The consumer credit sector is watching a monumental legal battle unfold. Vanquis Bank has launched high-profile litigation against Bournemouth-based solicitors TMS Legal. The core of the dispute revolves around tens of thousands of “irresponsible lending” complaints submitted on behalf of borrowers. Vanquis alleges these claims were weak or entirely unmeritorious, resulting in severe financial losses for the business.
Recently, the High Court handed down a pivotal ruling. The court decided that the bank’s claim can proceed to a full trial. This decision marks a significant moment for lenders who want to seek financial redress against high-volume claims firms. It also sets the stage for a dramatic showdown regarding the boundaries of legal and professional duties.
Reading about this case reveals the massive financial risks lenders face from bulk litigation. You will learn the specific allegations Vanquis has made, the legal arguments tested in the High Court, and what the upcoming trial could mean for the future of the claims management landscape.
The surge of irresponsible lending complaints
Between October 2022 and August 2024, TMS Legal filed an astonishing 33,000 affordability-related complaints against Vanquis. The law firm alleged the bank failed to conduct proper affordability checks before issuing credit cards or increasing customer borrowing limits.
However, Vanquis strongly disputes the validity of these claims. The bank argues that the vast majority of these complaints lacked any factual basis. Internal figures reveal a stark picture. Vanquis upheld fewer than 8% of the complaints during its internal review process.
When clients escalated their cases to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), the success rate remained exceptionally low. Out of roughly 12,250 escalated cases, about 84% were either withdrawn, closed, or outright rejected by the ombudsman.
A multi-million-pound financial burden
Processing tens of thousands of complaints requires immense operational resources. Vanquis claims that responding to this sheer volume of weak complaints cost the bank millions of pounds. Management had to hire additional temporary staff and lost considerable time dealing with the administrative heavy lifting.
The largest financial blow came from mandatory regulatory charges. The bank incurred more than £9 million in FOS case fees. The ombudsman charges firms a standard fee of £650 for every referred case, completely regardless of the final outcome.
Vanquis alleges that TMS Legal triggered these losses by acting recklessly and indiscriminately. The bank claims the law firm used leading pro-forma questionnaires, asking clients to sign statements that framed their financial issues entirely as the lender’s fault. Vanquis argues that TMS Legal submitted these complaints without conducting adequate legal assessments or proper due diligence on the individual facts of each case.
Testing the unlawful means tort
Facing a massive lawsuit, TMS Legal attempted to have the claim struck out before it could reach a trial. The firm argued that Vanquis was trying to improperly expand the economic tort of “causing loss by unlawful means”.
To succeed in an unlawful means tort, a claimant usually needs to prove four specific elements:
- Unlawful acts were committed against a third party.
- The defendant interfered with the actions of those third parties.
- The defendant intended to cause loss to the claimant.
- Actual financial loss was caused.
TMS maintained that if the bank had concerns about professional conduct, those issues should be directed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) rather than pursued through private litigation. They argued that regulatory frameworks exist precisely to handle such complaints.
In June 2025, Mr Justice Jay delivered a firm rejection of the strike-out application. The judge noted that the legal principles behind the unlawful means tort are well-established, even if they are being applied to a novel set of facts in this instance. He highlighted that the alleged behaviour, if proven true, could represent egregious conduct. As a result, he concluded the bank’s claim is viable and must be tested thoroughly at a full trial.
Reshaping the claims management landscape
This dispute is widely viewed as a major warning shot to high-volume claims firms across the United Kingdom. The court has clearly indicated that regulatory oversight from the SRA or the Financial Conduct Authority does not automatically prevent a private business from seeking financial compensation for unmeritorious claims.
The case has safely passed the strike-out stage and is now moving towards a full trial. The court will closely examine whether TMS Legal’s specific business model breached the contractual and fiduciary duties it owed to its own clients, and whether that conduct firmly establishes an unlawful means tort against the bank.
As the litigation progresses, legal professionals expect the trial to clarify the exact responsibilities solicitors hold when submitting mass consumer claims. The final judgment could dramatically alter how claims management companies operate, potentially opening the door for similar legal actions by other major lenders who feel inundated by baseless complaints.
Protect your commercial interests
Navigating complex, high-stakes commercial disputes requires precise legal strategy and seasoned expertise. A dedicated Litigation Solicitor London can help you manage significant financial risks and pursue effective remedies in the High Court.
Philip Rubens has extensive experience acting for individuals and corporations from the USA, India, the Far East, and other major commercial hubs.
For matters involving regulatory investigations, please visit FCA Defence Work for Regulated Individuals page.
Request a confidential case assessment here. I will review your matter and advise on merits, risks, and funding options.