made that the views of the sample represent the views of the wider population.

Throughout the report, where findings refer to the full representative sample of adults in England and Wales. They are described as 'the public' or 'all adults'. Where two or more demographic subgroups are discussed, only statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence interval are mentioned.

Figures based on fewer than 50 respondents are not included or reported upon, as they do not represent a wide enough cross-section of the population to be reliable. All analysis, including significance testing, is conducted to two decimal places. Figures in charts and images may not sum to 100% due to rounding or because the question allowed multiple selections.

The qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis, combining YouGov's in-house AI platform (Yabble) with expert review from the qualitative team. A senior researcher independently reviewed the emerging framework to ensure rigour and objectivity.

3.3 Definitions used in the research report

3.3.1 High-volume consumer claims

The following definition of HVCC was shown to consumers within the survey and follow-up interviews. This definition was tested within the stakeholder interviews, cognitive testing interviews and the pilot of the survey.

• High-volume consumer claims (HVCCs) arise when large numbers of consumers file claims against the same organisation, or in relation to the same issue. Such claims activity is currently concentrated in areas including diesel car emissions, motor finance commission, housing disrepair, data breaches, and other financial services.

3.3.2 Claims Management Companies

The following definition of Claims Management Companies (CMCs) was shown to consumers within the survey and follow-up interviews.

• Firms or individuals that can help you make a claim for compensation or other benefits. They may deal with the claim themselves or refer you to other Claims Management Companies (CMCs) or lawyers.

Note

Not all HVCC activities offered by Claims Management Companies are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). For example, several claims areas featured in this report, including diesel emissions, flight delays, data breaches, cavity wall insulation, and Japanese knotweed, are not regulated by the FCA.

3.3.3 Demographic terms

• Education levels: Throughout the analysis, adults are categorised based on the highest qualification they have achieved. The categories are as follows:
  • No formal qualifications
  • Below degree level (including GCSEs, A-levels, and professional qualifications)
  • Undergraduate degree (for example BA, BSc, BEd)
  • Postgraduate degree (for example MA, MSc, PhD)
• Social grade: A social classification which assigns a grade based on the occupation and employment of the chief income earner. For the purposes of the report, the social grades are grouped into ABC1 (higher social grades) and C2DE (lower social grades). The definition of social grades is standardised by the Market Research Society (MRS).
• Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD): A geographic measure of relative levels of deprivation. All neighbourhoods are ranked according to their level of deprivation relative to that of other areas and divided into 10 categories. The areas in category 1 experience high levels of deprivation while those in category 10 experience relatively less deprivation. For the purposes of the report, the categories are grouped into 1-3 ('most deprived'), 4-7, and 8-10 ('least deprived'). The definition of IMD categories is calculated by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government.

4.1 Key findings

This section examines people's experiences and perceptions of high-volume consumer claims. It captures knowledge levels of high-volume consumer claims (HVCC), their processes, and 'no win, no fee' arrangements, while also exploring why people feel these claims can be seen as both necessary and frustrating. General awareness, where people had heard of HVCCs, and how they had been contacted was also assessed.

In the qualitative research, most participants viewed HVCC as fundamentally fair and important for consumer protection. However, significant frustrations were expressed over fee structures and aggressive targeting, which contributed to perceptions of an exploitative 'claims culture' and concerns about scams.

The quantitative research found high proportions expressing uncertainty on the standards or requirements of the HVCC process. Around three in ten are unsure whether they might need to attend court as part of their claim, or on the availability of free compensation schemes. This is particularly evident among younger age groups.

Nearly two-thirds report an awareness of HVCCs, much higher among older adults. Just over a third overall say they are not aware. A majority cite some form of advert or news story as a source of their awareness of HVCCs. One in ten say it was through being contacted directly by a law firm, while twice that proportion say the same of a CMC.

4.2 ​Perceptions of high-volume consumer claims

Perceptions of HVCCs revealed a complex mixture of positive and negative views. Overall sentiment towards HVCC proved cautiously positive, with most participants interviewed viewing the ability to make such claims as fundamentally fair and important for consumer protection.

Qualitative participants viewed HVCC as a mechanism for holding large organisations accountable for wrongdoing, describing it as a 'David and Goliath' situation that levels the playing field between individual consumers and powerful corporations. Potential financial rewards were considered an attraction, with monetary benefits providing some relief, particularly for those experiencing financial pressure during the cost-of-living crisis.

Several participants noted that HVCC felt more robust than individual actions, providing collective strength and increasing the likelihood of success against large organisations.

Figure 1. HVCC knowledge statements: True or false

Q18. For each of the following statements, please indicate whether you think they are true or false:
Base: All (n=15,247)

Across all statements, younger respondents (aged 18 to 34) are more likely to say they do not know, as are those in lower social grades (C2DE).

When asked the maximum percentage of awarded compensation they would expect to pay a law firm in a 'no win, no fee' arrangement, just over one in ten say they would not expect to pay anything, while a further three in ten say they do not know.

4.2.1 Understanding 'no win, no fee'

Of the 56% who expect to pay some proportion of their compensation, three in ten say they expect to pay up to 10% to the law firm. A further quarter say they would expect to pay between 11% and 20% of their compensation to the law firm, while a similar proportion expect to pay 21% to 30%. Notably smaller proportions expect to pay more than of 30% of their compensation to the law firm in a 'no win, no fee' scheme.

Figure 2. Proportion of 'no win, no fee' compensation people expect to pay to a law firm

Q19. Thinking about 'no win no fee' arrangements, what is the maximum percentage of awarded compensation you would expect to pay to a law firm, if you used one?
Base: All (n=15,247)

Those aged 18 to 34 are more likely than those aged 55+ to think they would not pay the law firm any percentage of their compensation (15% vs 11%, respectively). Those from higher social grades are more likely than those from lower social grades to expect to pay some of their compensation (59% ABC1, 53% C2DE).

Of those who expect to pay the law firm a percentage of their awarded compensation, women are more likely to expect to pay up to 10% (32% vs 26% men) and are equally likely to expect to pay 11% to 20% (27% men vs 28% women). However, men are more likely to expect to pay 21% to 30% (26% vs 23% women).

Of those who made a claim and would expect to pay the law firm in a 'no win, no fee' arrangement, the highest proportion (31%) would expect to pay between 21% and 30% of their compensation, followed by 25% who expect to pay between 11% and 20%, and 23% who expect to pay up to 10%.

Knowledge of 'no win, no fee' arrangements was examined through a series of further true-or-false statements. A majority of adults in England and Wales believe that, under these arrangements, you do not need to pay any costs before receiving an outcome to your claim (65%). Whilst this is true in most circumstances, it does depend on the terms of the agreement and the type of case.

A majority correctly identify that you might have to cover costs if your claim is successful (60%). Around one in six (17%) incorrectly consider this to be false.

Furthermore, only 32% correctly believe that you might have to cover costs if your claim is unsuccessful. Each statement also saw over one in five indicating they do not know, suggesting a general lack of awareness around 'no win, no fee' claims.

Figure 3. 'No win, no fee' knowledge statements: True or false

Q19a. And, for each of the following, please say whether you think they are true or false:
Base: All (n=15,247)

In the qualitative interviews, participants had varied opinions about fee structures around claims, often expressing concerns about transparency and fees charged by CMCs and law firms being significant and higher than expected. Some highlighted a lack of transparency within fee structures, particularly in how they are calculated and split. Others shared that a 20-25% cut was a fair amount to charge for managing the entire claim, particularly when it is outlined clearly from the start.

