If you are dealing with a dispute, complaint, or legal process, you may already feel overwhelmed, mistrustful, or exhausted.
This page is here to steady the ground, not to push you into action.
You do not need to be a lawyer.
You do not need to do anything differently today.
This is about understanding, not escalation.
Summary: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys (High Court)
The High Court decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys clarified who is legally allowed to conduct litigation under UK law.
The court held that:
- Only authorised individuals may conduct litigation.
It is not enough for someone to work for an authorised law firm — the individual themselves must also be authorised. - Supervision does not make unauthorised conduct lawful.
A non-authorised person cannot conduct litigation even if they are supervised by an authorised solicitor. - Support is allowed, control is not.
Non-authorised staff may provide extensive assistance (for example, drafting documents or preparing material), but they must not run the case or exercise substantive control.
In response, the Law Society of England and Wales issued guidance to help firms understand:
- who is authorised to conduct litigation, and
- what tasks non-authorised staff may lawfully carry out without breaching the Legal Services Act 2007.
In short, the decision reinforces a clear principle:
authority to conduct litigation must be real and personal, not assumed through employment or supervision.
First — reassurance
This court case does not take away your rights.
It does not automatically change past decisions.
It does not force you into court or confrontation.
What it does is clarify something important about accountability.
What was the Mazur case about?
The case is called Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys.
It was not about banks or consumers directly.
It was about who is legally allowed to run a court case.
The High Court confirmed something very simple:
Only properly authorised people are allowed to conduct litigation
(that means formally running a court case).
Other people can help — sometimes a lot —
but they cannot quietly take control if they are not authorised.
Why does this matter to people harmed by financial systems?
Many people tell us they experienced things like:
- Decisions made behind closed doors
- “The bank says…” with no clear person behind it
- Legal-sounding explanations with no name or role attached
- Being told: “You don’t need to know who decided this”
Mazur does not end confidentiality.
But it does reinforce one key idea:
Authority should be real, and responsibility should be traceable.
That matters for fairness, not just law.
What Mazur does not do (important to know)
Let’s be very clear and gentle here:
- ❌ It does not reopen closed cases
- ❌ It does not cancel court decisions
- ❌ It does not force banks to disclose everything
- ❌ It does not guarantee compensation
If anyone claims otherwise, please be cautious.
What Mazur can help with (in the right situations)
Mazur can support you if an issue is still live — for example:
- an ongoing court case
- an active complaint
- an appeal or review
- a regulatory concern about process or governance
It helps you ask calmer, clearer questions, such as:
“Who was responsible for this decision, and were they entitled to make it?”
That is not an accusation.
It is a fair process question.
If you are dealing with the Financial Ombudsman
Many people contact us about experiences with the
Financial Ombudsman Service.
Mazur does not turn the Ombudsman into a court.
But it supports this gentle principle:
If a decision relies on information, it matters what kind of information it was,
and whether relying on it was fair.
You may calmly ask things like:
- Was the information factual, operational, or legal opinion?
- Why was it fair to rely on it without explaining its source?
- Can a brief summary (a “gist”) be given?
You are not demanding disclosure.
You are asking about fairness.
If you are in court or facing legal action
You are allowed to ask — politely — things like:
- Who is actually running this case?
- Are they authorised to do so?
- Who signed the statements?
- Are costs being claimed for work done by unauthorised staff?
Again, these are process questions, not attacks.
If you are raising concerns with a regulator
Mazur supports questions about systems, such as:
- Are roles and responsibilities clear?
- Is legal authority properly allocated?
- Is supervision real, or just on paper?
- Could people be misled about who made decisions?
These are governance issues.
You are not required to prove wrongdoing.
Warning signs Mazur might be relevant
You might recognise some of these:
- You never know who actually made decisions
- Everything is blamed on “the bank” as a faceless entity
- Heavy use of case handlers or paralegals
- Legal conclusions with no named authority
- Confidential material deciding outcomes
- Refusal to explain roles or functions
If so, Mazur may help you frame better questions.
The Get SAFE perspective
Mazur does not give you a new weapon.
It gives you something better:
A calmer, firmer footing when asking for accountability.
You do not need to fight harder.
You do not need to know the law in depth.
You do not need to rush.
