loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

Is this what you mean

A company limited by guarantee is normally registered for non-profit making functions.

Don't understand this really but does say "normally"???
http://www.ukincorp.co.uk/s-18-uk-guarantee-company-formation.html

But if you look at the old Loancheck that dissolved in 2008 (which is what the people on here used maybe as their claims are 2 years old) it does not say that so maybe it does not apply to old claims and old Loancheck???

The old Loancheck ceased trading in 2006 and the new one (Severn Administration) started in early 2007.

Most of the work came from Professional Investments Limited (Petermb) until they went bust in Summer 2008.

Loancheck Foundation (now yourloancheck.com limited) started in January 2008

I think most people here would have been dealt with by The Loancheck Foundation

If you look at loancheck.eu/company.asp it clearly states "LoanCheck has also established the infrastructure necessary to allow consumers to pursue lenders in such a way that they can do so without further financial risk to themselves".

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The old Loancheck ceased trading in 2006 and the new one (Severn Administration) started in early 2007.

Most of the work came from Professional Investments Limited (Petermb) until they went bust in Summer 2008.

Loancheck Foundation (now yourloancheck.com limited) started in January 2008

I think most people here would have been dealt with by The Loancheck Foundation

If you look at loancheck.eu/company.asp it clearly states "LoanCheck has also established the infrastructure necessary to allow consumers to pursue lenders in such a way that they can do so without further financial risk to themselves".

Was it called Professional Investments Limited or Protected Investments Limited OR is this another company within the loancheck saga?

maxdp

tiggrae wrote: »

again I'd have to look at it - who's headed paper is it on, the terms and conditions 'should' be specific in naming the company and it's company registration number, or the solicitors name / partnership details. If it's a loancheck contract then the solicitor is trying it on. If it's with the solicitor then don't cancel the contract, wait until they've billed then write back saying you belive it tobe an unfair contract term and you've been mis led by the introducer

Hi There just had time to catch up with my contract.

It is between us and the Solicitor on their headed paper and also set out in there are the LAW Society Conditions.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Hi There just had time to catch up with my contract.

It is between us and the Solicitor on their headed paper and also set out in there are the LAW Society Conditions.

Just depends if everything else was above board though as Loancheck employed the solicitors I would think? Were Loancheck acting within rules and laws.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Just depends if everything else was above board though as Loancheck employed the solicitors I would think? Were Loancheck acting within rules and laws.

Who knows but Solicitors have been accredited with following standard
What is Lexcel?

Lexcel is the Law Society's practice management standard. It is a scheme for any type of practice to certify that certain standards have been met following independent assessment. The Lexcel practice management standard is only awarded to solicitors who meet the highest management and customer care standards. Lexcel accredited practices undergo rigorous independent assessment every year to ensure they meet required standards of excellence in areas such as client care, case management and risk management.

So if they have not acted within above then they should be reported.

If they had the wood pulled over their eyes then god help us all who can you trust.:(

maxdp

The Solicitors Regulation Authority have given these guidelines for Solicitors on unenforceable credit agreements etc etc.
http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/guidance/2636.article

Also check this out (if it has not already been posted)
8. In a recent case, Beresford and Smith 9666-2007 (PDF 44 pages, 215K), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal noted that the attitude of a firm was that clients had entered into an agreement with introducers:

• "...before they instructed the firm and therefore [the firm] had not been concerned with it [the terms of the agreement]".

The Tribunal concluded that:

• "In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not find this acceptable."

9. Solicitors must also ensure that their own interests in receiving referrals of work do not conflict with their duty to give clients proper advice. In the case referred to above, the Tribunal went on to find that the firm's interest:

• "...had been in obtaining and maintaining a flow of work from the... "

introducer and that the firm:

• "...had acted in circumstances of conflict between themselves and their clients and in conflict between their clients and the [introducer]".

10. Clearly, there will be some introducers of "unenforceable" consumer credit agreement work whose schemes will not be adverse to the clients' best interests and will be compliant with a solicitor's obligations. However, in light of the serious concerns raised, solicitors should consider their responsibilities carefully.
Is the introducer authorised?

11. Under the Compensation Act 2006, persons providing a regulated claims management service need to be authorised by the CMR. Regulation applies to claims made for compensation, including claims in respect of financial products and services. Whilst some introducers are exempt from regulation, you should check whether or not any potential introducer requires and has obtained authorisation. The CMR hold information on authorised introducers and provide a guidance booklet as to when authorisation is needed
8. In a recent case, Beresford and Smith 9666-2007 (PDF 44 pages, 215K), the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal noted that the attitude of a firm was that clients had entered into an agreement with introducers:

• "...before they instructed the firm and therefore [the firm] had not been concerned with it [the terms of the agreement]".

The Tribunal concluded that:

• "In the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not find this acceptable."

9. Solicitors must also ensure that their own interests in receiving referrals of work do not conflict with their duty to give clients proper advice. In the case referred to above, the Tribunal went on to find that the firm's interest:

• "...had been in obtaining and maintaining a flow of work from the... "

introducer and that the firm:

• "...had acted in circumstances of conflict between themselves and their clients and in conflict between their clients and the [introducer]".

10. Clearly, there will be some introducers of "unenforceable" consumer credit agreement work whose schemes will not be adverse to the clients' best interests and will be compliant with a solicitor's obligations. However, in light of the serious concerns raised, solicitors should consider their responsibilities carefully.
Is the introducer authorised?

11. Under the Compensation Act 2006, persons providing a regulated claims management service need to be authorised by the CMR. Regulation applies to claims made for compensation, including claims in respect of financial products and services. Whilst some introducers are exempt from regulation, you should check whether or not any potential introducer requires and has obtained authorisation. The CMR hold information on authorised introducers and provide a guidance booklet as to when authorisation is needed

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Who knows but Solicitors have been accredited with following standard
What is Lexcel?

Lexcel is the Law Society's practice management standard. It is a scheme for any type of practice to certify that certain standards have been met following independent assessment. The Lexcel practice management standard is only awarded to solicitors who meet the highest management and customer care standards. Lexcel accredited practices undergo rigorous independent assessment every year to ensure they meet required standards of excellence in areas such as client care, case management and risk management.

So if they have not acted within above then they should be reported.

If they had the wood pulled over their eyes then god help us all who can you trust.:(

So do you think its the solicitors at fault then going by your post above? Do you not think that Loancheck or introducers/workers etc are/were at fault at all maxdp?

I personally don't think anyone will lose out here only the clients "perhaps" or most clients, the workers will have got their money from this, the introducers will have got their money, the solicitors will have got their money, what about the investors into the scheme in the firstplace, I wonder if they did? The clients will no doubt be frightened off now by solicitors asking form detailed meetings and all will be laughing but I have a feeling someone here has lost out good style. Just don't know who besides the people that have put their claims in with them yet!! That is how it is sounding from posts on here from various individuals.

maxdp

Marshallka Look at my previous post have edited and added..............

maxdp

I suppose in my mind the solicitors are working for me so they shouuld have my best interests at heart. They have employed a barrister under CFA who has also checked out the case and has taken it on.

I think the problem is that cases that have been sat on, on somebody's desk or stuck in a computer database somewhere who have not been appointed solicitors and have been stuck there for two plus years some of these may well be unable to take this further because of time limitations etc. Do you see what I mean?

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

Was it called Professional Investments Limited or Protected Investments Limited OR is this another company within the loancheck saga?

Actually, it may have been Protected Investments