FCA “Multiple Professional Representatives” in motor finance complaints
- Dan Richards
- Feb 8
- 6 min read
Identifying is easy — managing them is the hard part!
Last week, the FCA sent a Dear CEO communication to motor finance lenders on a fast-growing problem: customers being signed up by more than one professional representative (a CMC and/or a law firm) for the same complaint.
At the same time, the FCA and SRA issued aligned expectations to professional representatives themselves — in effect, a reset of what “good” looks like when it comes to onboarding, duplicate checks, and termination fees.
The message for lenders is clear: multi-representation must not become a reason for delay under DISP complaint handling or any future redress scheme. The challenge is that many representative packs and letters of authority (LoAs) arriving in the market still contain wording that can increase conflict and confusion — and in certain cases, create a real payment-risk for lenders.
This blog sets out what’s changing, the risks firms need to control, and what a workable operating model looks like.
1) What’s changed — and why this matters now
Multi-representation is no longer a fringe scenario. It’s becoming routine in motor finance commission complaints, and it tends to create three immediate issues:
Authority uncertainty: more than one party claims they act for the customer.
Customer confusion: customers receive conflicting advice and competing demands.
Termination-fee disputes: customers can face pressure or threats of fees when they try to switch firms — or disengage altogether.
The FCA’s direction is that firms should deal with this proactively and in a way that protects customer outcomes without creating avoidable delay.
2) What the FCA expects from lenders (in practical terms)
The FCA’s direction of travel is that multi-representation must be managed proactively and must not become a cause of delay. In operational terms, the safest and most repeatable way to achieve this is to timebox the clarification process and move each case to a customer-confirmed instruction on who is authorised to act.
In practice, that means:
Identify when more than one representative is linked to the same complaint/customer.
Move the case into a proactive, timeboxed clarification workflow with a clear next action date.
Copy the customer from the outset so they are in the loop and able to make an informed decision.
Share only the minimum necessary information to clarify representation status and avoid “disclosure creep”.
Seek and record a clear instruction from the customer on how they wish to proceed (for example, confirming a single “prime” representative or choosing to continue without representation).
Close duplicates once the customer’s instruction is confirmed and proceed at pace.
Crucially, this is about clarifying authority and protecting customer outcomes — not lenders becoming arbitrators of fee disputes between representatives.
3) What the FCA/SRA expect from professional representatives
The joint FCA/SRA message is, in effect, a reset of expected standards for both FCA-authorised CMCs and SRA-regulated law firms.
Key call-outs include:
Robust upfront checks: representatives should be able to evidence what checks were performed before entering into a new retainer/contract.
Duplicate resolution: if a representative becomes aware the customer has multiple representatives, they’re expected to act promptly to reduce harm — and support resolution rather than allowing uncertainty to linger.
Written records: clear written records of advice, the customer’s decision, and the steps taken.
File transfer support: where a customer switches, representatives should support orderly transfer rather than obstruct it.
Termination fees under scrutiny: fees must be fair, proportionate, and evidenced by work actually undertaken. The regulators highlight behaviours that are not acceptable, including charging for work not done or inflating costs.
This creates a real dynamic in the market: customers may legitimately decide to proceed directly (or under a future scheme without representation), and the onus increases on representatives to justify and evidence any termination fee properly.
4) The reality: what we are seeing in representative documentation
Many representative packs and LoAs currently circulating include standard clauses such as:
“We act exclusively / any prior authority should be disregarded.”
Requests that lenders correspond only with the representative and not the customer.
Statements that the customer does not want correspondence from the lender.
Instructions that “any monies due” should be paid to the representative firm.
These clauses often run counter to the regulators’ direction of travel on transparency, customer decisioning, and evidence of proper checks. For lenders, they also increase operational conflict risk — and in some cases, they push cases into a higher payment-risk profile.
5) The big lender risk most people miss: equitable lien / “double payment” exposure
In multi-representation files involving SRA-regulated law firms, there is a heightened risk around how redress is paid.
Where a lender is “on notice” of solicitor involvement (for example, through a LoA, solicitor correspondence, or explicit payment instructions), some firms may seek to assert an entitlement to recover fees from the redress fund. If payment is made in the face of competing instructions, lenders can face follow-on claims that effectively create a “double payment” risk scenario.
This differs from historic PPI operational norms, where “pay the customer direct” was often the default even where representatives were arguing. In today’s motor finance environment, the combination of SRA-regulated representation and stronger contractual language in LoAs means payment controls need to be more deliberate in edge cases.
6) A workable operating model: timeboxed clarification + a controlled payment lane
In our view, lenders need a model that is:
Customer-centred (customer copied in from the outset; customer confirms who acts)
Timeboxed (these cases cannot sit idle)
Low-disclosure (minimum necessary information only)
Evidenced (audit trail suitable for QA/2LOD/FOS scrutiny)
Payment-controlled (standard lane plus a controlled lane for lien-risk scenarios)
A practical model looks like:
A) Multi-representation handling workflow
Detect multi-representation triggers (duplicate LoAs, conflicting instructions, multiple reps on the same agreement).
Move the case into a dedicated “multi-representation” process state with a next action date.
Issue a standard comms pack immediately and schedule reminders/escalations.
Obtain customer confirmation of the “prime” representative (or decision to proceed without representation).
Close duplicates and proceed with complaint assessment without unnecessary delay.
B) Two-lane payment control
Lane A (Standard): pay redress to the customer where there is no credible solicitor “on notice” indicator.
Lane B (Controlled): where solicitor notice/lien indicators exist, pause payment pending clarification and apply a documented, legally-informed route decision.
This lets lenders retain “pay the customer direct” as the default while managing genuine edge-case risk appropriately.
7) Why “finding duplicates” isn’t the hard part — managing them at scale is
Some commentary in the market focuses heavily on identifying multi-representation cases. In practice, detection is the easy part.
The hard part is the end-to-end management: communications, timeboxing, response capture, decisioning, closure evidence, and payment controls — all without creating DISP delays or secondary complaints.
That’s why the combination of:
an embedded process & procedures update, and
a capable case management platform is what turns regulatory expectation into operational reality.
8) How Profexx can help
If you’re seeing multi-representation cases coming through, the challenge isn’t spotting them — it’s managing them consistently, at pace, and in a way that stands up to QA/2LOD and (where needed) FOS scrutiny.
Profexx Partners supports lenders to operationalise this properly. In practice, that means combining process, controls and enabling technology so multi-representation doesn’t become a delay driver or a payment-risk issue.
A bespoke Motor Finance CMS (built with Nivo)
We’ve developed a bespoke Motor Finance complaints and redress CMS, built with Nivo, designed specifically to handle the realities of motor finance claims — including multi-representation. It can:
automatically trigger a multi-representation workflow when duplicate LoAs / conflicting instructions are detected
issue the right customer-and-PR communications quickly, with the customer copied in from the outset
run the process on a timeboxed basis (reminders, chasers, escalation points and next-action dates)
capture responses and customer confirmation digitally, so decisioning is clear and evidenced
maintain a complete, auditable end-to-end communication trail
generate a structured evidence pack to support QA/2LOD review and external challenge
Alongside that, we can help you embed the operating model around it — including a stand-alone multi-representation process (templates, escalation points, training and MI), and a practical two-lane payment control for cases where solicitor “on notice” indicators create credible equitable lien / double-payment exposure.
If you’d like to talk through how this could work in your operation (and how quickly it can be implemented), please contact me directly
Dan Richards
CEO Profexx Partners
Comments