Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

petermb_2

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

Without doubt the agent was acting on behalf of the solicitor not Loancheck.
if you were not told the correct information at the time then the solicitor cannot come back to you later.

petermb_2

lesley65 wrote: »

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

hi lesley,

Are you with First Legal? That is the only agreement I do not have a copy of as they came on board after I and the Loancheck project parted company.

marshallka

lesley65 wrote: »

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

But lesley ALL the solicitors if they had similar terms and conditions could do exactly the same BUT most were led to believe from the beginning that there would be MORE to claim going this route as they had been "done" out of so much more. It would have been very tempting to someone in extreme financial difficulties to take this route for more money back. IF you had known that you would have had to pay solicitors fees back (this audit fee) for JUST a PPI claim then surely there was no way that MOST would have gone through Loancheck. Its very difficult to see exactly what is going on and what went on but it is plain to see that people have been misled somewhere.

maxdp

petermb wrote: »

Without doubt the agent was acting on behalf of the solicitor not Loancheck.
if you were not told the correct information at the time then the solicitor cannot come back to you later.

Peter

Do you mean the AGENT who came round and went through the paperwork etc and verified who you were and got you to sign on the dotted line?

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Peter

Do you mean the AGENT who came round and went through the paperwork etc and verified who you were and got you to sign on the dotted line?

So do you mean that there are more people involved in this? Who were the ones who got you to sign on the dotted line then? What company was this then?

How did all this work then for like the people from this site that were signed up? You get someone from this site that tells you they know of a company that can get you more than just the PPI and its all for free. They tell you the timescale of 9 months - who is this agent(s) working for?

Next thing do you get "another" AGENT calling on you to sign on the dotted line - who is this agent working for?

Next you have a contract with a solicitor who must have a contact with Loancheck somehow but also must have a relationship/contract with the first two agents too?

Who pays who? Who misled who if anyone was misled and if they have not been misled then why do people think they have been?

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

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

It's against Law Society rules for Watsons to do this?

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

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???

But if the work undertaken in the audit incorrectly stated that you had a claim i.e. it was over £5000 then the advice was negligent.

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

Peter

Do you mean the AGENT who came round and went through the paperwork etc and verified who you were and got you to sign on the dotted line?

Loancheck used Agents to introduce the work to them in the first place and then, after the solicitor accepted the case, took the solicitors paperwork round to the client.

Sometimes this was the same person

petermb_2

maxdp wrote: »

Peter

Do you mean the AGENT who came round and went through the paperwork etc and verified who you were and got you to sign on the dotted line?

Yes. That agent was working on behalf of the solicitor and should have explained the entire process to you. If he assured you that you would pay nothing under any circumstances then the solicitor will have great difficulty in claiming any fees back.

In addition I am sure you would have the opportunity to seek the advice of a cost judge to ascertain if those fees were reasonable and true. It would have to be established that the audit fee was an acceptable disbursement because the agreement states the solicitor could only reclaim from you his disbursements should he decide the case would not be successful.
I am checking this out tomorrow

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

Yes. That agent was working on behalf of the solicitor and should have explained the entire process to you. If he assured you that you would pay nothing under any circumstances then the solicitor will have great difficulty in claiming any fees back.

In addition I am sure you would have the opportunity to seek the advice of a cost judge to ascertain if those fees were reasonable and true. It would have to be established that the audit fee was an acceptable disbursement because the agreement states the solicitor could only reclaim from you his disbursements should he decide the case would not be successful.
I am checking this out tomorrow

Well what agent were you petermb or anyone else that worked for you recruting clients from here? I realise you say you did not work for Loancheck but you referred clients to them didn't you? Who was your contract with? This is so confusing as to who is to blame for what.

Going by how the FSA and FOS (unlike loancheck) work the person that sells the PPI to you is to blame in a PPI contract BUT they need to be regulated and if not then try the insurer direction. If this was the same with these complaints now about the Loancheck saga then this would revert back to the one that "sold" you to them BUT Loancheck do not work like that do they. They say that the person that makes the most money, the lender, is ultimately to blame. I wonder whether they would have the same stance in their own complaints. Would they revert the blame back to the ones that sell to the clients??