The Solicitors Regulation Authority has completed its investigation into SSB Group’s handling of cavity-wall-insulation claims and announced the next regulatory steps. The official statement, updated on 20 August 2026, concerns clients who were unexpectedly pursued for adverse legal costs after claims were discontinued.
The development matters beyond the individuals named by the regulator. It highlights the duties firms owe when using after-the-event insurance, advising clients about litigation risk, following instructions and operating high-volume claims models.
What did the SRA investigate?
According to the regulator, SSB arranged after-the-event insurance intended to protect clients against an opponent’s costs if a claim failed. In some cases insurers declined cover; in others, the SRA says insurance appeared to be absent or insufficient.
The investigation reviewed how SSB obtained work, how claims were handled, whether clients received proper advice, whether their instructions were followed and whether the firm complied with obligations to keep insurers informed about the merits and progress of claims.
The SRA says it has now reviewed the relevant evidence, completed the SSB investigation and decided on the next steps.
Referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal
The SRA announced that Jeremy Brooke has been referred to the independent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. A referral is not a final disciplinary finding: the tribunal will determine the allegations under its own timetable after considering the evidence and the respondent’s case.
The regulator had already placed interim conditions on how Mr Brooke could work. Its updated statement says the tribunal may impose an unlimited fine, suspend a solicitor or strike a solicitor from the roll if allegations are ultimately proved and such a sanction is justified.
Disqualification orders involving former managers
The statement also describes action against Wesley Bower and Steven Westwood, former directors and owners of SSB who were not solicitors. The SRA says both were made subject to disqualification orders under section 99 of the Legal Services Act 2007, preventing them from working or holding roles in firms regulated by the SRA.
The regulator says it found unethical conduct, including dishonesty, recklessness and a lack of integrity, alongside multiple regulatory breaches. Each was directed to pay £14,224 towards the SRA’s investigation costs.
The published decision concerning Steven Westwood says the misconduct included acting for some clients without appropriate insurance protection, failing to explain limitations in cover and exposing clients to adverse costs. It records that some clients suffered financial hardship and that charging orders were placed on homes in several cases.
Conditions removed from three solicitors
The SRA had also imposed interim practising-certificate conditions on Debra Allen, Lucy Flynn and David Toyn while the investigation continued. The updated statement says the regulator decided to take no action against them and removed those conditions.
That distinction is important. Interim restrictions are protective measures and do not themselves establish misconduct. The final position for these three individuals is that the SRA decided no action should be taken.
Pure Legal investigation remains open
The 20 August statement does not close every related inquiry. The SRA says its investigation into Pure Legal Limited remains ongoing and that it is nearing completion of a detailed review of client files.
The regulator will then consider whether its rules were breached, who may have been responsible and whether interim or final regulatory action is required. No conclusion should be inferred before that process is complete.
Why this matters for firms and clients
The case demonstrates that a “no win, no fee” label does not remove the need to explain adverse-costs exposure clearly. Firms must assess whether insurance is suitable and sufficient, comply with policy conditions, obtain and follow client instructions, identify conflicts and maintain systems capable of protecting clients across a high-volume caseload.
For clients, the statement is also a reminder to ask what costs remain payable if a claim fails, what the insurance limit is, which exclusions apply and whether an appeal can proceed without fresh authority.
This article is based principally on the SRA’s official announcement because independent reporting was not reasonably available at the time of publication. It is for general information only and is not legal advice.