We look at how the payment left you, where it went, and which lawful routes are still open: a card chargeback, a claim against a bank or payment provider, a regulator complaint, a police report or a civil claim. Losing money to an operation like this says nothing about your judgement; these schemes are staffed, scripted and rehearsed to work on careful people. The first assessment costs nothing, and if there is no realistic route we say so and decline the case.
No forms, no required fields: you write directly and decide what to share.
We work through banks, card schemes, payment providers, exchanges, regulators, police and the courts. No hacking, no bought database access, no contacting or confronting the people who took your money.
Correspondence stays in the messenger you choose, documents sit in a closed client portal, and your matter is handled by a named lawyer rather than a shared inbox.
A weak case is not made stronger by paying someone to work on it. If the payment rail, the timing or the destination of the funds leaves nothing realistic to do, we tell you that instead of selling you a plan.
Anonymised examples of the work we do, shortened and stripped of identifying detail. They describe what was done, not what you should expect: no two matters run the same way, and results are never promised.
Most people arrive with one of the situations below. They are ordinary, they are common, and recognising yours here is the first step towards knowing whether anything can still be done.
The balance on screen keeps rising, but every withdrawal request is delayed, cancelled or permanently under review. The profit shown was usually never real; the deposits were.
A tax, fee, insurance premium or anti-money-laundering deposit is demanded before your funds can be released. Paying it releases nothing. It simply adds a fresh loss to the original one.
A friendly adviser explains that a margin call, a licence upgrade or a bigger position is all that stands between you and your money. The script is designed to keep deposits flowing while doubt grows.
The website is down, the app has gone from the store, the group chat is closed and the numbers are dead. Evidence disappears fastest at this stage, which is why capturing it comes before anything else.
Someone met on a dating app, a professional network or a group chat built trust over weeks, then introduced an investment that looked like their own success. The relationship was part of the scheme.
After the loss, another outfit contacted you offering to get the money back for an advance fee. That is almost always the same fraud coming round a second time, working from a list of known victims.
Each area is handled by a lawyer who works in it. You receive a written position, the documents themselves, and support until the matter is closed one way or the other.
We follow the money as far as the public record allows and set out the route in a document that other institutions can act on. Tracing shows where funds went; whether they can be reached is a separate question we answer honestly.
Where you paid by card, the scheme rules give you a defined procedural route with defined time limits. We work out which ground and which window apply to your payments, then build and file the dispute.
A report supported by dated evidence and a fund-flow annex is treated very differently from a two-line complaint. We prepare the filing, submit it through the right channel and keep it moving.
The cheapest stage of this work is the one before the transfer. We check what a platform actually is, who operates it and what its terms really say, and give you a plain answer in writing.
Every lawful route to recovering money from a fake broker or a sham trading platform runs through a rule that already exists: a card scheme rule, a statute, a regulator's requirement or a court order. Below are those rules, each with a link to the source, so you can check them yourself before you pay anyone.
The route back depends less on how badly you were treated than on which rail the money left by. Card payments carry the strongest built-in remedies; a push payment from your bank account carries far fewer; a crypto transfer carries none at all at the payment layer.
Your card issuer reverses the payment against the merchant's acquirer under the scheme's own rulebook. The usual filing window is 120 days from the transaction processing date; for 13.1 it runs 120 days from the last date you expected to receive the service, capped at 540 days from the transaction. Chargeback is a contractual scheme process, not a legal right you can enforce in court, and it reaches only the merchant that was actually paid.
The mechanics mirror Visa's: the issuer files, and the standard cardholder window for these codes is 120 days. Older codes such as 4807, 4812, 4841, 4842, 4859 and 4860 are retired and should not be quoted. If your card paid a licensed exchange that then delivered coins to your own wallet, issuers routinely treat the service as rendered and decline the dispute, even though the coins were then sent on to the fraudster.
Where you paid on a UK credit card, the issuer is jointly and severally liable with the supplier for misrepresentation or breach of contract, for a single item with a cash price above £100 and not more than £30,000. It is a statutory claim, not a scheme courtesy, and it survives long after the chargeback window closes. It needs an unbroken debtor-creditor-supplier link, which is often broken when payment passed through a third-party processor or when you bought crypto and forwarded it yourself, and it does not apply to debit cards.
