Credit Issues Limited

petermb_2

qu
IMO a £1000 back end fee is better than a %'age back end fee if you are aiming to clear a medium to large amount of debt. Ok if its only £1000-£3000 then a %'age is probably better but the majority of people who claim, claim for a hell of a lot more than that.

In my opinion if you have a professioanl service that stacks up you will get funders to back it to the hilt. Then you dont have to charge fees at all. (front or back).

You then stand or fall on your ability to win cases. You then have to know what you are talking about and not hoping that the claims company you copied your scheme from was correct when they copied theirs.

~Brock~

I'm watching two claims 'professionals' argue with complete fascination, but must say I agree with peters viewpoint on this.

I'm probably wrong here, but the impression from CI's ,marketing is they are piling on the Appointed reps (sticking kids in suits, calling them 'Managers' and telling them they have got an exciting career ahead of them - a bit like Kirby vacum cleaners in the 80's), and are therefore going all out for the volume prize. 'That's a lot of up front fees' says the cynic inside me.

No doubt making hay while the sun shines. As we all know only too well, the sun don't shine for very long in this country.

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

I'm watching two claims 'professionals' argue with complete fascination, but must say I agree with peters viewpoint on this.

I'm probably wrong here, but the impression from CI's ,marketing is they are piling on the Appointed reps (sticking kids in suits, calling them 'Managers' and telling them they have got an exciting career ahead of them - a bit like Kirby vacum cleaners in the 80's), and are therefore going all out for the volume prize. 'That's a lot of up front fees' says the cynic inside me.

No doubt making hay while the sun shines. As we all know only too well, the sun don't shine for very long in this country.

Quite so Brock.
We are not arguing at all. Just debating just like you and I do.

~Brock~

There's a joke in there somewhere about a 'mass-debate' but I wouldn't want to lower the tone :A

petermb_2

LOL...no i would leave it there...

greystonesben

petermb wrote: »

In my opinion if you have a professioanl service that stacks up you will get funders to back it to the hilt. Then you dont have to charge fees at all. (front or back).

You then stand or fall on your ability to win cases. You then have to know what you are talking about and not hoping that the claims company you copied your scheme from was correct when they copied theirs.

CI havent 'copied' anyone, far from it. They are keen to distance themselves from most players in this industry as most players are infact cowboy companies. CI are concentrating on a small niche which a lot of claims firms ignore. A part of the market which is very large to all accounts and never been tested. They have test cases going through at the moment on the basis of strong advice from barristers that they shouldnt really lose these cases. CI are their own entity, they have not copied anyone and a lot of the press releases thay have made to trade press cite this distancing from other firms.

And there has to be fee's in it somewhere, even if you are 'funded' as otherwise you will be a charity.

sombrero

I created a thread on this subject (on this site) some time ago after a friend of mine became involved in this business. The company was Credit Issues. I was approached as I was told that my credit card debt could be written off.

Let me say that I am a very sceptical person and so I did some research on the internet. There is a great thread on the CAB site about this guy who did get his money back or rather the credit card company were unable to enforce the debt. This guy posted his experience in detail and he did everything himself. His situation was different because his card was much older and the credit card company were unable to find the original agreement.

There is no doubt that there is substance behind the view that some card debt is not enforecable by the credit card company.

However, I am very sceptical of the claims made by these companies. I heard the Martin Lewis comment to avoid these companies and from my research I would agree.

It costs only a small amount of money to colate the information about if there is a case or not. As such why not have a genuine no win no fee and no upfront money operation? In my view the answer is because these companies make their money from the up front fee. The people they are dealing with have large debt and I do not believe they are assisting them because almost all of these people will lose the upfront payment.

My advice is that anyone with credit card debt who wants to try and elimate the debt should try and do it themselves. There are forums which will guide these people. It costs very little to get the information from the credit card company and there is lots of free and impartial advice on various forums from people who know will help. Also, I think its more fufiling and even if you are a novice it may be that you have a better chance of winning then employing a company.

I have not seen one example of any company in this business succeeding in having a credit card company write off a clients debt.

petermb_2

greystonesben wrote: »

CI havent 'copied' anyone, far from it. They are keen to distance themselves from most players in this industry as most players are infact cowboy companies. CI are concentrating on a small niche which a lot of claims firms ignore. A part of the market which is very large to all accounts and never been tested. They have test cases going through at the moment on the basis of strong advice from barristers that they shouldnt really lose these cases. CI are their own entity, they have not copied anyone and a lot of the press releases thay have made to trade press cite this distancing from other firms.

