loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

maxdp

Definitely was not in any agreement that I signed. The Solicitor should pay loancheck for the full audit fee from what I understand. That is why Barclays were funding Loancheck. This is as I understand it anyway.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

An scenarios.

Client loses case, Loancheck fee not covered by the ATE policy, client responsible for fee, Lender chases client for money.

Client wins case, Loancheck fee not paid by Lender, fee not covered by ATE policy, solicitor has to pay.

Your scenario here is similar to what has happened with Cartel. This is what Carl Wright said about the ATE insurance here

There was a conference with the barristers, several meetings over three days leading up to November 13 and it was during that time that it became evident that the ATE cover ("after-the-event insurance") for those particular cases wasn't in place.
Gobsmacked was the expression I would give. When an introducer passes a case to a solicitor, if there's a requirement for ATE insurance, it is normally put in place. My understanding was always that would be in place.
When it got to that point, the people running the cases needed to decide whether to proceed with those cases or not. What was sought at that time was the advice of the barristers of the merits of the case, ie whether they were going to win or not.
On the back of that, it was decided that it was in the best interest to proceed because the costs had already been racked up in the previous months.
It was the right thing, in my opinion, to proceed at that point.
And also I think it is important to note that in the majority of those cases the costs, if everything had been done in the right way, would have been awarded against the banks due to their conduct of the cases.
Unfortunately for CCLS, when staff weren't paid, staff weren't able to work on the cases in the proceeding weeks to it being closed down, therefore those cases weren't dealt with in an appropriate way and the banks effectively would win their costs which wouldn't have been the case if it had been run correctly.
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2010/03/carl-wright-the-interview.html





And this is from the loancheck document here about ATE
http://www.loancheck.eu/pdfs/LoanCheck.pdf


For clarity and in line with FSA regulations Severn will pass the Solicitors details to the Insurance Company or its Broker at the appropriate time to allow for completion of separate contracts and explanation of contractual obligations.
The Solicitor, as authorised by the FSA, are contracted to the Insurance Provider allowing them to offer the ATE insurance policy to their client in line with CFA based litigation procedures. The Client being the insured, (However the proceeds of any claim are assigned to the Lawyer).

So would ATE insurance be the case for all of the Watsons/other solicitors with Loancheck cases????

maxdp

I presume that is the case for all the Solicitors. That is the basis of the No Win No fee, having ATE insurance. That is the FOCUS insurance as far as I am aware.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

I presume that is the case for all the Solicitors. That is the basis of the No Win No fee, having ATE insurance. That is the FOCUS insurance as far as I am aware.

So you definately had this ATE insurance then maxdp that covered you for costs win or lose? It seems that with Cartel some clients were not actually covered?

In fact what I find very strange is that so much seems similar with the two firms here and similar dates that people were starting these threads.

maxdp

Yes definitely in place for both. Before insurance was taken on Agent checked that cover was not already in place with household insurance or professional body insurance etc.

What do you mean about the similar dates that people were starting these threads do you mean recently or when they were recruiting.

marshallka

Talking of which about Cartel

Cartel Client Review Ltd Greater Manchester Financial products/servi... Authorisation Suspended 18/03/2010

maxdp

Gosh I though it would have been suspended before now. That must be why web site is now down.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Yes definitely in place for both. Before insurance was taken on Agent checked that cover was not already in place with household insurance or professional body insurance etc.

What do you mean about the similar dates that people were starting these threads do you mean recently or when they were recruiting.

I mean things started to happen for cartel about November so he says in the interview and it was just before that these threads here started up. Had something happened for all claims companies with this type insurance???

maxdp

I wonder if it was because they changed the gate posts, think it was just before Christmas you know where some judge made a ruling about unenforceability etc. I wonder if that then left lots of Claims companies stumped cause they could not claim back on these issues.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

I wonder if it was because they changed the gate posts, think it was just before Christmas you know where some judge made a ruling about unenforceability etc. I wonder if that then left lots of Claims companies stumped cause they could not claim back on these issues.

I would almost certainly think it would leave a lot of claims companies stumped cause of what happened BUT if the solicitors had already paid over to loancheck and most of the loancheck companies have gone bump and the cases are NOT covered by insurance then how does the solicitor get his money other than to charge the client??? BUT was it in the contract that he could ever charge the client? I know the loancheck service was "free" (just like this site!!) BUT was there anything in any contract that you had with the solicitor that said there ever "could" be charges regardless of what you were told. It is about what is written into the contact that matters isn't it?
Have you tried to contact Petermb at his business maxdp about your "Claims"??