A transaction is unauthorised if you did not consent to it in the agreed form (Art 64). You must notify your provider without undue delay and in any event within 13 months of the debit date (Art 71; reg 74), and the provider must then refund and restore the account no later than the end of the next business day (Art 73; reg 76). Your own liability is capped at EUR 50 unless you acted fraudulently or with gross negligence (Art 74). This route covers card fraud and account takeover; it does not cover a payment you made yourself, however you were deceived into making it.
An APP payment is one you instructed yourself — you logged in, approved the beneficiary and pressed send. Because you consented, it is authorised, so the unauthorised-transaction refund in PSD2 Art 73 and reg 76 does not apply, and there is no card scheme to charge back against. That gap is exactly what the separate UK reimbursement regime in the next section was created to fill.
PSD3 and the accompanying Regulation will extend liability to impersonation fraud and introduce payee verification, but they had not been formally adopted or published in the Official Journal as at August 2026. PSD2 and, in the UK, the Payment Services Regulations 2017 remain the rules that govern your claim today.
| Payment method | Recovery mechanism | Realistic deadline | Odds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credit card | Section 75 joint liability of the issuer, plus Visa or Mastercard chargeback | Chargeback: normally 120 days from the transaction or from the date you expected the service. Section 75: no scheme deadline, but the ordinary six-year limitation period applies | The strongest of the five, where the card paid the fraudulent supplier directly |
| Debit card | Chargeback only; no Section 75, because no credit was extended | Normally 120 days from the transaction or from the expected delivery date | Moderate, and dependent on the reason code and on what evidence the merchant returns |
| Bank transfer / APP payment | UK mandatory reimbursement for in-scope Faster Payments and CHAPS payments, then the Financial Ombudsman Service | Claim within 13 months of the last scam payment; refer to the Ombudsman within six months of the firm's final response | Moderate for in-scope UK payments; low for international transfers and me-to-me transfers, which fall outside the regime |
| Crypto transfer | Tracing to a deposit address at a regulated exchange, then a civil disclosure or freezing order or a law-enforcement freeze | No formal deadline, but the funds usually move on within hours or days; the useful window is immediate | Low, and wholly dependent on the funds reaching a regulated exchange that still holds them |
| Cash or voucher | Criminal report only; occasionally the voucher issuer can void an unredeemed code | Immediate — codes are normally redeemed within minutes of being read out | Very low |
Deadlines and odds depend on your issuer, the reason code applied, the jurisdiction of the receiving firm and the facts of your case. Treat this table as orientation for choosing where to spend your effort, not as a prediction. No one can promise you a recovery.
Open the sourceSection 72 obliged the Payment Systems Regulator to impose a reimbursement requirement for payments made over the Faster Payments Scheme following fraud or dishonesty. The resulting regime went live on 7 October 2024 and is the main route for anyone who transferred money to a fake broker from a UK bank account.
For in-scope Faster Payments and CHAPS payments in sterling between UK accounts, the sending firm must reimburse you, and the receiving firm must repay it half of what it paid. The maximum is £85,000 per claim, which remains the figure in force; an independent evaluation of the cap, the 50:50 split and the caution exception is due to report during 2026/27. Your firm may deduct an excess of up to £100, but not from a vulnerable customer. Losses above the cap are not covered by this route at all.
Report to your firm without delay and in any event within 13 months of the last payment in the scam, or the claim can be refused as out of time. The firm should reimburse within five business days, but it may stop the clock to gather information and take up to 35 business days in total. A slow decision is not a refusal; a refusal must be reasoned, and it opens the door to the Ombudsman.
A firm may refuse reimbursement only where you acted with gross negligence, judged against four elements: you disregarded a specific, tailored warning the firm gave you; you failed to report promptly once you knew or suspected fraud; you failed to respond to the firm's information requests; and you refused to consent to your details being shared with the police. The exception does not apply at all to vulnerable customers. It is not a general licence to refuse because you were trusting or optimistic, and refusals are frequently overturned on that basis.
International payments, payments made by card, civil disputes with a genuine merchant, and transfers between accounts in your own name are all out of scope. This last exclusion catches a great many crypto investment frauds: if you funded your own account at an exchange and then sent the coins onward yourself, that first leg is a me-to-me transfer and the reimbursement regime does not reach it. Where the money went straight from your bank account to an account the fraudster controlled, it is in scope.