'I think they explained that they would take a cut out of the winnings if we were to win, but I don't remember them saying what the percentage it would be.'

'No win, no fee' was valued in theory by participants, and was described as something that protects the consumer when working with CMCs and law firms. However, some were concerned that 'no win, no fee' cases include high fees and could still mean that consumers lose a large portion of their compensation. A lack of transparency around fee structures led some to describe 'no win, no fee' as 'predatory', especially towards vulnerable consumers who may not be able to engage with the 'small print'. Some commented that 'no win, no fee' and other fee structures often include hidden caveats, for example, having to pay VAT and administrative fees.

Some felt that 'no win, no fee' gives claimants the confidence to pursue their claim without taking responsibility for upfront costs. They considered a small cut of their compensation to be reasonable, if they felt unsure about the outcome if they were to approach their claim independently. Two participants commented that 'no win, no fee' ensures that the party handling the case is motivated to win, as 'they only get paid if they succeed'.

'I think the up to 25% is very fair. I think that's about the right percentage. And then it is, if it's not successful, then there's no fees due and they've all, they've got insurance, so it covers that if they're not successful.'

'A lawyer is not going to take on your claim if they didn't think there was a possibility that you would win. That will be the starting point, so you're not going to take it and risk that you're going to go through all of that expense of representing somebody when they don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning.'

However, there was confusion among claimants around what would happen if they lost or withdrew from the claim, with different interpretations of whether they would need to cover any incurred costs.

In the online survey data, the lack of consensus over whether you may need to cover costs following an unsuccessful claim with a 'no win no fee' arrangement is consistent across age groups. However, those aged over 55 are more likely to believe that in these arrangements, you do not need to pay any costs before receiving an outcome to your claim (67% vs 59% for 18 to 34 year-olds). Those aged 18 to 34 are more likely to think you might have to cover costs if your claim is successful (64%), compared to those aged over 55 (53%).

Those without a health condition/ disability are more likely to believe that you might have to cover costs if your claim is successful in 'no win, no fee' arrangements, with 61% reporting this as true compared to 57% of those with a health condition/ disability. They are also slightly more likely to think that you do not need to pay any costs before receiving an outcome to your claim (66% vs 64% of those with a disability).

Those in lower social grades (C2DE) are more likely to say they don't know across all statements compared to those in higher social grades (ABC1), as are those with qualifications below degree level or no formal qualifications.

4.3 Awareness of high-volume consumer claims

In the online survey, adults living in England and Wales were told that 'High-volume consumer claims arise when large numbers of consumers file claims against the same organisation, or in relation to the same issue. Such claims activity is currently concentrated in areas including diesel car emissions, motor finance commission, housing disrepair, data breaches, and other financial services.' With this definition in mind, nearly two thirds (64%) say they are aware of HVCC, while just over a third (36%) say they are not.

Similarly, qualitative research participants demonstrated varied levels of awareness of HVCCs, with most recognising specific claim types without necessarily understanding the broader concept. The term "high-volume consumer claims" itself was largely unfamiliar to participants, though they identified individual claim categories such as motor finance commission, diesel emissions, data breaches, and flight delays.

In the survey data, awareness varies widely across demographics, with notable differences by age: younger respondents are less likely to say they are aware of HVCCs (48% of 18- to 34-year-olds) than older respondents (75% of those aged 55+). Those in higher social grades are more likely to cite awareness (67% ABC1, 61% C2DE), as are men (71%) compared to women (58%).

Of those who are aware of HVCCs, six in ten say they heard about them in the news. Around two thirds cite adverts as a source of awareness, most commonly online/ on social media. Nearly one in five say they became aware of HVCCs through a CMC contacting them, and one in ten say the same about law firms.

Those aged 55+ are more likely to be aware of HVCCs from being contacted by a CMC or a law firm (27% vs 13% of 18- to 24-year-olds). People with a health condition/ disability are more likely than those without to have been contacted by a law firm (10% with a disability, 8% without) or a CMC (21% with a disability, 16% without).

When controlling for age, those age 55+ with a disability are still more likely than those of the same age without a disability to say they were contacted by a CMC (26% vs 22%).

Furthermore, the interviews found that the nature of awareness varied between claim types. For example, PPI claims benefited from extensive media coverage and public campaigns, which created widespread awareness. Motor finance commission claims gained traction through consumer advocate campaigns, particularly those led by Martin Lewis, who provided templates and guidance for independent claims. Data breach claims typically came to consumers' attention through direct notification from affected companies, though some participants only became aware when approached by CMCs. Diesel emissions cand housing disrepair claims generated awareness primarily through targeted advertising from CMCs.

Figure 4. Where heard of HVCCs

Q2. Where, if at all, have you heard about [HVCCs]? Please select all that apply.
Base: All aware of HVCCs (n=9,736)

Social media platforms, particularly Facebook, emerged as a key source of information in the interviews, with consumers frequently encountering advertisements for CMCs. These advertisements were particularly focused on PPI¹, diesel emissions claims and motor finance commission. Several consumers also gained awareness through radio and TV adverts, as well as consumer advocacy sources, the MoneySavingExpert/ Martin Lewis website featuring prominently as trusted information sources.

'Sometimes on the news, sometimes on things like Martin Lewis will come up with often claim ideas. But I think mostly it's primarily advertising. I would say you see a lot on television and radio about these sorts of things.'

Of those who were contacted by a CMC, this was most commonly through unsolicited emails, telephone calls, and text messages. Similarly, those contacted directly by a law firm without asking cite unsolicited emails, telephone calls, and text messages. Those contacted by law firms are more likely to say it was by post/ letters (27%) than those contacted by a CMC (20%). A further 5% of those contacted by law firms report having been contacted from door knocking/ house visits, higher than the 2% who say the same about CMCs.

Figure 5. How contacted by law firm or CMC

Q3/Q4. You said that a [law firm/ claims management company] contacted you without you asking them to. In which of the following ways did they contact you? Please select all that apply.
Base: All approached by a law firm (n=818); all approached by a CMC (n=1,689)

These findings vary by age. Of those who were contacted directly by a law firm, younger respondents are more likely to say this was through the post/ letters, (41% of 18 to 34s vs 25% of 55+), door knocking/ house visits (25% of 18 to 34s vs 1% of 55+) and unsolicited telephone calls (49% of 18 to 34s vs 42% of 55+).Those aged over 55 are more likely to say they received unsolicited emails from a law firm (68%) than those aged 18 to 34 (56%).

These trends align with those contacted by a CMC, with those aged 18 to 34 more likely to cite post/ letters (31% vs 17% of 55+), door knocking/ house visits (12% vs 1%), and unsolicited telephone calls (51% vs 44% of 55+). Over 55s are more likely to say they received unsolicited emails from a CMC (65% vs 51% of 18 to 34s), as are those with a disability (67% received unsolicited emails from a CMC vs 59% of those without a disability).

In both groups, men are more likely than women to say they were contacted via unsolicited emails, with 67% of men contacted by a law firm citing this (vs 57% women) and 65% of men contacted by a CMC (vs 57% women).

4.4 ​Understanding eligibility

For well-publicised claims with clear eligibility criteria, such as data breaches and PPI, participants demonstrated relatively good understanding of whether they qualified. Data breach victims typically received direct notification from affected companies, providing clear information about their eligibility and the process for claiming.

