loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

fedupwiththeworry

Hi,
The way I've read the letter is that I would have to attend a meeting regardless i.e. witness statement. They suggested later in the letter that I may be better getting a solicitor closer to home given my transport issues.
They also state that without a meeting to go through the details, based on the evidence available my chances are less than 50% so they cannot go ahead via the CFA.
They do also state that they would not recommend I proceed on a private basis.

marshallka

fedupwiththeworry wrote: »

Hi,
The way I've read the letter is that I would have to attend a meeting regardless i.e. witness statement. They suggested later in the letter that I may be better getting a solicitor closer to home given my transport issues.
They also state that without a meeting to go through the details, based on the evidence available my chances are less than 50% so they cannot go ahead via the CFA.
They do also state that they would not recommend I proceed on a private basis.

I wondered that about these claims. I asked yesterday about whether the client would have to actually know how they had been duped by the company rather than just a firm "telling" you that you had. I wondered if the client could be called for evidence at all. If the client did not know exactly what they were claiming for then surely they could get tripped up. I don't know how these things work though but just my thoughts.

From what you have said above then they are really saying that your case does not have a lot of a chance of winning BUT you were told in the beginning it did? Could you make a complaint to Loancheck OR whoever sold you to them.

marshallka

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.

You mean maybe the underwriter has pulled out now??

fedupwiththeworry

To be honest I wasn't that confident about this claim anyway, just that the loancheck service said I had something so I thought wht not ?

I do have another claim going through however that I'm convinced I should win, i.e. front loaded, only covered 5 years, wasn't explained etc. however this is with the same solicitors so I'm going to end up in exactly the same boat.

marshallka

fedupwiththeworry wrote: »

To be honest I wasn't that confident about this claim anyway, just that the loancheck service said I had something so I thought wht not ?

I do have another claim going through however that I'm convinced I should win, i.e. front loaded, only covered 5 years, wasn't explained etc. however this is with the same solicitors so I'm going to end up in exactly the same boat.

Have you asked them how they are going to proceed (if ever!!) with that one too? How long has it been there now. If its a long time and they have not communicated with you perhaps give them a letter recorded delivery demanding to know what is happening and also ask about fees should they proceed with it. As its only PPI you should (hopefully) be able to use FOS even if it was sold through an unregulated broker. FOS are now looking at taking insurers for these complaints. Nothing definate as they are still in talks but they are giving people hope and accepting the complaints. Firstly though before doing anything you need to know if you can pull out OR when they are going to go ahead for you and most of all that is NOT going to cost you anything.

fedupwiththeworry

marshallka wrote: »

Have you asked them how they are going to proceed (if ever!!) with that one too? How long has it been there now. If its a long time and they have not communicated with you perhaps give them a letter recorded delivery demanding to know what is happening and also ask about fees should they proceed with it. As its only PPI you should (hopefully) be able to use FOS even if it was sold through an unregulated broker. FOS are now looking at taking insurers for these complaints. Nothing definate as they are still in talks but they are giving people hope and accepting the complaints. Firstly though before doing anything you need to know if you can pull out OR when they are going to go ahead for you and most of all that is NOT going to cost you anything.

That one all started back in Feb/Mar 2008 !! and the loan to which the PPI was attached was back in 2001, which was an unregulated credit agreement.

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

You mean maybe the underwriter has pulled out now??

Possibly, or there is less than a 51% chance of winning

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

Possibly, or there is less than a 51% chance of winning

But I thought the cases passed to the solicitor actually ALREADY had a 51% chance of winning. This is so confusing. Could this mean then that the cases passed were passed over wrong in some way?

fedupwiththeworry

marshallka wrote: »

But I thought the cases passed to the solicitor actually ALREADY had a 51% chance of winning. This is so confusing. Could this mean then that the cases passed were passed over wrong in some way?

That's what I thought too, the whole point of the loancheck part along with the SAR prior to being passed to a solicitor.

In my case they are saying that because I can't attend a meeting to take down a statement the case now has less than 50%, although again if they had seen the paperwork previously and thought OK, why they need to ask more questions is apparently to see how you'd stand up to cross examination in court.
I bet there's a lot of people who wouldn't have gone through with this if they thought they would have to attend court !! myself included.
I thought the solicitor handled everything INCLUDING court appearences on my behalf, if neccessary.

maxdp

I wonder if the goal posts have moved. Did a judge recently make a decision which would affect unenforceable or void credit agreements. I am sure you posted a link Marshallka?

Is this it.
On 23 December 2009 the Mercantile Court in Manchester handed down judgment in a test case arising out of the numerous requests for information under the Consumer Credit Act made by claims management companies seeking to avoid liabilities incurred by their clients under credit card agreements. The Court held that agreements could be enforced in circumstances where a copy of the original agreement signed by the customer could not be produced by the bank. The Court also struck out claims against RBS and Barclays Bank. Bankim Thanki QC represented RBS and Andrew Mitchell represented Barclays.

Perhaps this is why they are auditing again.