Complain to the firm first: it has 15 business days to answer a fraud, scam or payment services complaint and eight weeks for most other complaints. You then have six months from the date of its final response to refer the case to the Ombudsman, subject to the further limits of six years from the event or three years from when you knew or ought reasonably to have known you had cause to complain. For complaints referred on or after 1 April 2026 the Ombudsman can require a firm to pay up to £455,000 where the act or omission was on or after 1 April 2019, and £205,000 where it was earlier. The service is free to you and its decision binds the firm if you accept it; it binds you too, and it decides claims against your bank, not against the fraudster.
Most jurisdictions require you to exhaust the firm's own complaints procedure before an external body will look at the case, and each EEA state maintains an out-of-court dispute resolution body for financial services disputes. Outside the UK there is generally no equivalent mandatory reimbursement regime for authorised push payments, so the realistic ask is a finding that the firm failed in its own fraud-prevention or handling duties, not automatic reimbursement.
What was done to you is a criminal offence: dishonestly making a false representation, knowing it might be untrue or misleading, intending to make a gain or cause a loss. Reporting it is necessary, and it is also the step most often misunderstood — it starts an intelligence process, not a search for your money.
Report Fraud has replaced Action Fraud as the national front door for fraud and cyber crime in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland you report to Police Scotland on 101. Reports are assessed by the National Crime Analysis Service, which replaced the analytical system that sat behind Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Older material still telling you to file with Action Fraud is out of date.
Your reference is the proof that you reported, and banks, exchanges, the Financial Ombudsman Service and any later court claim will all ask for it. It is not a police investigation, not a court order and not an instruction to anyone. It does not compel an exchange to freeze an account or disclose a customer, and the great majority of reports are used as intelligence rather than passed to a force for investigation.
File with IC3 if any part of the chain touches the United States — a US bank, a US-incorporated platform, a US-based victim or a dollar wire. The Recovery Asset Team works directly with domestic financial institutions to freeze recent fraudulent transfers, which is why speed matters; the practical window is measured in days, not weeks. IC3 warns that it never contacts victims to demand payment and does not work with any non-law-enforcement entity, such as law firms or crypto services, to recover funds.
Europol coordinates and analyses; it does not take reports from individual victims and will not investigate your case. Its reporting page routes you to the national portal for your country, and where no online route exists you file at a local police station. Where the platform, the receiving bank or the exchange sits in another country, a separate report in that country is usually worth making, because that is where any freeze or seizure will have to happen.
Regulated exchanges act on law-enforcement requests, court orders and their own AML alerts. A report filed while the funds are still sitting in a deposit account gives police and the exchange something to act on; a report filed a month later usually finds an emptied account and a closed trail. Filing early does not oblige anyone to freeze anything, but filing late removes the possibility.
Where a defendant is convicted, the court can make a confiscation order against the benefit of their criminal conduct, and it can order compensation to identified victims; Part 5 allows civil recovery of property obtained through unlawful conduct without a conviction. These depend on a prosecution being brought in a jurisdiction that can reach the assets, which for offshore crypto fraud is uncommon. Treat it as a possible outcome of the criminal process, not as your recovery plan.
No person may carry on a regulated activity in the UK, or purport to do so, unless authorised or exempt. Almost every fake broker breaches the equivalent of this rule somewhere, which is what makes a regulator complaint worth filing — and what makes checking a register before you invest the single most effective precaution there is.
Breaching the general prohibition is a criminal offence under s.23, punishable on indictment by up to two years' imprisonment. The Warning List records firms and clones the FCA knows are operating without permission, and the Firm Checker is the consumer-facing tool for confirming that a firm is authorised for the specific service it is offering. Neither list is exhaustive: absence from the Warning List proves nothing, and a clone will quote the register entry of the real firm.
The FCA can warn, impose requirements, ban, prosecute, and apply to the court for a restitution order requiring a firm to pay sums to those who suffered loss. It does not act as your representative, does not adjudicate your individual complaint, and does not run a fund that pays you back. Individual redress against an authorised firm comes from the firm's complaints process and then the Financial Ombudsman Service; against an unauthorised firm, neither the Ombudsman nor the Financial Services Compensation Scheme normally applies at all.