Consumers who accessed information through MoneySavingExpert/ Martin Lewis generally demonstrated good understanding of eligibility criteria, as the website provided clear guidance about who might be affected and why.

In contrast, several participants who were interviewed noted that CMCs' marketing materials emphasised potential payouts rather than clearly explaining eligibility criteria, creating unrealistic expectations. Consumers frequently discovered whether they qualified only after submitting initial information, with CMCs or law firms making the determination.

4.5 Case study - Patrick²

Their claim

• Patrick and his partner experienced severe food poisoning in January 2024 while on holiday. After their holiday company dismissed their initial complaint, they discovered through a Daily Express article that a law firm was handling a HVCC for similar cases at the same hotel.
• They began their claim in 2024 and are still going through the claim process, having recently completed a medical examination. The claim remains ongoing with an anticipated resolution timeline extending into late 2026.

Their approach

• Patrick's initial perception of HVCC was notably negative, shaped by wider cultural attitudes towards litigation. He had mixed expectations and was concerned that he didn't collect enough evidence, but was reassured by the 'no win, no fee' arrangement, along with his travel insurance.
• 'My perception before I got involved in one was probably negative and I don't know why. Just felt like a bit litigious, I guess, like the kind of American society where everyone sues for everything. And like I guess being British and stiff upper lip, we don't like to sue for anything. We just take it on the chin and move on.'
• However, the travel company rejected concerns and instructed them not to contact anyone else in the organisation, leaving them with no recourse. This experience fundamentally altered their perception of HVCC.
• 'Since I've been involved in one, it's definitely been more positive. I don't see any other way that we could hold the holiday company to account. Because as an individual, they just completely dismissed us. So the only recourse we've got then is to not holiday with [company] anymore.'

Their outcome and the impact

• The onboarding process proved more overwhelming than anticipated. Patrick estimated that he and his partner had each already invested 10 to 15 hours in the process, including multiple lengthy phone conversations, extensive paperwork, and medical examinations.
• Reflecting on the process, Patrick expressed that he would not recommend it to others without serious warnings about the time, effort, and emotional toll involved. The reality proved far more demanding than newspaper accounts suggested. On reflection he felt the claims process lacked transparency and felt that there could have been more clarity around the amount of evidence which was required.

5.1 Key findings

This section looks at the incidence rate of making and/or being eligible for a claim within the last five years, capturing which specific categories people proceeded with or felt they could potentially claim for.

It explores the claims made by the one in five adults in England and Wales who report making a claim in the last five years, with about half that proportion saying they have made multiple claims. A slightly higher number say they were eligible for a category they had not claimed for in the last five years, again with about half the proportion saying the same for multiple claim categories.

With claimants having the choice to use a law firm, a CMC, or independently handle their claim, the research finds that those who used a law firm are more likely than those who used a CMC to have made multiple claims or believe they were eligible for multiple claims.

5.2 Incidence of high-volume consumer claims

Respondents were asked which categories they had made a claim for, or if they had made a claim for another, unlisted category. One in five report making a claim, with around one in ten having made multiple claims. The most commonly cited claim category is car finance, followed by flight delay, and diesel emissions.

Those in higher social grades are more likely to have made any claim overall (23% ABC1 vs 19% C2DE), as well as across every individual claim category. Similarly, men are more likely to have made any claim (24% vs 18% women), as are those from ethnic minority backgrounds (27% vs 20% white ethnic background). There is no difference in the overall claim prevalence across people with or without disabilities.

Younger adults are generally more likely than older adults to have made claims , with the exception of claims related to cars – they are less likely to have made a car finance claim (8% for 18 to 34, 10% for 55+) or a diesel emissions claim (3% for 18 to 34, 5% for 55+). Those from the most deprived areas are more likely to have made claim(s) for housing disrepair than those from the least deprived areas (3% IMD 1-3 vs 1% IMD 8-10).

Over half (53%) of those who used a law firm to handle their claim say they made multiple claims, more than the proportion of those who used a CMC (43%) or who handled it themselves (33%).

Figure 6. Made a claim

Q5. Considering [HVCC definition], for each of the following, please say whether you have or have not made a claim related to this category in the past 5 years: Please do not include personal injury or medical negligence.
Q6. In the past 5 years, have you made a claim for any other kind of legal proceeding which involved a large number of people? Please do not include personal injury or medical negligence.
Base: All (n=15,247)

Respondents were then asked whether they thought they had been eligible for any of the claim categories for which they had not made a claim. A quarter (26%) say they were eligible for at least one claim category, while 12% cite multiple claim categories. Most commonly, respondents who believed they might have been eligible for a claim mentioned the areas of data breaches/ data protection/ cyber security, followed by flight delays, and car finance.

Figure 7. Eligible for a claim

Q7. For each of the following, do you think you have been eligible to make a claim related to this category in the past 5 years? Please do not include personal injury or medical negligence.
Q8. In the past 5 years, do you think you have been eligible for another category of legal proceeding involving a large number of people? Please do not include personal injury or medical negligence.
Base: All (n=15,247)

Similarly to those who made a claim, people who are more likely to say they were eligible for a claim category included men (28% vs 25% women), higher social grades (29% ABC1 vs 22% C2DE), and those from ethnic minority backgrounds (33% vs 25% white ethnic background). Those from the most deprived areas are more likely to believe they were eligible to make a claim for housing disrepair than those from the least deprived areas (5% IMD 1-3 vs 2% IMD 8-10).

Of those who made a claim and used a law firm to do so, 32% believed they were eligible for multiple other claims. Comparatively, 24% of those who used a CMC to handle their claim and 20% of those who handled their claim themselves think they were eligible for multiple other claims.

6.1 Key findings

This section explores people's experiences before progressing with a claim. It explores people's motivations, barriers, and experiences during the onboarding process.

The most cited motivation for making a claim was a feeling of nothing to lose, followed closely by a desire for financial reward or refund. Conversely, barriers to making a claim included lack of time and a belief that compensation would not be worth the effort. The qualitative interviews found that most participants had modest expectations and assumed that the claim process would be slow and 'bureaucratic'.

Of those who proceeded with a claim, just under half either progressed with a CMC or a law firm, with a sizeable minority saying they progressed with the claim themselves. The qualitative interviews found that participants expected that the process would not require much from them, which was a key selling point to pursuing the case with a CMC or law firm. However, expectations of ease were not always met. Many reported quite complex, confusing or lengthy processes, and uncertainty surrounding fee structures.

Those who conducted their own online research most commonly used general online search tools to do so, as well as MoneySavingExpert/ Martin Lewis. The qualitative interviews found that most participants' expectations were informed by advertising. For example, advertising acted as the point at which they discovered specific claim types.

6.2 Expectations for making a claim

Across the qualitative interviews, most participants approached the idea of making a claim with modest expectations, assuming it would be a slow, 'bureaucratic' and often 'opaque' process, but one that requires minimal effort from them once onboarding has been initiated.

A common assumption across this audience, regardless of demographic, was that any legal process would inevitably 'take a long time', informed by participants' exposure to the legal process overall – whether that be through prior experiences of making high-volume consumer claims (HVCC), working in legal-adjacent industries, or going through an unrelated legal process.

Nevertheless, for some of those who had less exposure to the legal process, they were expecting the process to be quicker – particularly if they felt that they had an 'open and shut case' where it was unambiguous, and easy to prove company wrongdoing.