Sometimes the most powerful step is simply to say:
“Please explain how this decision was made, and by whom.”
If you’d like support
Get SAFE exists to help you:
- understand processes,
- organise your thoughts,
- and regain a sense of agency.
You are not alone.
And you do not have to push beyond what feels safe.
FOS: Copy-paste examples
Option 1: Very gentle clarification request (short)
I understand that the Ombudsman is entitled to rely on information provided by the business, including information that cannot be disclosed to me.
To help me understand the decision-making process, could you please clarify, in general terms, whether the information relied upon was factual evidence, operational material, or legal opinion?
I am not seeking disclosure of confidential material. I am simply trying to understand the nature of what was relied upon, so that I can feel confident the process was fair.
Option 2: Gentle fairness-focused wording (medium)
I appreciate the work the Ombudsman has done on my complaint and I understand that some material provided by the business may need to remain confidential.
However, as this information appears to have been important to the outcome, I would be grateful for a brief explanation — in general terms — of the nature of the material relied upon.
For example, was it legal opinion, internal assessment, or factual/operational evidence?
I am not asking for disclosure or names. I am simply seeking reassurance that reliance on this material was fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
Option 3: Slightly firmer, still calm (when concerns persist)
I understand that the Ombudsman may rely on information provided in confidence by the business, and I am not seeking access to that information.
However, where such material plays a decisive role in the outcome, I respectfully ask for clarification — at least in gist form — of its nature and status.
In particular, it would help me to understand whether the material represented legal opinion, factual evidence, or an internal assessment, and why it was fair to rely on it without explanation.
This request is made in the interests of procedural fairness and transparency, not challenge for its own sake.
Option 4: If you feel decisions were “faceless” or unclear
One of the difficulties I am experiencing is understanding how responsibility and authority were exercised in this matter.
Much of the reasoning is attributed generally to “the business”, without clarity as to the role or function from which key representations came.
I would therefore be grateful if you could explain, at a high level, the basis on which the Ombudsman was satisfied that the information relied upon was authoritative and appropriate to rely upon fairly.
Option 5: If you are exhausted and want to say less
I am finding this process difficult, and clarity would help me.
Could you please explain, in simple terms, what kind of information the Ombudsman relied on when reaching the decision, and why it was fair to rely on it without sharing details with me?
Important reassurance (from Get SAFE)
- You are not accusing anyone
- You are not demanding disclosure
- You are not required to use legal language
- You are simply asking for fairness and understanding
That is reasonable.
About Get SAFE
Get SAFE (Support After Financial Exploitation) is a citizen-led initiative that empowers victims of financial harm to investigate, document, and pursue redress.
Through AI-enabled training, structured playbooks, and collaborative fellowship, Get SAFE transforms victims into advocates — ensuring that truth and justice are not luxuries, but rights.
Litigators conduct litigation.
Investigators carry out investigations.
Get SAFE trains citizens to investigate their own cases.
In One Sentence
Goliathon turns victims of financial exploitation into confident, capable citizen investigators who can build professional-grade cases using structured training, emotional support, and independent AI.
Instant Access
Purchase today for £2.99 and get your secure link to:
- the training video, and
- the downloadable workbook.
Link to Goliathon Taster £2.99.
If the session resonates, you can upgrade to the full Goliathon Programme for £29 and continue your journey toward clarity, justice, and recovery.
Every year, thousands across the UK lose their savings, pensions, and peace of mind to corporate financial exploitation — and are left to face the aftermath alone.
Get SAFE (Support After Financial Exploitation) exists to change that.
We’re creating a national lifeline for victims — offering free emotional recovery, life-planning, and justice support through our Fellowship, Witnessing Service, and Citizen Investigator training.
We’re now raising £20,000 to:
Register Get SAFE as a Charity (CIO)
Build our website, CRM, and outreach platform
Fund our first year of free support and recovery programmes
Every £50 donation provides a bursary for one survivor — giving access to the tools, training, and community needed to rebuild life and pursue justice with confidence.
Your contribution doesn’t just fund a project — it fuels a movement.
Support the Crowdfunder today and help us rebuild lives and restore justice.
Join us at: www.get-safe.org.uk
steve.conley@aolp.co.uk | +44 (0)7850 102070
Academy of Life Planning 