An agreement made by someone carrying on a regulated activity in breach of the general prohibition is unenforceable against the other party, and that party may recover money or property transferred under it together with compensation for loss sustained. It is a genuine civil remedy rather than a regulatory one, but you have to bring a claim and then enforce it, so it is only useful where the counterparty is identifiable, within reach and has assets.
A very large number of broker brands claim a Cypriot licence, so check the CIF register and the warnings page for the exact legal entity, not the trading name on the website. The Investor Compensation Fund covers up to EUR 20,000 per covered client, and only where an authorised CIF fails to meet its obligations to clients. It does not compensate trading losses and it does not reach a firm that was never authorised.
BaFin publishes warnings about unauthorised business and can order an unlicensed operation to cease and be wound up; ASIC's Investor Alert List names entities soliciting Australians without an Australian financial services licence, including imposters of licensed firms. Both are supervisory powers. In Germany individual redress runs through the sector ombudsman schemes or the civil courts; in Australia it runs through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, and only against a licensed firm.
The PAUSE list names unregistered entities soliciting US investors, including those impersonating genuine firms and those falsely claiming SEC endorsement; the RED List names unregistered foreign entities soliciting US residents, which covers many offshore forex and binary-options brands. You can submit a tip to either agency. Neither agency represents individual investors, and any money distributed comes from an enforcement action years later, if one is brought at all.
I-SCAN aggregates tens of thousands of alerts that member securities regulators submit voluntarily, so it lets you check one name against many jurisdictions at once. Because submission is voluntary and coverage uneven, a firm's absence from I-SCAN tells you nothing; its presence is a decisive reason not to send money.
Where the payment rails and the regulators run out, what is left is a civil claim: identify who holds the money, stop it moving, and prove it was yours. This is the most powerful route and by a wide margin the most expensive, and it is realistic only when the funds have landed somewhere a court can reach.
Section 1 confirms that a thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither a thing in possession nor a thing in action, which puts the point beyond argument in England and Wales. That is what allows crypto to be held on trust, made the subject of a proprietary injunction and traced in equity. It settles the category; it does not make any particular coin recoverable.
Where a contract is induced by fraud and rescinded, a constructive trust can arise over the sums transferred, with the fraudsters as trustees — not, ordinarily, the exchange that later received the funds in the course of its business. In D'Aloia itself the claim nonetheless failed, because the expert evidence could not establish on the balance of probabilities that the claimant's own USDT ever reached the wallet in question through the exchange's mixed pool. The doctrine is available; the evidential burden of tracing is where these claims are usually lost.
A Norwich Pharmacal order compels an innocent third party mixed up in the wrongdoing — typically an exchange or a bank — to disclose the identity of the wrongdoer; a Bankers Trust order goes further and compels disclosure of the documents needed to trace the money. They turn a wallet address into a named account holder, which is what everything else depends on. They cost real money, they must usually be obtained in the jurisdiction where the respondent sits, and they produce information, not funds.
A worldwide freezing order restrains a defendant from dissipating assets up to a stated value; a proprietary injunction attaches to the specific assets you say are yours, which is generally the stronger form in a tracing claim. You must show a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation, give full and frank disclosure including of points against you, and give a cross-undertaking in damages that you can actually honour. It preserves the position; it does not transfer anything to you, and a foreign exchange may or may not respect it.
Where the court is satisfied there is good reason, it may permit service by a method not otherwise allowed, and rule 6.27 extends that to documents other than the claim form. In 2022 the High Court permitted service on persons unknown by airdropping the proceedings as an NFT to the wallet that had received the funds, and that is now an established option. It gets a claim properly on foot against defendants you cannot name; it does not make them appear, and judgment against persons unknown is only as good as the assets you can reach.
Six years applies to claims in tort and in contract, but where the action is based on fraud, or a fact relevant to it has been deliberately concealed, s.32 provides that time does not begin to run until you discovered the fraud or concealment or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it. Section 21(1) means no limitation period applies to a fraudulent breach of trust or to recovering trust property from a trustee. None of this is a reason to wait: assets, records and cooperative witnesses disappear long before any limitation period does.
Crypto is not lawless, but the law bites on the regulated intermediaries — the exchanges, the custodians, the stablecoin issuers — rather than on the chain itself. Everything practical in this section depends on the money reaching one of those intermediaries while it still holds it.
