loancheck/solicitors claiming ppi

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Protected Investments is licensed by Severn Administration Limited for the use of the "Loanchecker"

On the form there is the following

As the Agent acting on my/our behalf, I/we authorise Protected Investments Limited and Severn Administration Limited to act on my/our behalf and hereby give authority for all the relevant information to the account to be made available to Protected Investments Limited, Severn Administration Limited and where necessary to Zar Legal Administration Limited and an appropriately experienced solicitor/firm.

Further to this I/We authorise Protected Investments Limited to act on my/our behalf, with the Information Commissioners Office, if the Subject Access Request is not responded to in the time frame defined by the Data Protection Act.

I/We further request that you communicate directly with Protected Investments Limited in respect of any aspects of the account and further instruct that delivery of all correspondence relative to the attached SARN request, be delivered directly to Protected Investments Limited.

We also forget that this company is also still trading. Zar Legal Administration limited. Registered address DRE & Co Shrewsbury)??? Can't find anything really about them only they are still active. Although different address registered with MOJ?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

We also forget that this company is also still trading. Zar Legal Administration limited. Registered address DRE & Co Shrewsbury)??? Can't find anything really about them only they are still active. Although different address registered with MOJ?

Yes you are right they are still trading. Do not know much either reall.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Yes you are right they are still trading. Do not know much either reall.

Its just that it mentions it in your documents and we never got to the bottom of where they actually stood in all of this. I wonder if they are actually part of the loancheck still standing, yourloancheck? And with them being "legal" are they anything to do with the solicitors at all?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

We also forget that this company is also still trading. Zar Legal Administration limited. Registered address DRE & Co Shrewsbury)??? Can't find anything really about them only they are still active. Although different address registered with MOJ?

Did you see their links
Zar Legal Administration Ltd.
Dre & Co 6 Claremont Buildings
Claremont Bank
Shrewsbury
Shropshire
SY1 1RJ
Companies House
Registration Number:6135707<H2>
Related or Similar Companies

Bk Management Ltd.TF5 0JZ
Mercia Associates Ltd.TF5 0JZ

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Did you see their links
Zar Legal Administration Ltd.
Dre & Co 6 Claremont Buildings
Claremont Bank
Shrewsbury
Shropshire
SY1 1RJ
Companies House
Registration Number:6135707<H2>
Related or Similar Companies

Bk Management Ltd.TF5 0JZ
Mercia Associates Ltd.TF5 0JZ

Yeah i did actually!!!!! Is this to do with Loancheck and Black Knight and the software issue?? If you look up BK management it had a previous name for Black Knight on companies house. No idea about the other one.

Was just googling more about them TBH lol.

maxdp

This was posted earlier on the Loancheck Watson site.

Today, 5:59 PM #421 MSE Guy

MSE News Editor

MoneySaving Stalwart

Join Date: Jan 2009

Post Count: 536

Thanked 561 Times in 196 Posts

Loancheck experiences wanted

Hi Folks,

We have noticed many posts about Loancheck and it is a situation we would like to look into. So please report good or bad experiences you have had with this company to [EMAIL="investigation&#64;moneysavingexpert.com"]investigation@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Please include the following:

1) a brief outline of your story (what happened? was your issue resolved? what is the latest as of today - or the day you're writing?)

2) a daytime telephone number.

3) if you would be happy to feature as a case study on this site.

Kind regards,

Guy

Gunforhire

THOMAS123 wrote: »

How about this as a possible scenario.

Loancheck risk assess each case and recommended the case to a solicitor who rely upon Loancheck's arguments.

The solicitor then pays Loancheck a large fee for a report to confirm the case is a good one

The solicitor runs the case and finds out that there is no chance of the client ever getting any money as the claim has very little chance of succeeding, even though the report was positive.

Petermb, if you were the solicitor what would you do?

Would you insist that Loancheck gave you back the money?

What would you say to the client?

Of course, this is just a hypothetical scenario and as such should not be taken as a reflection of the reality of what has happened

In that hypothetical scenario the solicitor would be at risk of being in breach of his cores duties to act with independence and integrity?

marshallka

Gunforhire wrote: »

In that hypothetical scenario the solicitor would be at risk of being in breach of his cores duties to act with independence and integrity?

So are you saying that the solicitor should not have listened to Loancheck

What does this mean then from the solicitors guide to loancheck

Post case induction
Following the initial induction of the case as per the Chronology (appendix , the
Client is retained by the Solicitor who is free to run the case. Whilst having a vested
interest in the process, Severn will limit itself to;
The provision of the first stage Audit (post client retainer) This is a detailed Audit
including the suggested legal issues, cross referenced to the QC Opinion.
The provision of the Second stage Audit if required (post pre action disclosure request). Further information as received from the lender will be amalgamated into the Audit to produce a court ready Audit.
The provision of further Audits as requested by the Solicitor. This process can be repeated as required at the direction/ instruction of the Solicitor whereby further
information has been supplied.


??????????? Should the solicitor not have acted relying upon Loancheck then???

Gunforhire

I am not sure what you are trying to say marshallka?

marshallka

Gunforhire wrote: »

I am not sure what you are trying to say marshallka?

Sorry Gunforfire, I am not good at explaining things sometimes. I was meaning in reply to your post about Thomas123' possible scenario you said that if that happened then solicitors would be at risk in breach of their core duty but what i was saying is if the solicitors took on cases from Loancheck and actually did not do their own assessment before taking the cases on then who is at fault would you say? Would it be the solicitors or Loancheck if there was a flaw in Loanchecks assessments for instance?

Why do you think that cases are not progressing? Would you have any idea?