Advertising perceived as misleading

Many assumed that beyond initial sign-up, the process would not require much from them, which often was a selling point when it came to choosing a CMC or law firm to pursue a case, as opposed to approaching it independently. Claims were often framed as 'easy money', particularly if related to PPI, flight delays and diesel emissions, with participants pointing to adverts on social media and TV that highlighted the ease and likely gains. Such adverts were perceived as misleading, misrepresentative and 'predatory' by some of the participants – encouraging people to pursue claims they would otherwise not have done, amidst persistent advertising and cost-of-living pressures.

The ease of pursuing a claim was felt to be particularly emphasised in communications by CMCs, which made the alternative (pursuing a claim independently) sound lengthy, complex and arduous. However, individuals that had pursued claims independently were often surprised by the ease and simplicity of the process.

However, expectations of ease were not always met. Many reported complex, confusing or lengthy processes, which jarred against how 'easy' it was presented to secure large sums of money. Others discussed the 'modest' financial outcomes from cases where they were expecting a windfall. These gaps between expectation and reality demonstrate the challenges that advertising presents when it comes to setting expectations that are often not aligned with the real consumer experience.

Uncertainty exists regarding fee structures

Generally, expectations around cost varied, but there was widespread uncertainty and expectations were often inaccurate. Many participants over-estimated the proportion of compensation a company might take, often informed by PPI experiences or general mistrust. For example, one participant expressed this sentiment, influenced by his father's experience of a PPI case:

The uncertainty and overinflated expectations that were widespread across interviewees demonstrates just how unclear fee structures remain. A lack of clarity around fees/potential gains was especially common amongst those that pursued their claims with CMCs – as opposed to via a law firm.

For some participants, particularly those pursuing low-level claims with limited potential gains (for example flight delays with returns of hundreds of pounds rather than thousands), a lack of clarity around fees or the prospect of low returns was acceptable to them. However, for those pursuing stressful claims with a mental health or financial impact (for example, data breaches that resulted in fraud), or potentially high-value claims with expected returns in the thousands of pounds, there was a greater desire and need for clarity in this process. This lack of upfront clarity led several participants to retrospectively revise their expectations, often concluding they would have approached the process differently – either by conducting more research or by handling the claim independently if they had the time, knowledge, or confidence.

Finally, emotional motivations influenced expectations. For data breach claimants, the process was seen as a route to answers or closure rather than solely financial compensation. When expectations centred on emotional repair, participants were more likely to feel disappointment when the process delivered only financial outcomes, with little understanding of steps the offending business/company were taking to ensure this situation did not happen again.

Overall, expectations were shaped by a combination of general assumptions about legal processes being slow and complex, compelling advertising/marketing narratives that emphasised the ease of the process and the 'no win, no fee' arrangement, cost of living pressures – which led to an increase in a 'nothing to lose' attitude – along with a lack of transparent information about what the journey would actually entail. Generally, those that had prior experience of submitting a claim, or anecdotal evidence and advice from people they knew, tended to have more realistic expectations of what the process would be like.

6.3 Researching the claim

People who had made a claim or thought they were eligible to make a claim were asked in the survey what actions they had taken in relation to these claims. Of those who have made a claim, or were eligible to make a claim, six in ten (57%) have taken action, with conducting research online being the most common (20%). Following this, a similar proportion discussed their claim with their friends or family (19%) or gathered initial evidence (18%).

A smaller proportion (8%) say they signed up to an agreement with a law firm to pursue a claim, whilst four per cent report having spoken to a solicitor. Similarly, ten per cent say they signed up to an agreement with a CMC to pursue a claim, whilst eight per cent have spoken to a CMC.

Figure 8. Actions taken in relation to claim

Q13. Have you taken any actions in relation to your claim? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who made a claim or were eligible (n=5,805)

Overall, those with no formal educational qualifications are less likely to have taken any actions in relation to their claim (46%). In particular, they are less likely to have gathered initial evidence (8%), conducted research online (11%), or discussed their claim with friends or family (9%).

Those from lower social grades (C2DE) are less likely than those from higher social grades (ABC1) to have taken any action in relation to their claim (54% vs. 59%). The exceptions are signing up to a CMC to pursue a claim or providing further evidence, where there is no difference in likelihood by social grade.

Those who said they had conducted online research were also asked what they used to conduct this research. Two thirds (66%) said they used general internet searching (for example Google), followed by 54% who used MoneySavingExpert/Martin Lewis, and 24% who used social media.

Figure 9. Sources of online research

Q13b. You said you conducted research online in relation to your claim. Which of the following did you use to do this? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who said they conducted research online (n=1,168)

There are clear divisions by age, with those under 35 more likely to have used social media (41% vs. 12% 55+) and most other methods asked about. By comparison, the only method those over 55 were more likely to have reported using is MoneySavingExpert/ Martin Lewis (63% vs. 43% 18-34s).

Those from higher social grades are more likely to have conducted various types of research. They are more likely to have used MoneySavingExpert/ Martin Lewis (56% ABC1, 49% C2DE), used online newspapers (18% ABC1, 11% C2DE), or gone directly to CMC websites (22% ABC1, 13% C2DE). Those in the most deprived areas are more likely to have used Citizens Advice than those from less deprived areas (30% IMD 1-3, 15% IMD 8-10).

Most participants in the qualitative interviews described conducting minimal research before making their claim. Research typically involved speculative conversations with family and friends and quick surface-level internet searches to confirm that the claim type existed or was 'worth a try'. Some relied on information from platforms such as MoneySavingExpert, as highlighted in the quantitative findings.

This lack of research was largely due to the way individuals became aware of a claim, from advertising or a conversation with a friend about specific claim types, to searching on Google or other search engines, and then recognising that they may have a case.

Many participants in the qualitative interviews understood that pursuing a case was possible and had a general sense of how to pursue it, due to content they had seen on social media. As a result, there were few large knowledge gaps to fill initially. Instead, research consisted of brief background checks on specific CMCs or law firms, such as customer reviews or general timescales to check legitimacy of the company and manage expectations.

Google searches tended to focus on the claim type, including cursory searches such as 'diesel emissions claims' or 'flight delay compensation'. Generally, interview findings demonstrated that this organically funnelled claimants towards firms that dominate search engine results and curate specific advertising by claim type. As participants frequently described undertaking only the minimum research necessary to confirm eligibility, in many cases this meant that they went with one of the first few companies they found online.

The interviews revealed that often further research was undertaken once a case was underway, triggered by general curiosity, lengthy waits, in the absence of communication from CMCs or solicitors, or to ease emerging concerns. However, this sometimes led to participants unearthing details with regard to fees/charges that felt dispiriting whilst the process was still ongoing.

Many wished, in hindsight, that they had researched the claim type and company in greater depth before signing up, including how much of a fee would be charged and the potential timescales. This regret was especially common amongst those who found the process unexpectedly complex, lengthy, or the financial outcome disappointing. This sentiment reinforced the idea that deeper research beforehand might have changed their approach, particularly regarding fees and provider selection.

Overall, research activity tended to be reactive rather than proactive, influenced by limited time, emotional stress, and assumptions that most firms offered similar services and outcomes.

6.4 Motivations to make a claim

In the quantitative survey, those who made a claim were asked the reasons why they proceeded with a claim. Most commonly, people felt like there was nothing to lose (44%), followed by those seeking a financial reward or refund (42%). Over a third had been led to believe that there was a strong chance of success (36%) or felt a desire for justice or to address a wrongdoing (35%).