A firm providing crypto-asset services to clients in the EU must be authorised as a CASP, and ESMA maintains the register of authorised providers alongside a public list of entities identified as non-compliant. The grandfathering window for firms operating under prior national regimes has now closed. A platform soliciting EU residents with no authorisation and no MiCA disclosures is telling you what it is; MiCA is a licensing and conduct regime, not a compensation scheme.
Virtual asset service providers must identify their customers and transmit originator and beneficiary information with qualifying transfers, which is why a regulated exchange usually holds identity documents behind the deposit address your funds reached. In its July 2026 update FATF reported that 83% of surveyed jurisdictions have passed Travel Rule legislation, up from 73% a year earlier, while flagging weak supervision, difficulty identifying VASPs and continuing risk from offshore providers. The data exists; you reach it only through legal process, never by asking.
Tracing can establish the path of funds between addresses and, crucially, identify the deposit address at a named exchange where they came to rest — which is the factual foundation for a disclosure order or a police request. It cannot tell you who controls an unhosted wallet, cannot reverse a transaction, and can be defeated where funds pass through a mixer or into a pooled exchange wallet, as the claimant found in D'Aloia. A tracing report is evidence for a court, not a recovery in itself.
An exchange freezes an account when its own monitoring flags it, when law enforcement asks, or when a court with jurisdiction over it orders it — not because a victim writes in. Issuers of centralised stablecoins such as USDT and USDC can blacklist an address at the contract level, but they act on law-enforcement requests rather than private ones. This is why the sequence matters: report and trace first, then have the right authority or the right court make the request.
Formal assistance between states is measured in months and often years, while crypto moves in minutes; preservation requests are far quicker to obtain than production of the underlying records, and are worth asking about early. Where the exchange is in a jurisdiction with functioning courts, a civil disclosure order there is frequently faster than waiting for an MLAT channel. Where it is offshore, unregistered and unresponsive, often neither route arrives anywhere.
Every lawful step above is performed by a regulated professional or by a court, is paid for on ordinary terms, and produces documents — a report, an order, a complaint file — not sudden access to your balance. Nothing lawful requires your seed phrase, a one-time code, remote access to your device, or a fee to "unlock", "convert" or "tax" money that supposedly already exists. IC3 states plainly that it does not work with any non-law-enforcement entity to recover funds, and an outfit that found you unprompted, promises a result, or asks you to pay before anything is filed is running the second half of the same scheme.
Important. Beware the second wave. If you have already lost money, you will be approached by a "fund recovery department", an "Interpol lawyer", an "exchange security team", a "blockchain reversal service" or someone claiming your funds are already frozen and only need releasing. They will ask for an advance fee, a commission, a "withdrawal tax", a "liquidity deposit", a customs or conversion charge — or for your seed phrase, your SMS codes, your exchange password, or remote access to your device. This is the same fraud coming back for the rest. No genuine lawful mechanism ever needs your seed phrase, a one-time code or remote access, and none of the bodies named on this page will contact you to demand a payment before releasing money. Interpol does not employ lawyers to recover private funds, and the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center states that it does not work with any non-law-enforcement entity, such as law firms or crypto services, to recover lost funds.
No forms to leave and no waiting for a call back. You write in a messenger and get specifics in the same conversation.
Describe what happened in a few sentences: what you paid, how you paid it and when. We tell you whether a realistic route exists before any fee is discussed, and we say so plainly if it does not.
Statements, receipts, transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots of the account and the site, and full chat exports. Much of this vanishes within days, so it is captured, dated and stored first.
Funds are followed as far as the public ledgers allow, and the findings go into a fund-flow report. Around it we build the chargeback file, the complaints and the police report, each written for its recipient.
Everything is filed through the proper channel, deadlines are diarised, and every response is answered rather than filed away. You receive a written update at each stage, including when the news is unwelcome.
Crypto can never be traced or recovered
Most public ledgers are permanently readable, so the route funds took can usually be reconstructed. What matters is where they came to rest: an account at a regulated exchange can be frozen on a lawful request, while a self-hosted wallet or a mixing service usually cannot be reached at all. Tracing is often possible; return of funds is a separate and much less certain question.
I sent the money myself, so nothing can be done
A payment made because you were deliberately deceived is still fraud, and both card scheme rules and criminal law treat it that way. Several jurisdictions also have reimbursement rules for bank transfers induced by deception. Consent obtained by a lie is not the end of the analysis, though it does make some routes harder.