And there has to be fee's in it somewhere, even if you are 'funded' as otherwise you will be a charity.

My argument has always been "Why should the client pay any fees whatsoever if you can provide the service without cost ?" There is absolutely no reason why the client should pay a fee. The Access to justice laws were designed so they dont.
It is only the claims companies who altered the schemes to make up for the deficiencies of their schemes or are being just plain greedy.

Just like the lenders, claims companies will always produce bullsh*t to twist the story to their end. The two sides in the main are often two sides of the same coin.

greystonesben

sombrero wrote: »

It costs only a small amount of money to colate the information about if there is a case or not. As such why not have a genuine no win no fee and no upfront money operation? In my view the answer is because these companies make their money from the up front fee. The people they are dealing with have large debt and I do not believe they are assisting them because almost all of these people will lose the upfront payment.

CI have a very tight refund policy. To imply that all they are doing is taking your 'upfront' money and running off with it is a little absurd. If your debt is deemed enforcable, then you receive a refund of all your money less £50 admin fee per agreement and the £11 DPA request paid to your lender. To think that CI will become fat taking £50 from all their clients (presuming all cases fail) is just stupid. The amount of work involved in assessing if a contract is enforcable is far more than £50, so on cases which are deemed enforcable and a refund is given, CI actually lose money. From a business point of view, the upfront fee is to gain the clients commitment, otherwise what is to stop the client walking away after CI have done all the hard work and doing the last minutes work for themself? You are paying for a service.

sombrero wrote: »

My advice is that anyone with credit card debt who wants to try and elimate the debt should try and do it themselves. There are forums which will guide these people. It costs very little to get the information from the credit card company and there is lots of free and impartial advice on various forums from people who know will help. Also, I think its more fufiling and even if you are a novice it may be that you have a better chance of winning then employing a company.

And my advice to anyone who owns a car which the engine blows up is to go onto motoring forums and read up about how to change a motor yourself. Why pay a mechanic to do it for you when you can read up, learn how to do it and do it yourself.

Your statement is ludacris. Putting it bluntly, the majority of people in the situation where they owe a large amount of debt probably either a) dont have the confidence to do it, regardless of if they read a online 'how to' b) dont have the time or c) cannot be bothered to do it. Hence why there are firms like CI who offer this service, and guess what, you have to pay for such priviledge!

Im sure the people of this forum are more likely to look at doing it themselves, but what needs to be appreciated, is that you have registered for a financial forum, you are interested in this kind of thing and are probably more financially minded than others. The average Joe down the pub is not as financially educated, probably not registered on a financial forum and in the majority of cases, probably not going to want to do it themselves no matter how many times they are told by people like you who are confident enough to do it themselves that it is 'easy'.

sombrero wrote: »

I have not seen one example of any company in this business succeeding in having a credit card company write off a clients debt.

Check out the blog on the CI website, they have published successes. One of the only major firms in the industry who have done this so far. Your 'research' obviously was very shallow. Just like ML himself, condemning something you apparently have limited understanding of.

greystonesben

petermb wrote: »

My argument has always been "Why should the client pay any fees whatsoever if you can provide the service without cost ?" There is absolutely no reason why the client should pay a fee. The Access to justice laws were designed so they dont.
It is only the claims companies who altered the schemes to make up for the deficiencies of their schemes or are being just plain greedy.

Just like the lenders, claims companies will always produce bullsh*t to twist the story to their end. The two sides in the main are often two sides of the same coin.

Ok Peter, please enlighten us. How can a business survive if they are spending many man hours on something and receive not a penny for it? Funding you may say? Ok, so what is in it for the people who fund it unless they are good samaritans? Nothing is the answer.

Unless, what you are saying is that the 'costs' for the case are recouped in court which shows a major floor in your concept. The fact that each case has to go to court. CI are looking at settling out of court on most cases with a case so tight that the lender will not want to go to court and incur the costs knowing they will lose. This way the client gets the debt wiped a lot quicker and the process is more efficient.

Plus, solicitors can only claim back their own costs, they cannot claim back for 'introducer' payments or 'commission' on each case, so the solicitor will gain (if the case goes to court) but you doing all your work upfront will get nothing.

So, please do tell me how you think this can be done fee free to the client. That is like saying you are a fee free broker and dont claim the proc fee! Where is your income coming from?