London, May 28, 2025 – AJJB Law, a Halifax-based firm regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), appears to be pursuing questionable debt collection practices as it repeatedly refused to address detailed allegations of potential non-compliance on a specific consumer case.
The controversy centres on the firm’s handling of an alleged £80 debt claim against the UK resident Monika Tomasik.
AJJB Law was contacted multiple times over the past week seeking comment on concerns that the firm may have pursued Ms. Tomasik without providing legally required documentation.
Key Allegations Ignored by AJJB Law:
1. Failure to Verify Debt: AJJB Law escalated recovery efforts against Ms. Tomasik without supplying critical documents mandated under UK consumer protection regulations, including:
* The original credit agreement with Klarna AB.
* A full statement of account detailing the debt accrual.
* Proof of the debt’s assignment from Klarna AB to COEO Securitisation Ltd.
* Evidence of goods or services delivery.
2. Lack of Transparency:The firm reportedly failed to identify the specific solicitor or representative responsible for communications with Ms. Tomasik, potentially contravening SRA transparency standards.
3. Aggressive Timeline:AJJB Law imposed a 3-day deadline for Ms. Tomasik to respond to their initial demand, a timeframe potentially unfair under Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) principles, especially for a disputed debt unknown to the alleged debtor.
Firm Repeatedly Declines Engagement:
AJJB Law was contacted on May 20th, 2025, detailing the allegations and requesting responses to specific questions regarding the legal and ethical basis for their actions. The email was sent to multiple addresses, including the firm’s general contact, a named partner (Caroline Stainton), and its official complaints department.
AJJB Law’s initial response, attributed to “Jim James” on May 22nd, was brief: *”We do not discuss our client matters with third parties. We will therefore not be engaging with you on this matter.”*
A final request for comment on May 22nd was again sent, reiterating our intent to publish an article in the public interest concerning AJJB Law’s conduct. Again the firm’s generic “contactus” address responded: *”We do not disclose any information with unauthorised third parties.”*
**Public Interest Concerns:**
The repeated refusal to engage with specific, compliance-focused questions raises concerns about accountability and adherence to regulatory standards within the debt collection sector.
The SRA Code of Conduct and FCA’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC) impose clear obligations on law firms regarding transparency, fair treatment, and proper verification of debts.
When a regulated law firm repeatedly stonewalls legitimate questions about potential breaches of consumer protection rules, it warrants public attention.
Ms. Tomasik’s experience and AJJB Law’s refusal to comment on the specifics of her case or their general practices highlight ongoing tensions surrounding aggressive debt collection tactics.
The firm’s boilerplate responses, invoking client confidentiality without addressing the core compliance allegations, do little to dispel concerns.
**Regulatory Oversight:**
The SRA states that firms must “uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice” and “behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services.” Whether AJJB Law’s handling of the Tomasik case and its subsequent refusal to engage with media scrutiny meets these standards remains unclear based on their communications.
As consumer debt levels remain a significant issue in the UK, the practices of firms engaged in debt recovery continue to be a critical area for public and regulatory scrutiny. AJJB Law’s handling of this inquiry offers no reassurance to consumers concerned about fair treatment.