loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

maxdp

Exactly have sent a link.

fedupwiththeworry

maxdp wrote: »

I think you need to explain why you cannot attend the meeting. I had to fill in a questionnaire before mine went to a barrister. I wonder if that is what they are wanting to talk to you about. They should have facilities in place if somebody cannot attend this type of meeting. eg if you are disabled, they should have policies in place. If you had a sensory disability they would have to deal with that. Do you see what I mean? Just state your reasons and ask their response. THat was not in the original agreement they did not say if you cannot attend a meeting this agreement is cancelled.

I have explained to them and they came back saying it was essential I attend. Thing is I don't have transport and live in the sticks so public transport would involve something like 2 bus journeys, 2 train journeys plus a bus/taxi at the other end, and that's just getting there so it is a no go as far as I'm concerned due to the amount of time/logistics/cost involved.

maxdp

Hi there explain and say you will attend if they can pay for a taxi explain your situation. Can you also take somebody else with you to back you up so that it is not so intimidating. Or perhaps that does not worry you. But if you have somebody taking notes it may put things on more of an even keel.

marshallka

So, if the solicitors now make it "difficult" for everyone to continue their claims (which is what is happening) and lets suppose they have not done any work on cases up to yet (cause they are still determining which they will take on by the looks of it) why would they be doing this? How have they lost out if they have not done any work? Did they pay over a fee to Loancheck in the beginning that was either refundable fee or payable if the case is won? How do they make money if they do take the case to court and win and there is no cost to the client? Loancheck (or petermb should I say) used to say the cost were levied onto the lenders? If Loancheck say they charge the client "zilch" then how do they make money? They must make it by passing clients onto the solicitors (that is loancheck paid) and then how do the solicitors make their money back if they are not charging the clients anything at all?

maxdp

As far as I understand and I am sure I will be corrected by those in the know. They pay into Loancheck for the leads they then take out an insurance which covers them if they lose. This is all done by risk assessing every step of the way to see if this is a viable option. All the costs from the solicitor are covered by an insurance that the solicitor takes out with an insurance company. At this point they are certain that the case will win but in case it does not then they are covered by the insurance. This is where the problem is because all these claims that are with solicitors have to be risk assessed on the computer system which I think was designed by Knight as previously pointed out. The solicitors do not have access to this at the moment because the company are in administration.

Then when the case goes to court the fees are claimed back from the lender and are a separate issue than the compensation/costs etc that the client gets back.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

As far as I understand and I am sure I will be corrected by those in the know. They pay into Loancheck for the leads they then take out an insurance which covers them if they lose. This is all done by risk assessing every step of the way to see if this is a viable option. All the costs from the solicitor are covered by an insurance that the solicitor takes out with an insurance company. At this point they are certain that the case will win but in case it does not then they are covered by the insurance. This is where the problem is because all these claims that are with solicitors have to be risk assessed on the computer system which I think was designed by Knight as previously pointed out. The solicitors do not have access to this at the moment because the company are in administration.

Then when the case goes to court the fees are claimed back from the lender and are a separate issue than the compensation/costs etc that the client gets back.

Right, going by other posts on here and another thread then Black Knight Associates are now the new Loancheck sort of thing or have the loancheck site and loancheck have sold their cases to them (with or without clients knowledge!!) and also Loancheck owe some money to BK according to Thomas123's post. I suppose then if this was settled then the cases would get moving but whilst there is a discrepancy between the two nothing is?? Is this the hold up then?

I suppose everyone will just have to wait for them to sort it out then. Simple solution then would be to pay BK for this and get their case backlog moving but must be a little more to it for this to happen in the firstplace perhaps??

Businessmen ey, don't you just love em!!!

lesley65

tiggrae wrote: »

if a company has gone bust then the contract is invalidated and any debts owing go with the company - unless it something like a bank where the assets (ie outstanding loans / credit card debts) are sold to another company.

hi tiggrae

so are you saying that although my solicitor is saying that i should pay loancheck the audit fee back i shouldn't really have to if they have gone bust, is he after me paying him back what he has had to pay them for my information.

lesley x

tiggrae

lesley65 wrote: »

hi tiggrae

so are you saying that although my solicitor is saying that i should pay loancheck the audit fee back i shouldn't really have to if they have gone bust, is he after me paying him back what he has had to pay them for my information.

lesley x

hi lesley - yes that's right - if you had a contract with loancheck and they don't exist anymore then the contract is null and void -if the solicitor has done work for a company that's now bust that's his problem and any debt he's incurred for the work done he has to write off as a bad debt.

It's like you buying a TV from a retailer, the retailer goes bust after you've paid and received your TV, b ut the retailer hadn't paid the manufacturer the manufacturer can't then come after you for payment - it's tough s**t all he can do is write it off

marshallka

Where does that then leave lesley's complaint tiggrae? I thought the contract that clients sign is actually with the Solicitor and not loancheck. Can anyone confirm?

If the contract that the solicitor signed is with Loancheck and there is no loancheck then I would think that that is tough BUT what if there is a funny term in the solicitors contract with the client? Do you actually know 100% that the solicitor stated 100% that there would be "no fees??". Wouldn't the solicitors have taken out an insurance to cover themselves in case something like this happened. If they did then this means that Loancheck got their money, the solicitors could get their money, the clients only incur costs if they drop out and as long as they leave the cases there they are OK BUT still the thing about "where does it leave the actual claim"???? IF the solicitors pull out eventually then surely it would be unfair for them to break the contact (as they state that the contract cannot be broken by the client!!!!) so do they then have to pay damages/compensation anyway perhaps to the client if they break the contract themselves???? Surely its wrong to put a one sided term in a contract so there must be a term in it whereby if the solicitor breaks it (UTCCR)? Have no idea on this one but perhaps tiggrae can answer or anyone else?

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Where does that then leave lesley's complaint tiggrae? I thought the contract that clients sign is actually with the Solicitor and not loancheck. Can anyone confirm?

If the contract that the solicitor signed is with Loancheck and there is no loancheck then I would think that that is tough BUT what if there is a funny term in the solicitors contract with the client? Do you actually know 100% that the solicitor stated 100% that there would be "no fees??". Wouldn't the solicitors have taken out an insurance to cover themselves in case something like this happened. If they did then this means that Loancheck got their money, the solicitors could get their money, the clients only incur costs if they drop out and as long as they leave the cases there they are OK BUT still the thing about "where does it leave the actual claim"???? IF the solicitors pull out eventually then surely it would be unfair for them to break the contact (as they state that the contract cannot be broken by the client!!!!) so do they then have to pay compensation anyway perhaps to the client if they break the contract themselves???? Surely its wrong to put a one sided term in a contract? Have no idea on this one but perhaps tiggrae can answer or anyone else?

morally wrong to have these terms once sided but not legally wrong - most business to consumer contracts are pre-written by the business and usually specific on what happens if you break the terms & conditions but have nothing if they break them and that's where the Unfair Consumer Contract Terms Regulations come into force !!.

In respect to the specific contract signed - I'd have to read it to see who it's with - if loancheck only then null and void - but they may have written in something sneaky.

In respect to carrying on with the claim - again if the contract is only with loancheck then you can start your own reclaim as the contract is no longer in place - but again I'd have to read it to see.