Figure 10. Motivations to make a claim

Q11b. And, which of the following are reasons why you made a claim? Please select all that apply. Base: All who made a claim (n=3,107)

The interviews reinforced the online survey findings – particularly the perception that there was 'nothing to lose', the hope of a financial reward, and the belief that there was a strong chance of success. As referenced in Section 6.2 Expectations for making a claim, a high proportion of interviewees specifically referenced having 'nothing to lose' or a claim being 'easy money' that they otherwise would not have access to. Since these claims were felt to be actively reinforced in marketing communications by CMCs and law firms, they were top of mind for consumers. Specific cost pressures, and the broader economic context at the time of interviews (November-December 2025), were also provided as specific reasons why pursuing these kinds of cases could be beneficial.

A variety of different factors determined whether participants expected a strong chance of success. Generally, participants were confident they had a chance of success for cases where they felt there was a clear law breach. Normalisation through peers – for example seeing others succeed in similar cases, often encouraged participation and optimism about the claim outcome. Lastly, persistent advertising around specific case types (for example flight delays, diesel emissions, etc.) reinforced the view that there would be a strong chance of success – as multiple consumers were affected or involved, which provided confidence and implied that there was a 'strength in numbers.'

In the survey data, those whose claim was related to car finance or diesel emissions are most likely to say they felt that there was nothing to lose (61% and 62%, respectively, compared with 44% overall). They are also most likely to have been motivated by a financial reward or refund (52% car finance, 51% diesel emissions compared with 42% overall).

Comparatively, those whose claim was related to a data breach, data protection, or cyber security issue were most likely to have been motivated by a desire for justice or to address a wrongdoing (54%, compared to 35% overall).

Looking at the qualitative findings, this increased desire for justice, driven by a data breach or data protection issue, could possibly be explained by the higher levels of emotional impact experienced in these situations. Interviewees who lodged data breach claims described such breaches as resulting in financial fraud, individuals trying to open credit accounts in their name, money being emptied from their accounts, and a general feeling of mistrust and vulnerability – all of which had a long-term impact on them. Consequently, they were not only looking for financial compensation, but also for justice and an understanding of how this will be avoided in the future.

Motivations also vary by age. Those aged under 35 are more likely to have been influenced by other people or their success (51% vs. 31% of those aged over 55), whilst those aged 55 or over are more likely to have been led to believe there was a strong chance of success (46% vs. 26% 18-34s) or have felt there was nothing to lose (53% vs. 33% 18-34s).

Those who had made a claim and heard about it through various sources were also asked the extent to which that source influenced their decision to proceed with a claim. The most influential source was people’s own research, with over three in four (78%) saying this influenced them to proceed with a claim. Following this, around two in three said that hearing about claims through consumer groups (66%) and through the news (65%) influenced their decision.

Of those who were contacted by a CMC, 44% said this influenced them to proceed with a claim, with more (52%) saying it did not have much impact, if any at all, on their decision to proceed. Similarly, of those contacted by a law firm, 40% said this influenced them to proceed, compared with 55% who said it did not have much impact, if any at all.

Figure 11. Extent of influence to proceed with a claim

Q11. You have indicated that you progressed with a claim related to [topic]. For each of the ways you heard about these types of claims, please indicate the extent to which this influenced your decision to proceed with a claim:
Base: All who have progressed with a claim and heard about it through various sources (n=166 to 1,336)

Those in higher social grades (ABC1) are more likely to have found their own research influential in their decision to proceed with a claim than those in lower social grades (C2DE) (81% vs. 72%). They are also more likely than those in lower social grades to have been influenced ,at least a fair amount, by what they have heard in the news (67% vs. 61%).

Looking at differences by age, those under 35 are more likely to have found the majority of sources influential in their decision to proceed with making a claim. For example, 85% found their own research influential (vs 72% of over 55), and 69% said adverts online/ on social media influenced them to proceed with a claim (vs 53% of over 55).

Those who said they were influenced by what they had seen on social media were then asked where they had seen such adverts. Adverts on Facebook are most common (55%), followed by Instagram (27%), and YouTube (23%). Those aged under 35 are more likely to have seen adverts on most of the sources asked about, except Facebook where those over 55 are more likely to have seen adverts (61% vs. 52% 18-34s).

Figure 12. Where saw adverts about HVCCs online

Q12c. You said you were influenced by adverts online/ on social media. On which of the following did you see these adverts? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who were influenced by adverts online/ on social media (n=904)

Across the qualitative interviews, participants repeatedly reinforced the impact of advertising in prompting them to go forward with a claim, with advertising acting as the point at which they discovered specific claim types. Where adverts and communications covered topics - such as diesel emissions – that participants were previously aware of, they made participants feel more confident that there was validity in making a claim.

6.5 Barriers to making a claim

All those who reported being eligible to make a claim but did not proceed with one were asked the reasons why. Over one in three say they did not have the time (35%), with a similar proportion saying they did not think that the compensation would be worth it (34%). Following this, 29% did not proceed because they thought the chances of success were low.

Notably, 23% reported that they did not proceed due to a lack of trust in the process. Similarly, 13% did not proceed with the claim due to a lack of trust in the CMC, and 7% due to a lack of trust in the law firm.

Figure 13. Reasons did not proceed with a claim when eligible

Q25. Which of the following, if any, are reasons why you didn't progress with making a claim? Please select all that apply.
Base: All eligible who did not make a claim (n=2698)

Those who live in the most deprived areas are more likely than those from less deprived areas to cite a lack of support as a reason for not proceeding with a claim (14% IMD 1-3, 10% IMD 8-10).

Turning to look at differences by age, those aged over 55 are more likely to say they lack trust in the process (26% vs. 20% 18-34s). Those aged under 35 are more likely to cite reasons related to knowledge and perceptions of the process. For example, not knowing where to start (32% vs. 18% over 55s) and concern for how long it would take (25% vs. 16% over 55s).

Under 35s are also more likely to say they did not have time or could not be bothered to proceed (42% vs. 29% over 55s), that it was not necessary to progress with a claim (24% vs. 13% over 55s), and that the issue resolved itself (9% vs. 3% over 55s).

Additionally, the qualitative findings indicated that confusion about the process, limited emotional capacity, and low confidence in achieving a meaningful outcome played a significant role in shaping non-engagement or delaying engagement. For several participants, the process felt intimidating or unclear from the outset. Even among those who believed they were eligible and had a strong case, the absence of straightforward guidance and uncertainty about next steps contributed to inertia or doubt in some instances. In this context, anecdotal experiences shared by friends and family were often influential, providing an informal 'roadmap' that helped fill gaps in understanding along the consumer journey.

Another common barrier was time and emotional load, especially amongst those navigating work pressures, family responsibilities, or periods of personal stress. This was especially acute among participants dealing with enduring health conditions or distressing issues (for example data breaches). For those individuals, even when the emotional stakes were high, the perceived burden of pursuing a claim can outweigh the potential benefit - reflecting the 35% in the survey who said they 'didn't have the time’. For this reason, marketing communications from CMCs and solicitors that claimed to 'take care of everything' were extremely attractive to time-poor individuals when deciding how – or whether – to pursue a claim.

Low expectations of success also acted as a barrier for some participants. While most felt reasonably confident about their eligibility and prospects, certain claim types - such as data breaches - were perceived as unlikely to result in compensation, partly because such incidents are now seen as commonplace, even among large and reputable companies. Low expectations were further reinforced by previous experiences of poor customer service from the company the claim was linked to. As many participants also viewed the claims process as lengthy, this compounded concerns about entering a drawn-out process that was unlikely to lead to a positive outcome.