The police will not take a report like this
Reports of this kind are recorded through national fraud and cybercrime channels, and a reference number is often required before a bank or regulator will engage with you at all. Individual investigation is not guaranteed and rarely fast. A properly prepared report with dated evidence and a fund-flow annex is far harder to set aside than a short complaint.
It has been six months, so it is too late
Chargeback windows depend on the ground being used and commonly run from about 120 up to 540 days, measured from the payment or from the date a service was due. Regulator complaints, police reports and civil claims have their own separate limits. Late is not the same as closed, but every week removes options, so the assessment should happen now rather than after more thought.
A recovery department is already helping me, they just need a fee
This is the second wave of the same fraud. Fake fund recovery departments, Interpol lawyers and exchange security teams work from lists of people who have already lost money, and they ask for an advance fee, a withdrawal tax, or access to your wallet. No genuine lawyer, exchange or police unit will ever ask for your seed phrase, your SMS or authenticator codes, or remote access to your computer. Stop paying, keep every message, and report it as a fresh offence.
A guarantee is only worth something if you can hold someone to it. These are written into the engagement and you are entitled to demand every one of them.
Before any fee, you get our reading of your case in writing: which routes are open, which are closed, and what each one realistically depends on.
If the payment rail, the elapsed time or the destination of the funds leaves no realistic mechanism, we say so at the first assessment, at no charge, and we do not take the matter on.
The scope and the price are fixed in the engagement before anything begins. There are no fees invented mid-case, and no payment is ever requested to unlock, release or insure your funds.
Not your seed phrase, not a private key, not an SMS or authenticator code, not remote access to your device. Anyone asking for those is not working for you, whoever they claim to be.
Your file is visible only to the lawyer assigned to it. Nothing is shared with third parties except the documents you instruct us to file, and nothing is published as a case study without your written consent.
You are told what has been filed, what has come back and what is next, in writing, at each step. That includes refusals and dead ends, which you hear from us rather than discover later.
Honest about the limits. No lawyer, firm or agency can guarantee that money will be returned, and any promise of recovery is itself a warning sign. The outcome rests with banks, card schemes, payment providers, exchanges, regulators, police and courts, on whether the funds still exist somewhere the law can reach, and on how much time has passed since payment. What we can guarantee is the quality of the work, the honesty of the assessment and the fee agreed before we begin.
Direct answers, including the ones that are not what anyone wants to hear.
Funds almost never disappear without a trace: they travel through a chain of addresses and sooner or later reach a platform that has a compliance team and a duty to know its customer. That is the point where there is something to push against.
A card payment, a transfer or a crypto purchase. This leaves a banking trail — the most valuable document in a case.
The address the platform gave you. It often shows up in other complaints too, and that strengthens your position.
The amount is split and moved along a chain of addresses. A public blockchain records every step, so the chain can be reconstructed.
The exchange or swap service where the money is cashed out into currency. A platform like this has a compliance team, customer records and a duty to answer requests.
The report on the movement of funds is attached to the police report, to the request sent to the platform and to the court claim. After that the outcome turns on the law and the deadlines, not on negotiations with fraudsters.
The diagram is simplified and shows the principle, not a guarantee. Some chains end at platforms that never answer requests, and some funds are moved out faster than a report can be filed. That is why we look at your case first and only then say whether it makes sense to go further.
Correspondence, documents and the current status of your matter, available at any hour from a phone or a computer. Registration takes about a minute and costs nothing.
Only the lawyer assigned to your matter can see your file. Nothing is passed to anyone else except the documents you instruct us to file, and we never ask you for seed phrases, passwords or one-time codes.
Your matter is assigned to one person who knows the file. You deal with them directly rather than with a shared inbox or a rotating queue.
Statements, screenshots, transaction hashes and every document filed on your behalf are stored together and dated, so nothing has to be found again in a chat history.
What has been filed, what is waiting on a bank, regulator or police channel, and which deadline comes next, all visible without having to ask.
You set out the facts once, in your own time and in writing. We come back with specific follow-up questions rather than asking you to retell the whole story.
Describe what happened in two or three sentences and a lawyer will tell you which routes are open, which are closed, and what to preserve now. There is no charge for that and no obligation to go any further.
Client portal — messages with your specialist, documents and case status in one place.