loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

I agree that there should be an investigation into what has happened.

The non-PPI claims can be very complicated and no doubt expensive to run for a solicitor.

They would usually ask for money up front from the client to cover their fees and the Court fees. This could be well over a thousand!!!

It would be interesting to know how many solicitors are still willing to do this work on a no win no fee basis and importantly have the funding in place to persue the claim.

I bet its the ones that are signed up with the new yourloancheck perhaps or the likes of!!

How do they get money up front then? Who do they rip off in the first place to take the complaints on? I wonder if they have been above board to the investors? I bet they tout for investors in the first place with some !!!! and bull and mislead them just like the clients.

maxdp

Marshallka I asked questions and checked the contract before signing and am sure others did as well. We have all been caught in some way or the other (or mostly) on this site. Am sure with all the PPI etc etc. Unless you have been burnt before you would not know necessarily the things to look out for.

For instance if I were to take out a loan or a credit card whether in the street at my bank or on the internet, I read and re read that contract etc to make sure I am not signing up for anything I do not intend to.

I would be interested how my other solicitor is going to run the case. Whether the CFA would still be in place because it is between them and the insurance company. I suppose they have to get their money back some way or the other.

Would be good for Watchdog or one of the others investigative programs to look into the ins and outs of Loancheck and their associated companies.

We will have to be vigilent to see which Phoenix company comes out of this.

Natalie6999

Natalie6999 wrote: »

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.

I notice Petermb has disappeared since I posted this.

He refuses to face up to the people he helped to rip off.

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

Marshallka I asked questions and checked the contract before signing and am sure others did as well. We have all been caught in some way or the other (or mostly) on this site. Am sure with all the PPI etc etc. Unless you have been burnt before you would not know necessarily the things to look out for.

For instance if I were to take out a loan or a credit card whether in the street at my bank or on the internet, I read and re read that contract etc to make sure I am not signing up for anything I do not intend to.

I would be interested how my other solicitor is going to run the case. Whether the CFA would still be in place because it is between them and the inssurance company. I suppose they have to get their money back some way or the other.

Would be good for Watchdog or one of the others investigative programs to look into the ins and outs of Loancheck and their associated companies.

We will have to be vigilent to see which Phoenix company comes out of this.

There has been one name common to all of the previous companies since 2001.

I would suggest that is the name we need to look out for in any Phoenix company

Natalie6999

Is that Watson or Petermb?

Both have a record of going bust several times.

I hope someone reports them to Revenue & Customs & that they are turned upside down & inside out because I suspect that there is a great amount of figure massaging going on with money disappearing faster than water down a drain.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Marshallka I asked questions and checked the contract before signing and am sure others did as well. We have all been caught in some way or the other (or mostly) on this site. Am sure with all the PPI etc etc. Unless you have been burnt before you would not know necessarily the things to look out for.

For instance if I were to take out a loan or a credit card whether in the street at my bank or on the internet, I read and re read that contract etc to make sure I am not signing up for anything I do not intend to.

I would be interested how my other solicitor is going to run the case. Whether the CFA would still be in place because it is between them and the inssurance company. I suppose they have to get their money back some way or the other.

Would be good for Watchdog or one of the others investigative programs to look into the ins and outs of Loancheck and their associated companies.

We will have to be vigilent to see which Phoenix company comes out of this.

It certainly would maxdp.

I just think that "all" who had anything to do with this should be held responsible for their part and it all explained in full. People may have lost out financially and I would want to know where things have gone wrong.

Senario again but this could be against any firm

Lets suppose that a company is found to have been misleading clients and investors and they "knew" what they were doing for a long time but continued to do it. Would that be classed as "deception" perhaps??

Where would that leave the clients and investors in this. Who has lost out financially, the clients would be released from their contracts and they would be free to move to another solicitor. What about the people that have invested money into these firms. How do they get their money back. They have actually lost out financially and if it was that they were misled then the firm should be made to pay back.

If clients wanted to then, they could sue these firms (perhaps on a no win no fee basis for misleading them into believing they could wipe their debts).

Would you say these directors should be allowed to do the same again?

If petermb has also been ripped off by Loancheck then surely he would want to sue them? He says he had nothing to do with Loancheck and purely introduced clients? If he has lost out on anything then surely as a person that "tells" clients to get their money back etc he would want to do the same? I know I would.

maxdp

No it is not them look at my previous posts I have mentioned the name there but may have spelt it incorrectly.

Natalie6999

But surely as someone who was closely involved with Loancheck or whatever it is called tonight Petermb must have been able to see what was happening & yet he was still recruiting clients for them.

With the amounts of money involved there has been a large scale fraud going on, why did he continue to be involved with them when most people would have run a mile, unless he had something to gain?

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

There has been one name common to all of the previous companies since 2001.

I would suggest that is the name we need to look out for in any Phoenix company

Phoenix companies are not illegal though are they if the directors have done things in the correct way.

If they have not however, can the directors be made responsible for the debts of the old company (ies) and also be made to pay themselves from having all assets seized regardless of being part of the companies assets or not or are they allowed to still live in mansions and drive flashy cars regardless. I think proving a company to be a phoenix is difficult isn't it? We have had this conversation on here before about phoenix's. Seems to me they just get away with it over and over again. They are very clever and know just how to play the system.

Natalie6999

Revenue & Customs have a unit that specializes in investigating Phoenix companies, maybe if enough people write in they may take it up for investigation.

They have the powers to jail guilty parties & confiscate assets gained from the Phoenix Companies.