Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

So really everyone is contracted to the solicitor really once they have gone through from Loancheck and accepted they want Loancheck to pass the case over. Is that where Loanchecks (or whoever else passes these cases) liability ends then?

Quite so.

Only the solicitor firm could decide if they thought they had a claim they could win and then sign the client up accordingly.

.

Natalie6999

petermb wrote: »

The man who came round was acting on behalf of the solicitor. Not Loancheck or anyone else. He could not discuss your case as he is not a solicitor so he cannot advise you on your particular circumstances.

His sole purpose is to fully explain the legal documentation and how it works, the fee structure and ensure that you understand what you are signing.

What you were told is important in this current situation.

This issue may be important in these particular cases but I still think that a resolution is in the wording of the agreements themselves.

Talking about fee structures just shows what a joke the Loancheck ethos is, as I have said before there is no such thing as a totally free service. Somewhere along the line there is always something to pay.

petermb_2

Natalie6999 wrote: »

Talking about fee structures just shows what a joke the Loancheck ethos is, as I have said before there is no such thing as a totally free service. Somewhere along the line there is always something to pay.

Natalie, The Access to Justice laws of 2000 allow the claimant to levy their costs to the losing side. That is a basic element of the law. There is no reason why any fees should be paid, win or lose. The client should receive 100% of their compensation without the loss of a penny piece.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

Quite so.

Only the solicitor firm could decide if they thought they had a claim they could win and then sign the client up accordingly.

.

So why would the solicitors RISK so much if they did not know that the cases would win. What went wrong with the cases they though would win? Why didn't they thoroughly check the in's and out's of each case before signing them up or did they rely on Loancheck's say so? This is the bit i don't understand and also didn't they pay for the cases too? Or are they still expecting all these cases to win?

Natalie6999

petermb wrote: »

Natalie, The Access to Justice laws of 2000 allow the claimant to levy their costs to the losing side. That is a basic element of the law. There is no reason why any fees should be paid, win or lose. The client should receive 100% of their compensation without the loss of a penny piece.

So who pays if the case is lost?

Who pays in the emotional sense when cases have not moved in over two years & the client is tied into a contract that they wish they had never entered into due to the bad business management of all concerned with the reclaiming companies.

If these people had any scruples they would release these poor clients from their contracts & let them do their reclaims themselves if they so wish without fear of being sued for breach of contract.

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

So why would the solicitors RISK so much if they did not know that the cases would win. What went wrong with the cases they though would win? Why didn't they thoroughly check the in's and out's of each case before signing them up or did they rely on Loancheck's say so? This is the bit i don't understand and also didn't they pay for the cases too?

They obviously believed when they signed the client up that they could win the case. They would not have taken the case if they thought otherwise. Yes they agreed to pay Loancheck the audit fee, expecting to successfully claim it back from the other side.

petermb_2

Natalie6999 wrote: »

So who pays if the case is lost?

Who pays in the emotional sense when cases have not moved in over two years & the client is tied into a contract that they wish they had never entered into due to the bad business management of all concerned with the reclaiming companies.

If these people had any scruples they would release these poor clients from their contracts & let them do their reclaims themselves if they so wish without fear of being sued for breach of contract.

To your first paragraph I say to you that anyone who introduced cases to Loancheck did so in absolute good faith.

To paragraph 2, I say that I wholeheartedly agree with you 100%

Natalie6999

Why when it has been shown that the so called Free claims management service has been proved not to work are you still involved in the recruitment of clients & recruiters for companies that advertise a totally free service?

In the sales pitch the companies talk about Single premium PPI being identified as one huge scam, if that is so, what is the so called Free claims Management industry?

I haven't noticed this forum being over burdened with praise for these companies either.

petermb_2

Natalie6999 wrote: »

Why when it has been shown that the so called Free claims management service has been proved not to work are you still involved in the recruitment of clients & recruiters for companies that advertise a totally free service?

In the sales pitch the companies talk about Single premium PPI being identified as one huge scam, if that is so, what is the so called Free claims Management industry?

I haven't noticed this forum being over burdened with praise for these companies either.

Your comments are inaccurate and not worthy of further comment.

Natalie6999

petermb wrote: »

Your comments are inaccurate and not worthy of further comment.

Then why not back up your claims with facts & figures of how many claims have actually been dealt with to a conclusion that is satisfactory to the client, how many claims are still waiting to be dealt with & how long on average have the clients been waiting for their cases to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.