Part 2: Anonymity lifted
Following the refusal of permission to appeal, Part 2 (2 January 2026) was handed down lifting anonymity and confirming that the firm was The Claims Protection Agency (TCPA). On the same day, the FCA formally named TCPA and announced the investigation.
This is a good example of how the process operates in practice. The case has allowed both the FCA and the market to see how the "exceptional circumstances" threshold is applied and how decision making will be reviewed.
It is also significant that the process can take some time, and, in practical terms, the judicial challenge delayed the process of naming the party under investigation.
Internal decision-making and notice - Practical realities
The judgment also provided insight into the FCA's internal process and governance.
The initial recommendation from the case team was for an anonymised announcement. Interestingly, that recommendation was then revisited after the decision-maker asked the team to reconsider specific points. Subsequently, an augmented case team produced a further memorandum recommending naming.
The litigation also highlighted the compressed timelines. TCPA received approximately 24 hours' notice of the intention to name it. That contrasts with the 10 business days' notice contemplated (but ultimately not adopted) in CP24/2. Firms may therefore face very limited time to consider options and, where appropriate, seek urgent judicial review.
Judicial review of a naming decision will typically require an urgent application for interim relief to prevent publication pending determination. The window for action may be measured in hours rather than days.
Once the information is out, the practical consequences may be difficult to unwind.
