Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

petermb_2

maxdp wrote: »

Hi Petermb

Please can you give your take on why some of these claims have taken sooooooo long. I know 6 / 9 months was mentioned in the beginning but some of these have been with Solicitors for two years. Why has it taken so long for the Solicitors to get these sorted out. Is it the Solicitors lacsadasical (if that is spelt right) approach, is it the lenders being slow/awkward, or perhaps the Solicitors have been forced or have offered to take on too much. Others have been stuck with Loancheck and not even got to a Solicitor is that Loanchecks fault or not enough Solicitors to take the work on?

I am not saying you know the ins and outs of all the above but I wondered what in your opinion happened. Why this side of things fell apart.

I personally think it is a combination of things. No single thing.
Funding was in place, then it was not. Solicitors were in place then they were not. Issues were clear cut then they were not.

The principles behind it were superb but I think those principles were lost or became clouded along the way.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

As mentioned before on this thread, Watsons should only pass their cases onto another solicitor and Black Knight are not solicitors.

But Pinknico has stated in the post page before that her case was passed to Black Knight in November?

booi666

I think reading between the lines the tables are about to turn with all these companies claiming unenforceability,

The banks are closing in and my prediction is allot of companies will go under, be very weary peeps

petermb_2

I have now read the Dawson Hart Terms of business relating to Loancheck claims. It states quite clearly that " You only pay my firm if you win the claim ("win" being defined by the conditions of the agreement). You would not, provided you kept to the terms of the agreement, pay a fee unless you did win your claim."

This is how the Loancheck service was designed and how I believed each case would run. That you should not pay any fees unless you won. Even then, the fees that were incurred should you win would be recoverable from the other side.

This is how I understood the service to work and that clients would not have fees to pay win or lose.

lesley65

petermb wrote: »

I have now read the Dawson Hart Terms of business relating to Loancheck claims. It states quite clearly that " You only pay my firm if you win the claim ("win" being defined by the conditions of the agreement). You would not, provided you kept to the terms of the agreement, pay a fee unless you did win your claim."

This is how the Loancheck service was designed and how I believed each case would run. That you should not pay any fees unless you won. Even then, the fees that were incurred should you win would be recoverable from the other side.

This is how I understood the service to work and that clients would not have fees to pay win or lose.

hi peter

this is how my terms and conditions are also set out, but as my case is now worth less than £5000, as my solicitor is saying that the secret commissions etc would now not stand up in a court of law, i am liable to pay back the audit fee of over £2000 back to the solicitor as this can't be claimed back from the lender, even when i questioned this when i first signed i was told not to worry as all costs incurred would be claimed back from the lender, i think that it should have been made clear from the onset that this could have been the case i then perhaps would not have gone down the loancheck route at all.

lesley

marshallka

lesley65 wrote: »

hi peter

this is how my terms and conditions are also set out, but as my case is now worth less than £5000, as my solicitor is saying that the secret commissions etc would now not stand up in a court of law, i am liable to pay back the audit fee of over £2000 back to the solicitor as this can't be claimed back from the lender, even when i questioned this when i first signed i was told not to worry as all costs incurred would be claimed back from the lender, i think that it should have been made clear from the onset that this could have been the case i then perhaps would not have gone down the loancheck route at all.

lesley

SO did it actually state this then when you first signed as you say you questioned it? Who did you question it with? Was it the solicitor or Loancheck? Do you feel you were misled then somewhere and by someone?

petermb_2

lesley65 wrote: »

hi peter

this is how my terms and conditions are also set out, but as my case is now worth less than £5000, as my solicitor is saying that the secret commissions etc would now not stand up in a court of law, i am liable to pay back the audit fee of over £2000 back to the solicitor as this can't be claimed back from the lender, even when i questioned this when i first signed i was told not to worry as all costs incurred would be claimed back from the lender, i think that it should have been made clear from the onset that this could have been the case i then perhaps would not have gone down the loancheck route at all.

lesley

Ah this is where I have a concern and requires looking into. Loancheck have stated that you had a likely claim. The solicitor has agreed that you have a likely claim. Once both have accepted your case as a likely claim and requested that you sign your CFA. I cannot see how they can come back to you for payment because they now believe the law has changed.

The agreement you signed states quite categorically that you will only pay a fee is you win, providing you stick to the terms of the agreement. How did you not stick to the agreement? The Solicitor is now claiming that you do not have a valid claim in excess of £5000 after all. That is hardly your fault?

There was always talk of an unwinding agreement that stated that should the case fail then the fees paid to Loancheck should be repaid to the fund via the solicitor. But Loancheck are no longer there to repay. That is the problem.

I still think the solicitor will have a job to claim it back from you. The agreement does not discuss this and still states that you will pay nothing unless you win.

I will look into this and come back

lesley65

marshallka wrote: »

SO did it actually state this then when you first signed as you say you questioned it? Who did you question it with? Was it the solicitor or Loancheck? Do you feel you were misled then somewhere and by someone?

i quesioned the fact that i would not have to pay any costs, i was told no as that is why there would be an insurance put into place, it said that win or lose that i might be asked to pay the solicitor the audit fees back and when i questioned this i was again told not to worry as all fees are claimed back from the lender. i can't for the life of me remember who the gentleman was representing, loancheck or the solicitors, as it is nearly 2 years ago.

lesley x

lesley65

petermb wrote: »

Ah this is where I have a concern and requires looking into. Loancheck have stated that you had a likely claim. The solicitor has agreed that you have a likely claim. Once both have accepted your case as a likely claim and requested that you sign your CFA. I cannot see how they can come back to you for payment because they now believe the law has changed.

The agreement you signed states quite categorically that you will only pay a fee is you win, providing you stick to the terms of the agreement. How did you not stick to the agreement? The Solicitor is now claiming that you do not have a valid claim in excess of £5000 after all. That is hardly your fault?

There was always talk of an unwinding agreement that stated that should the case fail then the fees paid to Loancheck should be repaid to the fund via the solicitor. But Loancheck are no longer there to repay. That is the problem.

I still think the solicitor will have a job to claim it back from you. The agreement does not discuss this and still states that you will pay nothing unless you win.

I will look into this and come back

Hi peter

my solicitor is neither dawson hart or watsons, i suppose he sees it that although the claim is now not worth £5000 he can still win the reclaiming of the ppi, so hence won the case, so i will have to pay back the audit fee, as he has won the case. or am i being stupid and just not getting it.

lesley

marshallka

lesley65 wrote: »

i quesioned the fact that i would not have to pay any costs, i was told no as that is why there would be an insurance put into place, it said that win or lose that i might be asked to pay the solicitor the audit fees back and when i questioned this i was again told not to worry as all fees are claimed back from the lender. i can't for the life of me remember who the gentleman was representing, loancheck or the solicitors, as it is nearly 2 years ago.

lesley x

So it does actually state in the terms and conditions then that you "may" or "may not" have to pay the audit fee but went ahead and signed cause someone told you that you would definately not cause insurance was in place. This should have been put in writing to you about the clause in the terms. I don't really know how you would stand on that one???