Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

maxdp

Ministry of Justice Claims Management Regulator Fact Sheet – Suspended or cancelled business

This may be of interest, I don't believe it has been linked on here before, if so I apologise to whomever posted it.

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Consumer%20factsheet%20(suspended%20or%20cancelled)%20v2.pdf


Claims Management Regulator Fact Sheet – delays in providing a service
https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Consumer%20Factsheet%20(delay%20in%20service).pdf

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Ministry of Justice Claims Management Regulator Fact Sheet – Suspended or cancelled business

This may be of interest, I don't believe it has been linked on here before, if so I apologise to whomever posted it.

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Consumer%20factsheet%20(suspended%20or%20cancelled)%20v2.pdf


Claims Management Regulator Fact Sheet – delays in providing a service
https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/Consumer%20Factsheet%20(delay%20in%20service).pdf

So did you actually sign anything with the firms like Loancheck or whoever? I thought that the contracts were with the solicitor so would be nothing to do with MOJ. I thought that the SRA dealt with solicitors.

I know that most clients from here were introduced to Loancheck who did an audit. If loancheck "thought" you had a claim then they passed your details over to a solicitor (IF you agreed!!) and from then on it was over to the ex policemen to come around with all the documents to sign from the solicitor. (off premises and at your home!) and then you read through the terms and conditions of the actual contract and signed. I would think then that your only complaint would be against the solicitor???

It is totally different with Loancheck and Cartel as Cartel did have contract with the client (ie the money up front) but Loancheck did not. They only introduced you didn't they as petermb says. I am not saying that the introducing was right but I would think that this argument goes with the solicitor and loancheck and not client and loancheck. If the solicitor is asking for the audit fee from the client now then it would only be correct IF you actually pulled out from what yourself and others have posted. If you think that it has gone on too long then you can complain to the SRA and something should be done to release you from the contract or pass you over. I feel sorry for all those that were duped by Cartel as they have actually lost money as well as their claims too. The only thing that Loancheck "clients" have lost is the data and also time to take the complaint elsewhere from posts on here. Loancheck are still trading aren't they although not the one that most clients signed up to from here I would think????????? Just a shame it was allowed to happen on here and that so many helped in letting it.

maxdp

No but you allow their agents who work for loancheck get your details and do a first check. Petermb looked at the documents before it went official to see whether the case was worth chasing. Since he worked for loancheck then surely your initial contract is with them. Is this a verbal contract which is legally binding? By the time it has gone to the solicitors it has had other audits and you then sign on with the Solicitor. Or that is how I see it. I wonder if you did not sign when the solicitors agents came round and backed out then would there be an audit fee with loancheck or petermb that you would have had to pay?

Do not know just putting this into the pot really.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

No but you allow their agents who work for loancheck get your details and do a first check. Petermb looked at the documents before it went official to see whether the case was worth chasing. Since he worked for loancheck then surely your initial contract is with them. By the time it has gone to the solicitors it has had other audits and you then sign on with the Solicitor. Or that is how I see it. I wonder if you did not sign when the solicitors agents came round and backed out then would there be an audit fee with loancheck or petermb that you would have had to pay.

Do not know just putting this into the pot really.

In this solicitors guide to loancheck (Severn Administration- changed name to Salop management????) it says

The Procedure (Solicitor Involvement Stage)

The Solicitor is sent the Risk Assessment(s) in pre agreed batches. Provided free of charge to the Solicitor.
The Solicitor is under no obligation to accept any individual Case. We do ask for an explanation of the reasons for rejection to assist in development and the dissemination of ‘best practice’, but a decision is required within 3 working days.
Upon review and acceptance by the Solicitor the legal process is implemented.
(Appendix B Chronology)

The Legal process encouraged by Severn relies on the implementation of a CFA, and associated ATE Insurance.

Insurance.

ATE Insurance is provided by a Severn authorised Insurance Company.
Funding
Funding is available.

Home visit / Investigation – Identification Check – case monitoring.
Severn also arranges for the completion of services integral to the LoanCheck process.


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.


