London & Zurich

Name: London & Zurich
Brand: London & Zurich

We make managing your payment collections our business, so you can get on with yours.

Est 1998|28 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 316|Web traffic 3K|FTEs 18|HQ Solihull, England, GB

MarketsSubscription Management & Recurring Billing Invoicing & Payment Processing

Published Oct 15, 2026

01Common complaints

- If you require externally validated security certifications (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001) - Public materials reviewed did not include documented evidence of these certifications; organisations with strict procurement requirements for audited security controls should seek vendors with published attestations. - If uptime, business continuity transparency, and incident history are primary procurement criteria - The vendor experienced a material outage in 2023 related to a ransomware incident; organisations lacking contingency plans for collections may prefer suppliers with a documented uptime/SLA history and public incident transparency. - If you require transparent, posted pricing for rapid benchmarking - Other providers publish pricing and reduce procurement friction for early-stage evaluations. - If you need an API-first, developer-led integration approach with an extensive partner ecosystem - Established developer-first platforms may offer more comprehensive API documentation, SDKs, and partner integrations. - If global multi-country direct debit coverage is a primary requirement - The vendor’s public messaging and product focus are UK/Bacs-centric; global direct debit coverage is typically addressed by platforms designed for multi-region mandate management. - Publicly documented limitations - Pricing opacity: no standard public fee schedule or tiers were found. - Sparse independent reviews: limited presence on mainstream B2B review platforms; public review counts are low. - Security/compliance disclosure gaps: public documentation on enterprise security features and certifications is limited. - Major historical incident - November 2023 ransomware attack and reported customer impact (payment backlogs, prolonged outage, communication complaints) is a significant risk factor to consider and should be addressed in vendor due diligence. - Operational constraints typical to Direct Debit bureaus (contractual validation required) - Potential differences in settlement timing when using a bureau SUN versus customer-owned SUN. - Possible reserve/withhold practices to cover indemnity/chargebacks; exact contractual terms should be confirmed.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organisations requiring publicly documented SOC 2/ISO certifications and detailed enterprise IAM as mandatory procurement criteria
Teams that require instant self-serve signup with published pricing
Businesses that cannot tolerate third-party settlement risk and require direct scheme participation with minimal intermediaries

02Why they buy

- unique selling points supported by available evidence - Managed bureau service with a portal for administration and reporting, positioned for organisations preferring vendor-handled Bacs operations. - Emphasis on direct support and a service model oriented to operational assistance rather than purely self-serve technology. - unique selling points that are vendor-claimed and need verification - Published scale figures (annual payment volumes and transaction value) were presented on vendor pages without disclosed verification; independent validation is recommended. - Infrastructure and backup arrangements (e.g., UK-based servers, dual-location backups) are described in public material but lack third-party audit evidence in the sources reviewed. - Areas where competitors have clearer advantages - Published pricing and fast benchmarking (e.g., GoCardless) - Broad platform breadth and developer ecosystem (e.g., Stripe) - Publicly documented security/compliance attestations (varies by competitor)

03Field reports

Key challenge for this product’s review research

The vendor has limited coverage on mainstream B2B software review platforms (G2, TrustRadius, Gartner Peer Insights) based on the sources reviewed. No comprehensive product pages with multiple independent reviews were identified for this report.

Review platforms (Trustpilot)

A very small number of Trustpilot listings were present in the public listings accessed, including highly positive entries. These reviews described the vendor as reliable and noted responsiveness and a user-friendly portal. The sample is too limited to draw statistically significant conclusions about overall customer sentiment.
The small volume of public reviews limits the ability to determine representative satisfaction or support-quality metrics.

Vendor-published testimonials (marketing evidence)

The vendor publishes selected customer quotations and logos (for example, references to an attractions organisation and other customers). These are vendor-selected testimonials and were not independently verified during this research.
Published customer quotes emphasize positive views of service and support; such quotes should be considered vendor-provided evidence rather than independent validation.

Negative feedback / complaints (independent reporting)

Independent press reporting described customer complaints during a ransomware incident in late 2023, including concerns about communication and cashflow disruption. Community forum threads contain critical commentary, which may reflect reputational impact among technical audiences but are not formal complaint records.

Factors inferred for customer selection versus alternatives

- Service model: The vendor positions the offering around direct support and portal-based administration rather than self-serve API-first workflows, which may appeal to organisations seeking a relationship-based bureau. - Managed bureau offering: The bureau service is positioned as an option for firms without a SUN or without appetite for in-house Bacs operations. - Portal-led operations: The vendor presents a portal for creating collections, reporting, and administration as part of its service model.

Plausible churn drivers

Direct evidence of customers leaving L&Z for specific reasons was not identified in the sources reviewed. The late-2023 incident represents a plausible churn factor related to business-continuity failures and communication gaps during outages.

Vendor-promoted customer stories (limited independent validation)

The vendor publishes case study material and selected customer endorsements. These are vendor-selected and were not independently validated as part of this research.
Critical evaluation: Vendor case studies typically do not disclose detailed methodologies, baselines, or independent attestation and should be validated through direct reference checks during procurement.

Vendor-published operational metrics (need verification)

Public product pages list operational metrics (for example, reported volumes and transaction values). These figures were published by the vendor but lacked disclosed methodology or third-party attestation in the reviewed sources.
Critical evaluation: Requesting audited volumes, uptime history, incident postmortems, and contractual SLAs is recommended when operational scale is a procurement criterion.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Likely fit: small to mid-sized UK organisations that require recurring payments, plus some larger organisations preferring to outsource bureau operations.
The vendor markets to both SMEs and larger organisations in public materials.

Industries and verticals

Charities and nonprofits
Membership organisations, attractions, clubs
Service businesses collecting variable or recurring charges

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Finance Directors, Heads of Finance, Operations leadership, Founders/General Managers for SMEs
End users: Finance operations/accounts receivable staff and customer service teams managing mandates and payment exceptions

Pain points addressed

Predictable recurring collections and improved cashflow forecasting
Administrative overhead of collections and exception handling
Bacs compliance and file submission responsibilities

Qualification criteria (good fit)

UK-based recurring collections
Preference for a managed Direct Debit bureau approach with operational support
Need for portal workflows and reporting rather than deep custom engineering

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- London & Zurich (L&Z) provides UK Direct Debit collection services, including bureau/managed submissions through Bacs, and adjacent payment capabilities such as payment gateway/card payments. The offering centralizes Direct Debit setup, compliance, submission, reporting, and exception handling for organisations that do not operate their own Bacs processes. - The practical value proposition is outsourcing or simplifying the operational tasks associated with Direct Debit mandate creation, scheme compliance, file submission, reporting, and exception workflows.

Target market and market positioning

- The vendor targets UK organisations that require predictable recurring collections (memberships, subscriptions, fees, donations) and whose procurement preferences include a service model with hands-on operational support rather than a developer-first, self-serve API. - Public messaging emphasizes direct support and a portal-based interface rather than developer-centric tooling. - Typical fits appear to include small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), charities, membership organisations, and service businesses requiring recurring collections and improved cashflow predictability.

Get a comprehensive analysis of London & Zurich including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →