Redress & Claims

The Challenge

Scale meets complexity.

Redress schemes demand both speed and forensic accuracy — across thousands or millions of cases.

Volume & Speed Pressure

Regulatory deadlines are tight, customer expectations are high, and every day of delay increases cost and reputational damage. Hiring hundreds of temporary staff creates its own problems — inconsistent quality, training overhead, management complexity.

Months to recruit and train temporary teams
Quality varies significantly across assessors
Management overhead scales with headcount
Knowledge loss when temps leave

Accuracy & Defensibility

Every decision must be defensible under regulatory scrutiny. Data retrieval from years-old systems, complex eligibility criteria, multiple calculation methodologies — and any inconsistency creates complaint and regulatory risk.

Complex multi-stage assessment criteria
Document retrieval from legacy systems
Multiple calculation methods per case type
Audit trail requirements for every decision

Real Example: Motor Finance Commission Redress

FCA identified widespread inadequate disclosure of commission arrangements in motor finance between 2007–2024. Industry now faces a coordinated redress scheme — exactly the scenario where temporary teams become unworkable.

Scale: 14.2 million agreements potentially eligible — 44% of all since 2007
Estimated cost: £8.2 billion in redress + £2.8 billion implementation
Average payout: £700 per agreement
Complexity: Three different calculation methods depending on case characteristics
Data challenge: Retrieve and assess documents from up to 18 years ago
Timeline: Scheme finalised early 2026 — delivery forecasts due within 6 weeks of launch

What to Expect

Measurable outcomes.

Based on industry benchmarks. Individual results vary depending on portfolio composition and existing processes.

90%

Cases Automated

100%

Audit Trail Coverage

−80%

Processing Time per Case

6 min

vs 2–3 Days per Case

System in Action

How it works in practice.

Real scenarios showing how the agentic system reasons, acts, and escalates — with compliance built into every step.

Scenario 1: Simple Eligible Case

Scenario: Customer had car finance in 2015. Commission was 38% of credit cost and 12% of loan amount. No disclosure of commission in documents.

Data Retrieval

Locates original agreement from 2015, payment history, commission documentation from broker files.

Eligibility Check

✓ Date range: 2015 falls within 2007–2024 window
✓ Commission: 38% exceeds threshold; 12% of loan exceeds threshold
✓ Disclosure: No adequate disclosure found
Determination: Eligible as "high commission arrangement"

Calculation

Commission paid: £1,200 | APR adjustment remedy: £1,150 | Hybrid (average): £1,175 | Compensatory interest (8 years): £385
Total redress: £1,560

Quality Review

✓ Eligibility criteria correctly applied · ✓ Calculation methodology appropriate · ✓ Math validated
Approved for determination

Outcome: Customer receives clear determination letter within 48 hours. Complete audit trail available for regulatory review. Processing time: 6 minutes vs 2–3 days with manual approach.

Scenario 2: Complex "Johnson-Type" Case

Scenario: Finance agreement in 2018 with exclusive tied arrangement. Commission 52% of credit cost and 24% of loan. Minimal disclosure.

Eligibility & Classification

Identifies both high commission (52%/24%) AND tied arrangement (exclusivity clause found in dealer agreement).
Classification: Aligns with Johnson case — qualifies for full commission repayment remedy.

Calculation

Commission paid: £2,400 | Compensatory interest (6 years): £625
Total redress: £3,025

Quality Review

✓ Tied arrangement documentation validated · ✓ Commission thresholds confirmed above Johnson criteria · ✓ Full commission remedy correctly applied
Approved — higher scrutiny case flagged for senior review sample

Outcome: Customer receives maximum available remedy. Complete documentation provides defensible determination. Regulatory audit trail shows appropriate escalation of high-value case for human oversight.

Scenario 3: Edge Case — Human Review Required

Scenario: Finance in 2010 with early settlement in 2011. Disclosure documentation partially present but ambiguous. Customer claims vulnerability at time of sale.

Exception Handling

Flags for human review:
1. Early settlement complicates standard calculation methodology
2. Disclosure documentation present but quality questionable — requires judgment
3. Vulnerability claim needs specialist assessment
Context provided: Complete case file, ambiguous disclosure examples highlighted, suggested calculation approaches for early settlement.

Outcome: Specialist receives complete context — no time wasted gathering data. Makes informed decision on disclosure adequacy and vulnerability. Processing time for specialist: 20 minutes vs 2+ hours without agent support.