Secondary Services
Severn will be happy, upon request, to facilitate the involvement of either its in house legal team, retained Solicitor, or Counsel. No obligation is placed upon the Solicitor to utilise the retained Counsel Chambers at point of issue or otherwise.

http://wakabayashifund.com/Solicitors_Guide_to_LoanCheck.pdf

marshallka

The above document goes onto say

The Nature and Recoverability of the Payment to LoanCheck

Audit Fee £1800.00 plus VAT (funded) – balance deferred to completion.
The issue relates to the Audit Fee and any subsequent sums paid to investigate the matter, as the Audit Fee can vary according to the complexity of the case.
The issues for consideration are whether this is recoverable under the ATE in whole or in part as a genuine disbursement and in so considering to determine whether or not LoanCheck are
also acting as experts. Following Callery v Gray disbursements can be recovered under an ATE.

In theory solicitors could employ accountants to investigate these types of cases, but at a considerably higher cost. They choose LoanCheck because they have developed a unique
sophisticated software which no one else has and it is both costeffective and sensible therefore to employ them. It is, on one view, no different from a solicitor choosing someone with a particular expertise or tool or software in any other field to provide a report.

Moreover, LoanCheck are not acting as a solicitor agent so there is no question of the fee being part of the solicitor’s profit costs. The fees paid to LoanCheck are paid by the solicitor as agent for the client which, provided the solicitor obtains the client’s prior consent, would be recoverable as an ordinary disbursement. In this case the sums are expended after the solicitor accepts the client as a client. Whether they are fees for expert’s reports or just ordinary disbursements, an audit fee is recoverable, as are any subsequent charges that are justifiable and proportionate. It is certainly necessary for the solicitor to outsource the work
to someone with specialist knowledge, and this would apply in all cases, thus the cost should pass the test of necessity. The LoanCheck report is clearly necessary because it would be
impossible to pursue the case without it.

As the fees charged by LoanCheck are significantly lower than the cost of forensic accountants, they should meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality as they are not excessive.

Whether LoanCheck are acting as experts and whether or not they could be called to give evidence, or whether they are just providing an expert service, does not matter provided that
LoanCheck hold themselves out as providing both services, as both are recoverable disbursements.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

In this solicitors guide to loancheck (Severn Administration- changed name to Salop management????) it says

The Procedure (Solicitor Involvement Stage)

The Solicitor is sent the Risk Assessment(s) in pre agreed batches. Provided free of charge to the Solicitor.
The Solicitor is under no obligation to accept any individual Case. We do ask for an explanation of the reasons for rejection to assist in development and the dissemination of ‘best practice’, but a decision is required within 3 working days.
Upon review and acceptance by the Solicitor the legal process is implemented.
(Appendix B Chronology)

The Legal process encouraged by Severn relies on the implementation of a CFA, and associated ATE Insurance.

Insurance.

ATE Insurance is provided by a Severn authorised Insurance Company.
Funding
Funding is available.

Home visit / Investigation – Identification Check – case monitoring.
Severn also arranges for the completion of services integral to the LoanCheck process.


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.


Secondary Services
Severn will be happy, upon request, to facilitate the involvement of either its in house legal team, retained Solicitor, or Counsel. No obligation is placed upon the Solicitor to utilise the retained Counsel Chambers at point of issue or otherwise.

http://wakabayashifund.com/Solicitors_Guide_to_LoanCheck.pdf

Yes you are quite right with that but that is in the later stages what abouut the preliminary checks made by Protected Investments. They audit in the very first place to see whether it can go on to loancheck. If that is the case the you have an agreement with protected investment as the preliminary investigators into the case. If they tell you that you have a case then surely the preliminary contract is with them.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

The above document goes onto say

The Nature and Recoverability of the Payment to LoanCheck

Audit Fee £1800.00 plus VAT (funded) – balance deferred to completion.
The issue relates to the Audit Fee and any subsequent sums paid to investigate the matter, as the Audit Fee can vary according to the complexity of the case.
The issues for consideration are whether this is recoverable under the ATE in whole or in part as a genuine disbursement and in so considering to determine whether or not LoanCheck are
also acting as experts. Following Callery v Gray disbursements can be recovered under an ATE.

