loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

But peter said earlier on the other thread

I see my job as ensuring that solicitors receive cases that will be successful.

If this the case then Peter sees Lesley's case as successful and obviously the solicitor is stalling for some reason OR for some reason does not see things petermb's way so who is at fault? Is it the solicitor or person handing over the clients that they see as successful claims? Surely the solicitors should have double checked each case as Loancheck were NOT solicitors and did not have legal training before accepting them and paying for them if they did????

Either way Lesley needs to know and I would think that writing to them on her own (not involving petermb) is the best way if the solicitors see petermb as having no legal right as you say. Is this then because the case with the solicitor is contracted purely between solicitor and client and not solicitor, client and petermb? What a mess.

I think with some Solicitors especially Watsons they have got greedy and taken on more than they can deal with. I know that for a case with them because Mr Watson told me that he had to take on another Solicitor. I wonder if the banks have learnt to be bloody awkward. I know on one of mine they had not even passed the case onto the legal dept when the Solicitor was saying that if they did not reply they were starting proceedings. They have dragged their heels all the way through really.

marshallka

To all those that are having problems with their claims this is good read for rules in place
https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/__wysiwyg/UploadedFiles/File/MoJ%20Conduct%20of%20Authorised%20Persons%20Rules%202006(1).pdf

fedupwiththeworry

Been having a few problems @ home so sorry for the lack of an update.

I received a letter from the solicitors stating that as I was unable to attend a meeting, they can't continue under the CFA and were therefore terminating the agreement.
They offered to continue under a private fee basis, but obviously there's no way I can go with that.
They state the closing date for the claim is the 28th of the month, although they would argue for longer due to the delay in getting the info from Loancheck.

maxdp

Sorry to hear this fedupwiththeworry. Can you complain to the Law Society explaining why you cannot attend. I am sure it was not in the original Contract that you had to attend the meeting. Yet they seem to be able to agree to continue under a private fee basis without you attending the meeting. Hmmmm

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Sorry to hear this fedupwiththeworry. Can you complain to the Law Society explaining why you cannot attend. I am sure it was not in the original Contract that you had to attend the meeting. Yet they seem to be able to agree to continue under a private fee basis without you attending the meeting. Hmmmm

Have they said that this private fee basis complaint does not need a meeting?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Have they said that this private fee basis complaint does not need a meeting?

It was the way I read it.
"I received a letter from the solicitors stating that as I was unable to attend a meeting, they can't continue under the CFA and were therefore terminating the agreement.
They offered to continue under a private fee basis"

May be wrong though.

(Where has shrugged shoulders symbol gone?)

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

It was the way I read it.
"I received a letter from the solicitors stating that as I was unable to attend a meeting, they can't continue under the CFA and were therefore terminating the agreement.
They offered to continue under a private fee basis"

May be wrong though.

(Where has shrugged shoulders symbol gone?)

Who knows TBH cause this could all be knew whereby you have to have a meeting regardless although there was only fedupwiththeworry that was asked as yet! I see what you are saying though maxdp. If fedupwiththeworry could not attend one for one solicitor then they would not be able to attend one for another perhaps.

marshallka

Maxdp, have you heard from the other solicitors who has yours with the barrister?

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

It was the way I read it.
"I received a letter from the solicitors stating that as I was unable to attend a meeting, they can't continue under the CFA and were therefore terminating the agreement.
They offered to continue under a private fee basis"

May be wrong though.

(Where has shrugged shoulders symbol gone?)

If they offered to do the work on a private fee basis and were sure that they could win, they would surely rather continue under a CFA as they would make up to twice as much money for doing the same amount of work.

Ask them if they have lost their underwriter as this may be the issue.

maxdp

THOMAS123 wrote: »

If they offered to do the work on a private fee basis and were sure that they could win, they would surely rather continue under a CFA as they would make up to twice as much money for doing the same amount of work.

Ask them if they have lost their underwriter as this may be the issue.

Hi Thomas

Thanks for that this was for fedupwiththeworry posted earlier. Just did not make sense that they could not carry on with CFA unless went to office but could take is over privately without going to office. Or that is how I read it.