6.6 Onboarding and sign-up process

In the quantitative survey, those who said they have made a claim, or were eligible to have made a claim, were asked how, if at all, they confirmed their eligibility. Most commonly, people reported using an online form to check (31%), and the same proportion said they conducted their own research (31%).

Over one in ten (12%) said that they spoke to a CMC to confirm their eligibility, with eight per cent saying they spoke to a law firm. Just over one in five (22%) say that they did not confirm their eligibility at all.

Figure 14. Methods to confirm eligibility for claim

Q12a. You said you [proceeded with/ thought you were eligible to make] a claim. How, if at all, did you confirm your eligibility? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who made a claim or were eligible (n=5805)

Those aged under 35 are more likely than those aged 55 or over to have done most of the actions asked about to check their eligibility. The exception is completing an online form to check, where those aged 55 or over are the most likely (34% vs. 27% 18-34s).

Those from lower social grades (C2DE) are less likely than those from higher social grades (ABC1) to have conducted their own research (26% vs. 34%), spoken to a law firm (6% vs. 9%), and spoken to a CMC (11% vs. 14%). Those who are limited in their day-to-day activities by a disability or health condition are also less likely to have conducted their own research than those with no disability or health condition (26% vs. 33%).

Those who used an online form to check their eligibility were then asked how clear, if at all, they found the information provided about the claim within the form. Almost eight in ten (79%) said that the information was clear compared with 17% who said it was not clear. This was largely consistent across demographics.

Figure 15. Clarity of online eligibility form

Q15. When using an online form to check your eligibility for making a claim, how clear, if at all, did you find the information provided about the claim within the form?
Base: All who used an online form to check eligibility (n=1803)

In addition to asking about clarity of information provided by the form, respondents were also asked if, as far as they were aware, the form signed them up to progress with a claim. Around half (52%) say that it did, compared with 31% who thought it did not, and 17% who say they did not know. Similarly, the survey asked whether, in completing the form, they provided consent for a solicitor or CMC to act on their behalf. Four in ten (40%) say they did, with 45% saying they did not, and 15% saying that they were unsure.

Those limited in their day-to-day activities by a disability or health condition were more likely to say that they did provide consent when completing the form than those with no disability or health condition (46% vs. 37%). Those aged 55 or over were also more likely than those who are younger to have provided consent (44% vs. 38% 18-34s). Since the prevalence of disabilities or health conditions increases with age, these two findings are likely linked.

The qualitative findings help explain why some survey respondents said they had not actively confirmed their eligibility. Several interviewees described 'checking eligibility' as something that simply happened while engaging with a company’s website, rather than as a distinct step. Many assumed that the law firm or CMC would determine eligibility on their behalf, and that if the online journey did not flag any issues, they must be eligible unless told otherwise.

At the same time, participants often believed they were only checking eligibility when completing an online form, not realising they were effectively signing up to progress with a claim. Although the forms were described as simple and easy to complete, it was not always clear what authority they were giving the CMC or law firm.

Interviewees also highlighted that online forms could feel misleadingly 'complete.' After submitting the form and their initial evidence, many believed they had provided everything required, only to be contacted later for additional information. This reinforced a sense of uncertainty about the process, and a feeling that the goalposts were constantly moving.

Overall, the findings highlighted that whilst the onboarding process was not burdensome, it was marred by confusion, and many claimants were unaware of what they had consented to, and on what grounds.

6.7 Handling claim with a law firm or claims-management company

In the quantitative survey, those who proceeded with a claim were asked whether they used a law firm or CMC to handle their claim, or if they progressed with the claim themselves. Most commonly, claimants say that they progressed with the claim themselves (40%), followed by 29% who progressed with a CMC, and 18% used a law firm.

Figure 16. Who primarily handled claim

Q9. Which of the following did you primarily use to handle your claim? Please select one. Base: All who made a claim (n=3107)

Analysis by age indicates that those who are over 55 are more likely to have progressed with a CMC (35% vs. 22% 18-34s). Those who are limited in their day-to-day activities by a disability or health condition are also more likely to use a CMC (33% vs. 28% of those without) or a law firm (21% vs. 17% of those without).

Those from higher social grades (ABC1) are more likely to have progressed with a law firm than those in lower social grades (C2DE) (20% vs. 16%). Conversely, those from lower social grades are more likely to have progressed with a CMC (32% vs. 28% ABC1s).

The claim areas more likely to progress with a law firm include Japanese knotweed (39%), data breach, data protection or cyber security (38%), mis-sold tax avoidance schemes (37%), and diesel emissions (34%). Those whose claim is related to diesel emissions are also more likely to use a CMC (48%), as are those whose claim is related to car finance (33%). However, those whose claim is related to car finance are most likely to say they progressed with the claim themselves (54%).

Individuals who progressed with a law firm or CMC were also asked whether, at any point, the law firm or CMC suggested that they might be eligible to make other claims. Three in ten (30%) of those who progressed with a law firm said that the law firm suggested they could be eligible for other claims. Similarly, 35% of those who progressed with a CMC said that they were told that they might be eligible for other claims.

Figure 17. Whether law firm or CMC suggested eligibility for other claims

Q9b. At any point, did the [law firm/ CMC] suggest that you might be eligible for other claims? Base: All who used a law firm (n=561) or CMC for their claim (n=908)

Those who progressed with a law firm or CMC were also asked whether the law firm or CMC explained that they could have progressed with the claim themselves. Almost 3 in 5 (58%) of those who progressed with a law firm said that the firm did not explain this to them. Just over half (53%) of those who progressed with a CMC said the same.

Figure 18. Whether law firm or CMC informed them they could progress with claim themselves

Q21. You said you used a [law firm/ CMC] to proceed with your claim. Before signing up, did the [law firm/ CMC] explain that you could have progressed the claim yourself? Base: All who used a law firm (n=561) or CMC for their claim (n=908)

Those who did not progress with a claim but thought they are eligible were asked whether, if they were to progress with a claim, they would be likely to use a law firm, CMC, or handle it themselves. As was the case for those who have progressed with a claim, those who have not made a claim thought they would handle the claim themselves (37%). Following this, 19% think they would use a CMC, and 15% a law firm. Notably, around one in three (29%) are uncertain what they would do.

6.8 Case study – Nina

Their claim

• Nina purchased a car a few years ago during a period in which she was unwell and experiencing significant mental health challenges. She subsequently discovered that the brand had taken commission without disclosing it to her, which she believes constituted unlawful conduct (as it consituted misselling car finance).
• In order to prevent misconduct from affecting other vulnerable consumers and to receive financial compensation, she initiated a claim against the car brand. The claim remains ongoing, however the brand has acknowledged and accepted the issue.

Their approach

• Due to being disabled, she chose a law firm on a 'no win, no fee' arrangement to manage the entire claim process with minimal input required from her. Before selecting the firm, she researched the legal position, reviewed her contracts, and checked which firms were offering to take on the claim. She ultimately chose a large, well-known firm and felt confident in their regulatory oversight and reputation.
• She found the claims process easy and believes HVCCs to be a good option as it empowers consumers and the claimant has 'nothing to lose'.
• 'I would give the details to the law firm and they would manage the entire process from beginning to end, and I would not have to be really heavily involved except perhaps in some decision making along the way.'