In theory solicitors could employ accountants to investigate these types of cases, but at a considerably higher cost. They choose LoanCheck because they have developed a unique
sophisticated software which no one else has and it is both costeffective and sensible therefore to employ them. It is, on one view, no different from a solicitor choosing someone with a particular expertise or tool or software in any other field to provide a report.

Moreover, LoanCheck are not acting as a solicitor agent so there is no question of the fee being part of the solicitor’s profit costs. The fees paid to LoanCheck are paid by the solicitor as agent for the client which, provided the solicitor obtains the client’s prior consent, would be recoverable as an ordinary disbursement. In this case the sums are expended after the solicitor accepts the client as a client. Whether they are fees for expert’s reports or just ordinary disbursements, an audit fee is recoverable, as are any subsequent charges that are justifiable and proportionate. It is certainly necessary for the solicitor to outsource the work
to someone with specialist knowledge, and this would apply in all cases, thus the cost should pass the test of necessity. The LoanCheck report is clearly necessary because it would be
impossible to pursue the case without it.

As the fees charged by LoanCheck are significantly lower than the cost of forensic accountants, they should meet the criteria of reasonableness and proportionality as they are not excessive.

Whether LoanCheck are acting as experts and whether or not they could be called to give evidence, or whether they are just providing an expert service, does not matter provided that
LoanCheck hold themselves out as providing both services, as both are recoverable disbursements.

As I have already explained in the contracts you are not warned specifically about disbursements but Protected Investments where quite specific in their office aka ELAINE that you should expect disbursements which I now understand is the Interest on the Loan that they have to fund the case. This was not explained in any other paperwork. This was verbally by Protected Ivestments and I was told that this would be up to 300.00 as disbursements. I have said this before and that is what I was told but that is not what other people seem to be aware of.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Yes you are quite right with that but that is in the later stages what abouut the preliminary checks made by Protected Investments. They audit in the very first place to see whether it can go on to loancheck. If that is the case the you have an agreement with protected investment as the preliminary investigators into the case. If they tell you that you have a case then surely the preliinary contract is with them.

Oh I see, Its not the loancheck contract you are on about. Its the one with Protected investments?? I have no idea on this one maxdp. Its all so confusing. Too many firms involved for anyone to be able to tell who the complaint lies with if you had one. This is worse than broker/lender/insurer!!!

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

Oh I see, Its not the loancheck contract you are on about. Its the one with Protected investments?? I have no idea on this one maxdp. Its all so confusing. Too many firms involved for anyone to be able to tell who the complaint lies with if you had one. This is worse than broker/lender/insurer!!!

For clarity, Loancheck was a brand that had several firms operating under it.

Protected Investments (PI) was the company that until Summer 2008 introduced a lot of work to Loancheck.

Clients were retained by PI and passed to Loancheck (Severn Administration) for assessment.

When PI went into liquidation the files were acquired by Severn Administration from the PI offices but many of them were not processed.

Loancheck (Severn Administration) then started taking on their own clients directly and worked via a large introducer network that had originally worked with PI.

From February 2009 the introducers were re-contracted to The Loancheck Foundation who started retaining the clients and passed them onto Severn Administration. When Severn Administration went into Administration in Summer 2009 The Loancheck Foundation started doing the assessment work themselves.

Many of the clients were eventually passed on to solicitors and the solicitors entered into a no-win, no-fee arrangement with them.

The solicitors also had a contract with Loancheck who would provide a report on each case as part of the deal.

The solicitors took out a loan on each case to enable them to pay the Loancheck fee which was in the order of £2000 plus VAT for each case.

This fee was repayable by Loancheck in the event that the case did not progress.

marshallka

If the solicitors had to pay an audit fee to Loancheck for the cases of about £2k per case and as such "zero" cases have been completed (except the one we know of on here) then how much would the solicitors be outstanding up to now? How much was paid over to Loancheck etc in all and why have they gone bump??? Whose fault is it that the cases are not going to court? If Loancheck had to pay the fee back to the solicitors if the cases did not progress then how can this be done as the loancheck company, severn administration are in administration or can they claim it back from the company still trading??? Also where did the solicitors get their money from to pay over to loancheck in the first place? Won't they be repaying that back now? What a mess.