Credit Issues Limited

petermb_2

greystonesben wrote: »

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?

So let me get this quite straight. You are interested in becoming a part time introducer to a claims company. You stated to me that this work would fit around your day job.

Then there is me, one who has worked in claims since 2002, has been the MD of a regulated claims company and yet you are telling me that my business model is incorrect?

You believe this is the case because you do not understand how I can make an honest living simply because I do not choose to charge my clients a fee, even though my system was created specifically not to charge a fee.

So have you come to this conclusion on your own or have you had assistance from the people you are hoping to get into bed with?

greystonesben

petermb wrote: »

So let me get this quite straight. You are interested in becoming a part time introducer to a claims company. You stated to me that this work would fit around your day job.

Then there is me, one who has worked in claims since 2002, has been the MD of a regulated claims company and yet you are telling me that my business model is incorrect?

You believe this is the case because you do not understand how I can make an honest living simply because I do not choose to charge my clients a fee, even though my system was created specifically not to charge a fee.

So have you come to this conclusion on your own or have you had assistance from the people you are hoping to get into bed with?

Firstly, you do not know what my full time job is as I have not said. So what difference does it make if I will be doing this around my full time job? The fact that you have done something for a length of time doesnt necessarily mean that you are good at it (no offence intended). I am not saying your business model is incorrect, merely asking you to explain how your company or model of business makes money. You are quick to slate fee charging claims firms pushing and promoting your own non charging fee firm, however, I fail to see how your firm will make money, ergo, there must be something you are not telling us.

You do a fantastic job for your client, spend a long time working for them and clear or reduce a large amount of their debt. If they are a) not paying an upfront fee b) paying a fee upon completion or c) paying a %'age fee upon completion then what do you get out of it other than appreciation? As I'm sure appreciation cant pay the commission you are offering agents, or your electricty bills?!

You said you have funding, which is all well and good, but funding is not income. Surely the funders will want to see something out of this? Unless you are a charity?

dccantona

Fascinating reading . I have just heard from a friend who says that a £5K credit card has been cleared thanks to CI. However I asked him to confirm who told him and it was a letter from CI;not the lender. The cynic in me has suggested he either a) contact the lender and cheekily ask for all documentation ( a look at the CI letter would be good) and confirm the debt has gone or b) wait 6 weeks and do a credit check to see if the debt has been removed.Personally I would want to try this for myself first and then maybe approach a third party if unsuccesful.I have seen people mention Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77−79) could someone advise on a link to view this.

sombrero

greystonesben

By your own admission most of the rest of this industry are in your words "cowboys". Thats some admission and on its own is enough to make people very cautious about laying out money in advance with these companies.

What I fail to understand is that if your company CI are so confident that they can erase peoples credit card debt why you cant do this on the basis of no saving no fee and no money up front. Ok, I can understand that you might need a few pounds up front to cover the cost of obtaining the file and postage and opening up a file (say max of £10.00). To me that would be fair.

Despite your comments about cars I would advise anyone who feels they have a case to do this themselves. There is plenty of information on the internet.

greystonesben

sombrero wrote: »

greystonesben

By your own admission most of the rest of this industry are in your words "cowboys". Thats some admission and on its own is enough to make people very cautious about laying out money in advance with these companies.

What I fail to understand is that if your company CI are so confident that they can erase peoples credit card debt why you cant do this on the basis of no saving no fee and no money up front. Ok, I can understand that you might need a few pounds up front to cover the cost of obtaining the file and postage and opening up a file (say max of £10.00). To me that would be fair.

The reason why CI charge and upfront fee (as I think I have previously mentioned) is because its not just as simple as requesting the forms from the client which as you state cost around a tenner. Once the forms have been requested (bearing in mind it takes an employed person time to open the file, look at who they need to request information from, request the information etc) there is then a significant amount of work involved in looking through all parts of not only the credit agreement but all other documentation sent to that client.

The upfront fee's are to cover this as if you could imagine, if all the work is done and then right before completion the client turned around and said I no longer want you to do this for me, they could walk directly to the lender and say you agreed to do this for CI, now do it for me and CI's time and effort was for nothing. So it covers them for the hard work they put into cases before completion. It also covers them from a client using loads of firms and completing with the quickest one leaving the other firms high and dry.

Hopefully that has answered your question.

With regards to the 'cowboys' comment, I did not say all firms within the industry are cowboys. There are just a lot of firms who do not have the resources or infrastructure to offer this service to client properly who have recently set up. There are other respectable firms out there, but none (to my knowledge) with the company structure of CI (ie part owned by a legal firm)

sombrero

In my opinion its misrepresentation.

My starting point is that Credit Issues Web site uses the words "NO WIN - NO FEE" on the Home Page.

I am sure you will agree that this is very clear use of words on the website.

If this firm was confident in their claims then they should not charge any money up front and in the case of not being able to secure savings that should mean that the client should not pay one penny.

Why cant this firm do as they say on their own website?

~Brock~

greystonesben wrote: »

There are other respectable firms out there, but none (to my knowledge) with the company structure of CI (ie part owned by a legal firm)

Charging up front fees on the basis of speculative claims and part owned by a legal firm?

That's very interesting to know. I wonder what the Solicitors Regulation Authority's views would be.:think:

sombrero

Based on the poor answers from Greystoneben I am going to take this up with the FSA. Its terrible that the company claim no win no fee and yet money is taken up front. Hopefully the FSA will investigate this company.

~Brock~

sombrero wrote: »

Based on the poor answers from Greystoneben I am going to take this up with the FSA. Its terrible that the company claim no win no fee and yet money is taken up front. Hopefully the FSA will investigate this company.

Don't bother with the FSA - they do not regulate the claims industry.

Give the Ministry of Justice a call. They have set up an anonymous complaints hotline (what does that tell you?;))

greystonesben

sombrero wrote: »

Based on the poor answers from Greystoneben I am going to take this up with the FSA. Its terrible that the company claim no win no fee and yet money is taken up front. Hopefully the FSA will investigate this company.

Poor answers?! How about me not being logged on 24/7 and only just checking the response now.

The no win no fee quote which you are relating to is as follows. I fail to see what you do not understand about this:

Credit_Issues_Website wrote:

No Win, No Fee! This is an easy one to explain! If your case meets our criteria and your lender/creditor does not accept our position then a nominated solicitor will act on your behalf on a ‘No Win, No Fee’ basis. This means that unless we accomplish the right result you will have no further fees to pay. Should a claim in the court be unsuccessful, appropriate cover will be put in place to ensure you are not responsible for any costs.

I have highlighted the relevant part for you. It is saying that if your case fits criteria (ie flaws have been found in the credit agreement) and your lender does not accept our position (ie the lender does not want to settle out of court) then the case will go to court and a solicitor will be appointed on your behalf. If the lender wins in court, you will not be charged the legal fee's. Credit Issues will cover this for you.

And Brock, you are quite right in saying the FSA do not regulate this industry the MOJ do. CI are constantly working closely with the MOJ to make sure that they fully comply with all the relevant laws and more specifically the marketing regulations which a lot of firms have failed to comply with and been heavily fined because of.