Their outcome and the impact

• The 'no win, no fee' structure gave her a sense of financial security, meaning she did not scrutinise the terms too closely, though in hindsight she feels the firm could have communicated key information, particularly around fee deductions more clearly.
• Having a professional background in financial regulation, she found the overall process straightforward, with only occasional email updates from the firm. Whilst this level of communication suited her personally, she felt more regular and clearer updates would benefit consumers more broadly.
• 'Having [studied] law and that sort of thing, I don't think they should have provided a lot more updates. You don't want to be updated unless it's something that changes the end of the case. But if things are just plodding along in the system, I don't know if there is much point more than every other month or every three months for this particular type of case.'

7.1 Key findings

This section looks at how people's claims progressed, the information they were given, and how clear that information was. It explores people's satisfaction with the process as well as how this differs on whether they used a law firm or a CMC.

The most common type of information received when starting a claim was the expected duration/ how long the process would take. Overall, the sign-up process and onboarding processes were felt to be clear, but information provided was not always accurate (e.g. claims often took longer than was originally outlined and claimants received less compensation than they expected). Claimants felt frustrated when they were not kept up to date, with concerns about transparency throughout the process, particularly with the final calculation of fees.

Those who progressed their claim with a law firm are generally more likely to have received information than those who progressed with a CMC, with most saying they were kept up to date as the claim progressed. People who were dissatisfied with their law firm/ CMC generally cite issues with transparency; that they were not kept up to date or that the process took too long.

People value the expertise law firms/CMCs bring, seeing them as experienced and effective at dealing with a potentially complicated process. Those who made a claim independently sought support from friends and family, as well as online guidance, such as MoneySavingExpert/Martin Lewis.

7.2 Information provided

People who made a claim using a law firm/ CMC were asked what information they received when they started their claim. Just under one in ten (8%) say they did not receive any information, with one in four (23%) saying they do not recall what information, if any, they received.

A quarter were told how long the process would take (27%) how much they might receive (26%) or how much the firm/ third party could get (25%). A fifth were told how much it would cost to pursue the claim (21%) or how much they would need to pay if unsuccessful (20%), while one in six (16%) were told that they could progress the claim themselves.

Those who progressed their claim with a law firm are generally more likely to have received each type of information – for example, 27% were told how much it would cost to proceed, compared with 17% whose claim was handled by a CMC.

People with a housing disrepair claim are the most likely to have been told how much it would cost to pursue the claim (35%). Those with a flight delay claim are the most likely to be told how much they might receive if successful (43%) but the least likely to be told how much they would need to pay if unsuccessful (11%) or the potential liabilities they could face (5%).

Figure 19. What information was provided when they started their claim

Q14. What information, if any, was provided to you when you started your [chosen category] claim? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who made a claim with a law firm/ CMC (n=1,469)

These findings were reflected in the qualitative interviews, however some felt they were given information inaccurately by their CMC or law firm. Although participants felt that the length of the process was outlined, along with chance of success and expectations for compensation, more detailed terms and conditions including potential liability were not clearly outlined.

Participants commented that information shared initially did not always reflect their claim experience; for example, the process took years longer than expected or unexpected fees were added. Others felt that the language and 'jargon' used were inaccessible, leading them to not engage with the paperwork in depth.

8.1 Key findings

This section explores the impact of making a claim, claimants' expectations, and how well they understood what was expected of them. It also looks at the emotional and practical impact of engaging with high-volume consumer claims (HVCC).

Most claimants said they understood what was expected of them, although some did not feel in control of the process.

Half of those who had resolved claims said the outcome was as they expected. The outcome of the claim shaped respondents' views, with those with a successful claim being much more likely to say their claim was better than they had expected, while only a small minority of those with an unsuccessful claim said it exceeded their expectations.

Similarly, the emotional and practical impact of making a claim varies depending on the claim complexity, outcome, and transparency, particularly around fees. With successful outcomes comes feelings of empowerment and financial relief, but some felt lasting dissatisfaction, and their trust in the legal system was undermined.

8.2 Emotional and practical impact

For participants who achieved satisfactory outcomes with transparent processes, the emotional impact proved positive. Financial compensation provided welcome relief, particularly during periods of financial pressure. Several participants expressed satisfaction at receiving higher-than-expected financial amounts, especially when they had approached claims with low expectations. The timing of compensation sometimes enhanced positive feelings, with one participant noting the payout arrived whilst on holiday, amplifying the sense of reward.

These participants experienced HVCC as empowering, viewing successful claims as validation of their grievances and as evidence that large organisations could be held accountable.

Significant negative emotional impacts emerged for participants who experienced disappointing outcomes, particularly regarding fee deductions and unmet expectations for answers or justice. The discovery that CMCs or law firms had taken substantial percentages of compensation generated considerable frustration and feelings of having been misled.

For participants whose primary motivation involved seeking answers or accountability rather than financial compensation, the inability to obtain explanations or closure created lasting dissatisfaction. The requirement to sign settlement agreements that prevented further questions left some feeling that justice remained incomplete, regardless of monetary compensation received.

The process generated anxiety for some participants, particularly around communication gaps, uncertainty about outcomes, and concerns about accumulating legal fees with unclear billing practices. The impersonal nature of communication and long periods without updates contributed to stress, with participants feeling reluctant to chase updates due to fears about additional charges.

For some participants, negative experiences with HVCC created practical barriers to future engagement with similar processes. Those who felt disappointed or exploited expressed reluctance to pursue future claims, even when potentially eligible.

Another significant impact was the time investment required. Participants who used law firms or CMCs generally experienced minimal ongoing practical impact, with the process largely handled on their behalf. Those who pursued claims independently avoided fee deductions, but had to spend significantly more time on research, preparation and documentation.

The extent to which delays and unanswered questions affected participants varied according to the impact of the original issue. For example, one participant whose claim related to a flight delay experienced minimal disruption initially and was therefore less concerned that his HVCC claim had remained unresolved four years later.

8.3 Reflections on the process and outcome

Overall, just over half (55%) of people who have made a HVCC felt that they understood everything that was expected of them. This rises to 61% of those who handled their claim themselves and 65% of those who used a law firm. In contrast, 52% of those who used a CMC understood the expectations.

A lower proportion, two-fifths (41%) of claimants, felt in control during the claims process, with 30% feeling neutral and a quarter (24%) disagreeing. Those who handled the claim themselves were the most likely to report feeling in control (52%) – significantly more than those who had a law firm (44%) or CMC (34%) handle the claim.

Those from the most deprived areas are more likely to say they felt in control during the claim process (44% IMD 1-3, 39% IMD 8-10). There is no variation by IMD in how they proceeded with their claim (using a law firm, CMC, or progressing themselves), so this difference is unlikely to be related to the specific claim pathway.

Figure 25. Understanding expectations and feeling in control

Q26. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Base: All who made a claim (n=3,107)

More than half (54%) of people who have made a HVCC experienced a problem in relation to their claim. Taken at the total level of all adults, this would equate to 11% of the general public having an issue with a HVCC claim. Those who made a claim about Japanese knotweed are the most likely to have experienced problems (86%), followed by those who made a claim about mis-sold tax avoidance schemes (81%).

In contrast, those with a car finance claim are the least likely to cite problems with their claim, but this is still reported by nearly half of respondents (47%). This could likely be as a result of those with a car finance claim being the most likely claim area to say that their claim is still ongoing (75%, vs. 45% overall).

