loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

I think the best thing to do if the cases are still with Loancheck is get a solicitors opinion on whether they are worth progressing.

If they have been assigned to a solicitor and you have entered into a no win no fee arrangement - and the solicitor is progressing the case - get an update from your solicitor and ask them what are your chances of success and how long will it all take.

If Black Knight try to get them to sign a new agreement with another solicitor, again, get a written assessment from that solicitor detailing what the charges will be, how long will it take, and what are your chance of success.

It is always better getting a solicitors opinion as early as possible.

Thomas123, if it was that Watsons ever got closed down (not saying either way but just thinking about from the post of the other solicitors) where does that leave worked on cases? Surely it does not mean that any other solictor would have to have the same opinion on cases that Watsons had in that a loan can be challenged for the same reasons. Does this mean that the cases could be closed completely. How would the clients then have "any" claim against Watsons too? After all, the cases were never "guaranteed to win" anyway?

petermb_2

For the record.

Protected Investments Limited, the company I was a director of, was merely an introducer to the Loancheck Service.

I worked with this project for many years because I firmly believed that a company not charging fees to fight cases was the way forward. I went many months without wages to assist in bringing this concept to the public.

I am still firmly against charging fees up front and wherever possible not charging any fees at the back end either. I am still striving to put together a realistic service to achieve that.

Hindsight is wonderful and if I had known how the whole thing would degenerated to the point it has I would not have wasted so many years on it. I certainly would not have chosen to inflict this garbage on anyone.

Those that know me are aware that I act with the best motives at all times.

I am sorry for those who have been dragged into this mess and sincerely apologise but I assure you it was done with the best of intentions on my part.

maxdp

Marshallka I suppose no case is ever guaranteed to win whatever it is.

Loancheck risk assessed cases on a number of different points, from what I can gather they got this information from 100's of lenders. From what I understand the Solicitors seems to go for the same set of challenges e.g. documentation, ppi mis selling, lost documentation, incorrect paperwork, etc.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

SOZ missed that post Marshallka, that is what happens when I try to do to many things at once:o

To tell you the truth maxdp, before requesting any SAR I would make your complaint about them to the authorities. I cannot understand anyone not doing it TBH? Surely they need investigating as to why they are taking so long and NOT informing clients in the meantime.

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

To tell you the truth maxdp, before requesting any SAR I would make your complaint about them to the authorities. I cannot understand anyone not doing it TBH? Surely they need investigating as to why they are taking so long and NOT informing clients in the meantime.

They are regulated by the MOJ

THOMAS123

petermb wrote: »

For the record.

Protected Investments Limited, the company I was a director of, was merely an introducer to the Loancheck Service.

I worked with this project for many years because I firmly believed that a company not charging fees to fight cases was the way forward. I went many months without wages to assist in bringing this concept to the public.

I am still firmly against charging fees up front and wherever possible not charging any fees at the back end either. I am still striving to put together a realistic service to achieve that.

Hindsight is wonderful and if I had known how the whole thing would degenerated to the point it has I would not have wasted so many years on it. I certainly would not have chosen to inflict this garbage on anyone.

Those that know me are aware that I act with the best motives at all times.

I am sorry for those who have been dragged into this mess and sincerely apologise but I assure you it was done with the best of intentions on my part.

Do you think they should still be allowed to operate?

petermb_2

I only get third or fourth hand information regarding these issues and to be honest would not be able to make a definitive decision on what is truth and what is rumour and therefore will not comment on individuals or organisations.

I would agree that the thing needs investigating and have always said that the buck stops with the lawyers. The Conditional Fee Agreements are with the law firms. Clients did not have formal agreements with either PIL or Loancheck.

However, it was Loancheck that held the case files for clients who were signed up to the solicitors.

My own advice would be to contact the administrators of Severn Administration or whatever their latest title was when they went into administration an d find out where your property is.

petermb_2

THOMAS123 wrote: »

Do you think they should still be allowed to operate?

I am not prepared to comment. I have no idea how they are operating these days and under what terms.

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

Marshallka I suppose no case is ever guaranteed to win whatever it is.

Loancheck risk assessed cases on a number of different points, from what I can gather they got this information from 100's of lenders. From what I understand the Solicitors seems to go for the same set of challenges e.g. documentation, ppi mis selling, lost documentation, incorrect paperwork, etc.

How about this as a possible scenario.

Loancheck risk assess each case and recommended the case to a solicitor who rely upon Loancheck's arguments.

The solicitor then pays Loancheck a large fee for a report to confirm the case is a good one

The solicitor runs the case and finds out that there is no chance of the client ever getting any money as the claim has very little chance of succeeding, even though the report was positive.

Petermb, if you were the solicitor what would you do?

Would you insist that Loancheck gave you back the money?

What would you say to the client?

Of course, this is just a hypothetical scenario and as such should not be taken as a reflection of the reality of what has happened

Natalie6999

petermb wrote: »

I only get third or fourth hand information regarding these issues and to be honest would not be able to make a definitive decision on what is truth and what is rumour and therefore will not comment on individuals or organisations.

I would agree that the thing needs investigating and have always said that the buck stops with the lawyers. The Conditional Fee Agreements are with the law firms. Clients did not have formal agreements with either PIL or Loancheck.

However, it was Loancheck that held the case files for clients who were signed up to the solicitors.

My own advice would be to contact the administrators of Severn Administration or whatever their latest title was when they went into administration an d find out where your property is.

Don't you realise that by you recruiting these clients to frankly fraudulent claims companies, they have just about lost all hope of being able to take their cases through either the courts or FOS due to the delaying tactics used.

They are stuck in a no win situation.