Credit Issues Limited

sombrero

As a guess both sides costs could be £25,000 in the event of a losing case. The premium has to be substantial. Who pays for the insurance cost?

greystonesben

druss wrote: »

It's still a lot to pay when there are cheaper companies out there providing in my opinion a better service.

I find it laughable how you point out that not taking cases to court is a good thing surely this is why the customers pay the money over?

THEY WANT THEIR BALANCES WRITTEN OFF!

You seem to claim a success and charge the customer £1000 even when the lender has not written the debt off!

Yes all companies could stop at this point and the customers have a letter saying the agreement is unenforceable, but the debt remains showing as outstanding on your credit file which will affect getting future credit.

But wouldnt you want a firm to then go the extra mile and get the debt written off as well?

I know I would.

The debt is still written off so I dont know what you are going on about? You dont HAVE to go to court to get the debt written off. I dont know if you realise that the credit profile companies (Experian and Equifax) have a voluntary arrangement to exchange information with the lenders, so there is no need to involve a court to get your credit profile updated!

As I said, the lender's preference is (if they know they dont have a case) to settle out of court to avoid all the costs. If they start to play hard ball and do not update the credit file then you take them to court (which they wont want to do).

How can you say that the service is inferior to your 'cheaper' firms? Normally you pay for what you get in this life! If your firm has to take the lender to court to get the solicitor fee's then I argue you are not truely working for the client and the debt will take a lot longer to clear.

Im not saying all CI cases settle out of court, but they are looking to do it with the majority or cases where possible, hence why CI is so different to all other firms in the industry, as they are actively looking to work for the client clearing and wiping the debt out of court where possible.

And no, you dont pay the fee's to take the lender to court, you pay the fee's to get your debt successfully reduced or completely written off. The set up of your companies is no more than a glorified 'marketing introducer'. You get the case and in affect, sell it to a firm of solicitors who will only get paid upon taking the case to court. So if this is the case, you only make your fee's from the upfront payments and any fee you get from selling it to the solicitors? And I think its disgusting that a firm can charge £295 with no refund policy or offer the same service for £395 but with a refund policy. Surely thats dual pricing? After all its doing the same thing for the client!

greystonesben

sombrero wrote: »

As a guess both sides costs could be £25,000 in the event of a losing case. The premium has to be substantial. Who pays for the insurance cost?

Which is why a lot of lenders realise this and settle out of court, hence why CI is so well placed with their infrastructure.

Natalie 6999 I am not advertising CI, the thread was started over a year ago asking questions and I am only answering them and having debate with fellow users over the industry and set up of companies as a whole. The only way I would benefit from it would be if I were to post my own specific link to the website and gain business that way which I will not be doing (I also dont think this is the best forum to do it in anyway!)

Peter, avoiding the topic of certain criteria cases, you still havent answered where you earn money from doing it the way you do.

Its all well and good saying go with a company which do not charge any fee's, but I fail to see how you get paid? You are not doing it for love are you? You have dodged the answer a couple of times now which leads me to suspect it is not as brilliant as you are saying it is...

Could you answer?

Natalie6999

greystonesben wrote: »

Which is why a lot of lenders realise this and settle out of court, hence why CI is so well placed with their infrastructure.

Natalie 6999 I am not advertising CI, the thread was started over a year ago asking questions and I am only answering them and having debate with fellow users over the industry and set up of companies as a whole. The only way I would benefit from it would be if I were to post my own specific link to the website and gain business that way which I will not be doing (I also dont think this is the best forum to do it in anyway!)

Peter, avoiding the topic of certain criteria cases, you still havent answered where you earn money from doing it the way you do.

Its all well and good saying go with a company which do not charge any fee's, but I fail to see how you get paid? You are not doing it for love are you? You have dodged the answer a couple of times now which leads me to suspect it is not as brilliant as you are saying it is...

Could you answer?

It's not you I answers from, like you I have doubts about Peter as he is only giving 'politicians' answers & avoiding answering the questions asked of him.

Nobody does anything for nothing.

sombrero

I realise the this company are trying back door advertisements but the key point is that most people are just seeing this as a marketing exploit to get an upfront fee. Its good that the Ministry of Justice are and will be taking action against false promises and misleading advertisements.

Understand the fine is £50,000

petermb_2

greystonesben wrote: »

Which is why a lot of lenders realise this and settle out of court, hence why CI is so well placed with their infrastructure.

Natalie 6999 I am not advertising CI, the thread was started over a year ago asking questions and I am only answering them and having debate with fellow users over the industry and set up of companies as a whole. The only way I would benefit from it would be if I were to post my own specific link to the website and gain business that way which I will not be doing (I also dont think this is the best forum to do it in anyway!)

Peter, avoiding the topic of certain criteria cases, you still havent answered where you earn money from doing it the way you do.

Its all well and good saying go with a company which do not charge any fee's, but I fail to see how you get paid? You are not doing it for love are you? You have dodged the answer a couple of times now which leads me to suspect it is not as brilliant as you are saying it is...