Those who progressed the claim themselves are less likely to experience problems (52%) than those who used someone else to handle their claim (60% for those who used a law firm and 58% for those who used a CMC) to handle their claim.

The most common issue is a perception that the process takes too long – 28% say this, rising to 35% of those who have made a diesel emissions claim. The problems experienced vary considerably with the type of claim being made. Those with a claim around mis-sold tax avoidance schemes are the most likely to face a lack of communication/ transparency (25%) and they are the most likely to say they were not aware they had been signed up to make a claim (18%). Following this, those with a Japanese knotweed claim are the second most likely to say they were not aware they had been signed up (15%) and the most likely to feel under pressure to make a claim (27%).

People living in more deprived areas are more likely to say that they were confused about fees (11% IMD 1-3, 7% IMD 8-10) or that they did not originally realise they had signed up to a claim (4% IMD 1-3, 2% IMD 8-10).

Figure 26. Problems experienced in relation to making a claim

Q24. What problems, if any, have you experienced in relation to making a claim? Please select all that apply.
Base: All who made a claim (n=3,107)
*'Lack of trust in the law firm/ CMC' only shown to those who used a law firm/ CMC to progress their claim

Over half (59%) of people with a resolved HVCC are satisfied with their outcome. However, satisfaction is driven by whether or not their claim was successful – 80% of those with a successful claim are satisfied by the outcome, compared to 17% whose claim was unsuccessful.

People who used a CMC are less likely to be satisfied with their outcome. Of those whose claim was successful, a majority are satisfied (74%) with the outcome reached by the CMC, but they are significantly more likely than other groups to feel neutral about the outcome (17%, compared to 11% overall).

When thinking about their expectations for the outcome, half (50%) of people with a resolved claim say it was about what they expected. Similar proportions report that the outcome was better (22%) or worse (23%) than expected. However, this is driven by whether or not the claim was successful. Three in ten (30%) of those with a successfully resolved claim think the outcome was better than expected while 51% of those with an unsuccessful claim say this was worse than they expected.

Figure 27. Claim outcome was better/ worse than expected

Q33. How would you describe the outcome of your claim?
Base: All with a resolved claim (n=1408)

Despite this, most (76%) of those who were dissatisfied with their claim have not and do not intend to make a complaint. One in ten either intend to make a complaint (10%) or have already done so (9%).

Those who have made, or intend to make, a complaint generally do so to the business they were making the claim against (34%). However, some have made, or intend to make, a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman (15%), the Financial Ombudsman Service (11%), or the Solicitors Regulation Authority (8%).

Figure 28. Whether complaining as a result of dissatisfaction

Q38. You said you were dissatisfied with your outcome. Which, if any, of the following have you done/ do you plan to do as a result?
Base: All dissatisfied with outcome of claim (n=304)

In the qualitative research, participants' reflections on their HVCC experiences revealed widespread recognition that they would approach the process differently with the benefit of hindsight. These reflections centred on fee structures, choice of representative, research and preparation, and the relative value of pursuing claims.

The most common regret involved using CMCs or law firms rather than pursuing claims independently. Some participants who successfully received compensation but lost significant percentages to fees, expressed that they would have attempted independent claims had they understood the actual work involved and the fees charged.

However, several participants recognised that time pressures, a lack of expertise, or the complexity of claims processes had influenced their original decisions.

Many expressed that they wished they had conducted more thorough research before engaging with the claims process. This regret focused on researching CMCs' reputations and fee structures, understanding eligibility criteria more completely, exploring alternative approaches (independent claims vs different representatives), and seeking advice from those with experience.

Participants who entered claims with very low expectations generally expressed greater satisfaction with outcomes than those who had held high hopes. Those who adopted an 'expect nothing' philosophy avoided disappointment whilst still appreciating any compensation received. Conversely, participants who hoped for specific outcomes beyond financial compensation, such as answers, apologies, or systemic changes (for example implementation of company-wide policies to prevent a future data breach), more frequently experienced lasting dissatisfaction when these expectations remained unmet.

Regarding the improvements to the process, participants wanted greater fee transparency from the outset, with clear explanations of all scenarios that might affect final payments. They also desired more regular communication and updates, with suggestions for online portals allowing claimants to check progress without incurring additional charges.

Indeed, in the online survey, just over one in ten (11%) reported experiencing unexpected fees. Of those who did, these were most commonly admin fees (38%). However, 8% said they were not told what these were for, and a further 6% said they did not know.

In the qualitative interviews, participants also emphasised the importance of clearer explanation of settlement terms and their implications. They wanted more realistic communication about what outcomes could be achieved, distinguishing between financial compensation and other forms of resolution or answers.

8.4 Case study – Sarah

Their claim

• Sarah's claim related to housing disrepair but she was aware of HVCC through previous experiences and news stories e.g. around personal injury.
• Her primary motivation for pursuing the claim was for the necessary repairs, rather than financial compensation.
• 'It's a 'no win, no fee' I got their contact details from my neighbour who's on my floor because we have had similar housing disrepair issues, quite serious ones'

Their approach

• Sarah initially tried to resolve the issue through internal complaints with the council before approaching the Housing Ombudsman. Eventually she reached out to a 'no win, no fee' lawyer who was recommended by a neighbour who had a similar experience with housing disrepair.
• She expected a somewhat impersonal service but was surprised by the lack of qualified legal staff handling her claim. She felt pressured to sign up during the onboarding and that the firm provided minimal information around alternatives or implications if she withdrew from the process.
• Throughout the process she felt the firm's communication was not proactive or clear and she felt that their approach was 'predatory'. During the claim process Sarah felt there should be a system to receive regular updates, even if there hasn't been progress with the case.
• The threat of a high withdrawal fee left Sarah feeling unable to change representation or leave the process.

Their outcome and the impact

• Sarah described the claims process as emotionally taxing. She felt that the process needed to be more accessible and transparent and that claimants should have their rights clearly explained.
• 'When I wanted to withdraw and I couldn't because I just didn't realise it would be thousands of pounds of work that they'd said they'd done... I felt a lot of pressure'

Provide clarity from the outset:

Claimants need support to feel in control and able to make informed decisions. More could be done to make sure there is clear and transparent information on eligibility, expected timelines, and fee structures.

Strengthen proactive communication:

Clear expectations for communication, including defined touchpoints and milestones, could reduce uncertainty and provide reassurance. Some participants suggested that firms provide an online dashboard for timely updates and make sure continuity through named individuals managing each claim.

Streamline and standardise processes:

The duration of a claim is one of the largest areas of dissatisfaction. Identifying and addressing sources of delay could improve efficiency and the consistency of claim experiences.

Strengthen regulation:

Clear expectations around how fees, including any caps, are calculated and presented to claimants could deliver a more consistent and transparent experience for CMC claimants in particular.

Collaborate with trusted advocates:

Consumers want accessible guidance and resources from recognised and trusted organisations including templates and summaries that explain the benefits/ drawbacks of different routes, and which outline typical fee structures. This would particularly support those who want to pursue their claim(s) independently without a law firm or a CMC.

Greater protection for vulnerable groups:

Vulnerable groups including lower social grades, those with disabilities or those living in deprived areas can experience more obstacles when approaching their claims. They tend to have a limited understanding of fee structures and experience greater emotional strain during a process where they often feel misled. This research highlights the need for targeted consumer protection measures including clear communication standards and transparency requirements to make sure vulnerable claimants are not disadvantaged or exploited.