loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

marshallka

fedupwiththeworry wrote: »

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.

I really doubt you have to go to court fedupwiththeworry. I doubt anyone will go to court and going by this I doubt any of Watsons cases will either.

Seems so strange all this when you "had" a case that would have no doubt stood up BUT now (nothing changed on your part!!) you have not? Have you got a complaint now about being misled perhaps? I am not saying about winning or losing (cause there was never any guarantee of that) but purely that you DID have a 51% chance of winning (regardless of meetings or not) cause Loancheck/petermb whoever took the case on and handed it to the solicitors BUT now you are told they differ and that your case cannot be done under the CFA cause its only a 50% chance. I would call that being misled but don't know who by TBH. Its very confusing.

marshallka

Don't know if this would help any of you on complaints handling for solicitors

http://www.sra.org.uk/rule2/#r2-05

It mentions

• ) Insufficient resources
  
  Before taking on a new matter, you must consider whether your firm has the resources – including knowledge, qualifications, expertise, time, sufficient support staff and, where appropriate, access to external expertise such as agents and counsel – to provide the support required to represent the client properly. The obligation is a continuing one, and you must ensure that an appropriate or agreed level of service can be delivered even if circumstances change.

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.:(

Maxdp, you mention Lexcel here but according the Law Society site Watsons did not have Lexcel accreditation. I take it you are on about another solicitor here?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Maxdp, you mention Lexcel here but according the Law Society site Watsons did not have Lexcel accreditation. I take it you are on about another solicitor here?

Yes it is the other one. Watsons letters to me were photocopied as well. If I had taken them on to work for me I would have been right cheesed off with that.

The other Solicitor seems to be an old established firm so I am hopeful that this should be OK but who knows Marshallka.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Yes it is the other one. Watsons letters to me were photocopied as well. If I had taken them on to work for me I would have been right cheesed off with that.

The other Solicitor seems to be an old established firm so I am hopeful that this should be OK but who knows Marshallka.

Who was that then maxdp whilst I am searching?

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Dawson Hart

Blimey maxdp, you must be one of the lucky ones on here and the ONLY lucky one up to yet as your solicitor is lexcel. Why wasn't ALL the solicitors then?

maxdp

I do not know Marshallka this was the first one Watsons came later probably about 6 mmonths I think. They have been excellent. Although I have not had new agreement etc yet but I know they are working on it as they have to get out of their former contract. I am wondering whether to try to get them to take on the Watsons one as the Loans were successive. It would make it easier in some ways.

fedupwiththeworry

They were the ones who wanted the meeting with me.

marshallka

fedupwiththeworry wrote: »

They were the ones who wanted the meeting with me.

Hi fedupwiththeworry, are you meaning the same solicitors as maxdp's, meaning Dawson Hart. They are lexcel so supposed to be a plus but don't think that maxdp had to have a meeting. Perhaps she will post up soon.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Hi fedupwiththeworry, are you meaning the same solicitors as maxdp's, meaning Dawson Hart. They are lexcel so supposed to be a plus but don't think that maxdp had to have a meeting. Perhaps she will post up soon.

No they never have asked me for a meeting.

Although I had to give a lot more specific information once it went to a Barrister. I had 5 pages of questions which I had to answer in detail. They asked for this information before the Barrister assessed the risk or audited whichever term one uses of the claim. He then wanted me to answer a couple of points which came up from answers to the form.