loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

UTUBE

Natalie6999 wrote: »

It is about time that the Ministry of Justice removed registration from these fly by night companies, I know the Revenue & Customs are now starting to take notice of the increasing numbers of companies that keep on going bust & then restarting under a new name. They have the powers to ban the directors from starting new companies or from being a director of any other company as well as hefty fines.

If everyone who has suffered from using this company complained to MoJ maybe they might start to take notice.

There really is no need to use these companies, there is plenty of help on here & on other sites to do it yourself, you just need patience & persistance.

I think the problem here lies with the solicitor(s) and not with Loancheck to be fair.

Loancheck of course offerd an entirely free service to the consumers, assessed the merits of trheir cases, and then passed them on to solicitor(s).

My research has shown that, though slow, their service was not unethical (unlike some others that we are not allowed to mention on MSE but have been the subject of some newspaper articles).

We should remember that Loancheck is actually still trading.

marshallka

UTUBE wrote: »

I have been doing some more digging - I think you'll find that the real problems here lie with (particularly) Watsons Solicitors in Llandudno.

It would seem that they sub-contracted most of their work to a Loancheck Group company that has now gone into administration which is why the files have not been worked on for some time.

These cases need to be transferred to a new law firm as soon as possible and my understanding is that this process has already started which is good news (at last) for the consumers.

Utube, how do you find all this out?? ALso as the poster says they have waited for 2 years now and not even been informed of what is going on and why should they trust what you say here in that things are moving? If things were moving as you say then surely the consumers in question should have been informed and a "new" contract drawn up with a "new" solicitor. If we had a loan through one company and signed a contract with them then surely they cannot just transfer to another company without a signature of acceptance???

marshallka

UTUBE wrote: »

I think the problem here lies with the solicitor(s) and not with Loancheck to be fair.

Loancheck of course offerd an entirely free service to the consumers, assessed the merits of trheir cases, and then passed them on to solicitor(s).

My research has shown that, though slow, their service was not unethical (unlike some others that we are not allowed to mention on MSE but have been the subject of some newspaper articles).

We should remember that Loancheck is actually still trading.

But why have they closed down and opened up under a new name?

Natalie6999

UTUBE wrote: »

I think the problem here lies with the solicitor(s) and not with Loancheck to be fair.

Loancheck of course offerd an entirely free service to the consumers, assessed the merits of trheir cases, and then passed them on to solicitor(s).

My research has shown that, though slow, their service was not unethical (unlike some others that we are not allowed to mention on MSE but have been the subject of some newspaper articles).

We should remember that Loancheck is actually still trading.

If Loancheck employed the solicitors, then surely they must shoulder some of the blame.

It appears to be the same people involved with these companies & others who are going bust again & again, it's about time they were put a stop to playing on this so called ethical claims management.

There is no totally free service, there are hidden charges in any one claiming to be so.

UTUBE

Natalie6999 wrote: »

If Loancheck employed the solicitors, then surely they must shoulder some of the blame.

It appears to be the same people involved with these companies & others who are going bust again & again, it's about time they were put a stop to playing on this so called ethical claims management.

There is no totally free service, there are hidden charges in any one claiming to be so.

Just a couple of points:-

1. The solicitors are not employed by Loancheck - this is illegal and against Law Society rules - I have spoken to 3 law firms who are involved with this process and they are all independent.
2. There are no hidden charges that my investigations have uncovered to date - if you have evidence of any can you please provide details.

We need to have absolute clarity here on MSE as many of their clients would appear to be looking to this forum for informed assistance.

UTUBE

marshallka wrote: »

But why have they closed down and opened up under a new name?

They haven't - they have just changed their name without closing down.

They are still registered at Companies House as a not-for-profit organisation with all the same company history.

marshallka

Utube, there are lots on here that have felt let down by the claims of Loancheck and its associates being the introducers. The introducers claimed that these cases would be done and dusted within a certain amount of time and this is clearly not the case for the ones posting on here. Also there was a poster who stated that if she pulled out then there would be a hefty fee from the solicitors and she was thinking to pull out at the time having no feedback whatsoever from these solicitors and the case being there for a lot longer than she was advised and reading through other threads people are in the same boat. This site is not a site for advertising services or EVERYONE, free or not would use it to gain clients. This is where the problem lay in that people were taken in by some on this site stating this and that and they have so far failed to provide any service. Are you saying then that each and every one of these people waiting now is going to have their cases heard in the very near future and can you guarantee this? I feel you are the one with the most feedback for this company?

Also why is this in the gazette if they did not close one company and open another

Date:1 October 2009 Issue Number:59201 Page number:16893 Publication Date: Thursday, 1 October 2009
Notice Code: 2443
Appointment of Liquidators
Company Number: 06821047.
Name of Company: LOANCHECK ADMINISTRATION LIMITED.
Nature of Business: Financial Auditors.
Type of Liquidation: Creditors.
Address of Registered Office: BWC Business Solutions Limited, 8 Park Place, Leeds LS1 2RU.



Liquidators' Names and Address: David Leighton Cockshott and Paul Andrew Whitwam, both of BWC Business Solutions Limited, 8 Park Place, Leeds LS1 2RU

Office Holder Numbers: 8974 and 8346.
Date of Appointment: 24 September 2009.
By whom Appointed: members and creditors.


(932599)




Is this another company then and nothing to do with the loancheck that we are talking about?

This is confusing and this is why people on here were worried. There are a few thread about it....

Name & Registered Office:
LOANCHECK LIMITED
THE OLD HALL, HUSBANDS BOSWORTH
LUTTERWOTH
LEICESTERSHIRE
LE17 6LZ
Company No. 04217665


Status: Dissolved 07/05/2008

petermb_2

I have just come off the phone to Andrew Watson of Watsons Solicitors. Apparently none of the cases are moving at the moment as the Administrators for Severn Administration are in control of all the data and not releasing the information.

I understand that action is expected this week that will seek to resolve the current issues and that cases will be reallocated if necessary.

If I hear any more I will update you all.

Lesleyn_3

In the meantime - I have to live with the fact that there is a £4200 charge now on my house from Welcome finance solicitors Howard and Cohen plus they are now demanding the repayments which i was disputing 2 and a half years ago.

I feel that instead of moving forward - i am actually slipping further backwards!

Surely this charge means that, as far as howard and cohen are concerned my case is closed? Are you saying this is not the case?

Will the new solicitor have access to all the paperwork that i sent to Watsons - because i have not kept any copies (I was told to just keep sending all correspondence from welcome to Watsons without opening it, which I did do)

This whole issue is confusing and stressful - i would be grateful for anyone elses input or help in this matter

:mad:

marshallka

Lesleyn wrote: »

In the meantime - I have to live with the fact that there is a £4200 charge now on my house from Welcome finance solicitors Howard and Cohen plus they are now demanding the repayments which i was disputing 2 and a half years ago.

I feel that instead of moving forward - i am actually slipping further backwards!

Surely this charge means that, as far as howard and cohen are concerned my case is closed? Are you saying this is not the case?

Will the new solicitor have access to all the paperwork that i sent to Watsons - because i have not kept any copies (I was told to just keep sending all correspondence from welcome to Watsons without opening it, which I did do)

This whole issue is confusing and stressful - i would be grateful for anyone elses input or help in this matter

:mad:

I hope you get this sorted Lesley. I cannot understand why you were told not to open the correspondence you had from Welcome... so you do not have any details.

I take it you have seen posts on here saying things are looking up but just hope its not too late. Have you finally got to talk to any of the solicitors dealing with your case??