Could you answer?

No I am not doing it for the love of it. If you understood how Access to Justice 2000 works you would understand how a free service works. How recoverable disbursements and costs can be levied to the lender in addition to the claim amount.

At last there is a scheme that does what it says on the tin. Offers a free service for those with PPI over £2500. It makes no difference is the loan is current or previously redeemed.

The point is here that the client does not pay, the lender does. There are no hidden fees or hidden agendas, just a working scheme that costs the borrower nothing, win or lose. Isnt that what everyone has been waiting for?

petermb_2

Natalie6999 wrote: »

It's not you I answers from, like you I have doubts about Peter as he is only giving 'politicians' answers & avoiding answering the questions asked of him.

Nobody does anything for nothing.[/QUOTE

The service is totally free to use. We are the only ones offering a free service for a mass market audience. The whole of the claims industry has been one of copying and immitating. I am not going to give away my knowledge to my competitors. Why should I?

You want me to be blunt. I will be blunt.

Of course we get paid, we are not a charity. But the point is that we do not charge the borrower. We charge our fees to the lender in addition to the client's claim amount. It is quite simple, it is called Lord Justice Wolf's Access to Justice 2000.

The vast majority of claims companies do not have the know how, the will and most of all the funding to run such a scheme. They have little choice but to charge fees up front or charge fees at the back end or both and in the middle too if they can get away with it.

We found a way of running claims that is both ethical and profitable. Quite some feat and you will not find any faulse modesty either.

The point is that we look at all issues and not just ppi but we need at least an amount of ppi (minimum of £2500) and the client must have a copy of their agreement to ensure that we have a valid claim before we commence.

I have not really wanted to advertise on this site as it is not for that purpose but if you ask specific questions you will get specific answers.

petermb_2

sombrero wrote: »

As a guess both sides costs could be £25,000 in the event of a losing case. The premium has to be substantial. Who pays for the insurance cost?

I can only speak for the scheme I am involved in. Most insurance providers that offer this cover fully understand the issues that we challenge and know that the lenders do not really have a leg to stand on.

There is lots of bluster and bluff but in the end they are banged to rights. The insurance premium reflects the risk that the insurance company believes exists on each case but to be truthful they know they are on a winner in the vast majority of cases.

So to answer your question directly, the premiums are not that high and are manageable in an afficiently funded scheme.

Again the premium is not paid by the client. It is all taken care of within the claims process without need for the client to put their hand in their pocket whatsoever.

petermb_2

greystonesben wrote: »

The debt is still written off so I dont know what you are going on about? You dont HAVE to go to court to get the debt written off. I dont know if you realise that the credit profile companies (Experian and Equifax) have a voluntary arrangement to exchange information with the lenders, so there is no need to involve a court to get your credit profile updated!

As I said, the lender's preference is (if they know they dont have a case) to settle out of court to avoid all the costs. If they start to play hard ball and do not update the credit file then you take them to court (which they wont want to do).

How can you say that the service is inferior to your 'cheaper' firms? Normally you pay for what you get in this life! If your firm has to take the lender to court to get the solicitor fee's then I argue you are not truely working for the client and the debt will take a lot longer to clear.

Im not saying all CI cases settle out of court, but they are looking to do it with the majority or cases where possible, hence why CI is so different to all other firms in the industry, as they are actively looking to work for the client clearing and wiping the debt out of court where possible.

And no, you dont pay the fee's to take the lender to court, you pay the fee's to get your debt successfully reduced or completely written off. The set up of your companies is no more than a glorified 'marketing introducer'. You get the case and in affect, sell it to a firm of solicitors who will only get paid upon taking the case to court. So if this is the case, you only make your fee's from the upfront payments and any fee you get from selling it to the solicitors? And I think its disgusting that a firm can charge £295 with no refund policy or offer the same service for £395 but with a refund policy. Surely thats dual pricing? After all its doing the same thing for the client!

Just as a final point from your post. The service we offer, which is totally free to the client is designed so that the lender settles very quickly. The reason they will settle very quickly is that we have the funding, the lawyers and the knowhow to litigate in every single case. That threat and the knowledge that it is no idle threat is the one and only reason that the lenders will seek to settle.

The lenders are identifying those claims firms that cannot offer the same threat and both they and their clients will be given the big run around. I know that for a fact, it is not an opinion.

greystonesben

Hmmm, I know the cost of solicitors can be reclaimed as part of the 'court costs' but commission for the firms doing it is a moot point. I would be surprised if the courts agreed to pay commission to your company as part of the 'costs' Solicitor costs yes, but not 'inrotducer' costs otherwise where does the buck stop? You could be claiming money for other things too.

And why would a lender agree to settle out of court and pay your company a commission? The lender could easily go to the client and say here is the £5k you owe us, you no longer owe us a bean and that way, they dont have to pay you a penny either. I fail to see how your 'scheme' works and would question the reliability of getting a court to agree to pay commission as part of court costs, as they are not costs at all. Atleast firms who charge fee's upfront and at the back end are transparrent.