Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

moo_cow wrote: »

It then goes on to say:
As with the costs in general, you remain ulimately responsible for paying our success fee.
You agree to pay into a designated account any cheque recieved by you or by us from your opponent and made payable to you. Out of the money, you agree to let us take the balance of the basic charges; success fee; insurance premium; our remaining disbursements; and VAT.
you take the rest.
We are allowed to keep any interest your opponent pays on the charges.

Barristers who do not have a conditional fee agreement with us

If you win, then you will normally be entitled to recover all or part of their fee from your opponent. If you lose, then you must pay their fee.

Another section which leaps out at me

we can end this agreement early if we believe you are unlikely to win. If this happens, you will only have to pay our disbursements.These will include barristers' fees if the barrister does not have a conditional fee agreement with us.

So it clearly states that there were charges for all of this or am I missing something?

moo_cow

Just been having a look at the disbursements. these are:

After the event (ATE) insurance premium

court fees

experts' fees


audit fees

travelling expenses.

marshallka

moo_cow wrote: »

[QUOTE=marshallka;30994095]From how it looks from the outside looking in Watsons do appear to be victims in all of this too if they stand to lose out on their audit fees.

What I cannot understand is why people are at threat of legal fees IF their contract says otherwise. I am not on about what the sales person told you (as they are only wanting your signature) but if the contract says for definate that there are no fees at all and all fees/everything is covered by the insurance etc then how can they now say they charge???

What do these contracts actually say about fees? Do they say "you could be" charged a fee? I remember someone posting what their contract said and I will try and find it.

Info from my contract

what do I pay if I lose?
if you lose, you pay your opponents charges and disbursements. You may be able to take out an insurance policy against this risk. (I was told this was being done on my behalf) If you lose, you do not pay our charges but we may require you to pay our disbursements.


The insurance policy.
It is my considered opinion that at this stage there is no requirement for an insurance policy to be incepted as there is no risk on costs until proceedings are issued. therefore, prior to the point of issue or at any given time, an appropriate contract of insurance will be put in place to cover your opponent's charges and disbursements in case you lose.
This is because;
We need to establish that you do not have an existing or satisfactory insurance that would cover the cost of making this claim, following which;

The insurance will cover;
(a) the costs of the other party in the event that the claim fails, to a maximum of £25,000;
(b) all your disbursements if your claim fails.[/QUOTE]
Did you get it in writing about the insurance being taken on your behalf?

moo_cow

marshallka wrote: »

So it clearly states that there were charges for all of this or am I missing something?

By the looks of things yes. Yet, We were 'verbally' told by Elaine etc that the worst case scenario was that we would have to pay a couple of hundred. Apparently, no one ever has to pay anything as the insurance covers everything. So we were very much under the impression that the insurance would cover us in EVERY eventuality. At the time I wasn't very clued up at all on this. I'm ashamed to say that I believed every word of the people I spoke to. When I questioned things much later with severn, I was told things were moving nicely, I had no reason to worry about costs or anything else as I would be covered and also that they were looking to wrap one of them up soon. In fact i was actually told and I also have the letter from Watson's to say that they were making an application for a court date. That was almost a year ago..................:eek:

Again, it goes back to how much I trusted these people and their reassurance about these costs. If i'd have hung around this site for a little longer i'd have never in a million years gone with these cowboys.

moo_cow

.[/QUOTE]
Did you get it in writing about the insurance being taken on your behalf?[/QUOTE]


Actually, I have never recieved any confirmation that an insurance policy had in fact been taken out.

I read this and think how the hell could I have been so gullible? I was assured time and time again that my costs would come from the other side and the insurance would cover everything else etc etc. Being brutally honest with you, it's only now that things have gone pear shaped that I realise how bad things could potentially be. This is why I HAVE to see my complaint through to the end. I have contacted bbc's watchdog but never heard back. I don't thin k there are enough complaints going in. If everyone reading this who is a victim of this mess
gets in touch with watchdog then I think we may just get heard.

esmerellda

Who was loancheck's ''in house barrister'' ?

Steven Turner ? I know David Wilby QC did an opinion for them at the beginning before they secured funding from wakabayashifund

marshallka

esmerellda wrote: »

Who was loancheck's ''in house barrister'' ?

It is written in some loancheck document somewhere. I will try and find it.

marshallka

esmerellda wrote: »

Who was loancheck's ''in house barrister'' ?

Steven Turner ? I know David Wilby QC did an opinion for them at the beginning before they secured funding from wakabayashifund

Cannot find anything but thought I had read something previous. obviously not.

A few names here but nothing about an inhouse barrister

http://www.loancheck.eu/pdfs/FA%20Simms%20Independent%20Audit%20and%20Due%20Diligence%20Report%20into%20Loancheck%20Group.pdf

maxdp

Found this
An updated version of the generic advice covering all aspects of the relevant issues identified by LoanCheck and originally provided by leading Queens Counsel, David Wilby QC, and latterly updated by Counsel – Steven Turner, a specialist in Consumer Law and Litigation.

Some of ST experience
Litigation Funding
Considerable expertise in the recent law relating to funding arrangements and associated after-the-event insurance policies. Instructions have involved:
• Advising upon the enforceability of scheme documentation used by large accident management organisations.
• Advising solicitor clients in respect of the enforceability of conditional fee retainers and upon the application of the indemnity principle.
• Appearing as advocate at detailed assessment hearings, particularly with a view to defending challenges to the enforceability of CFAs and the recoverability of the ATE premium.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Found this
An updated version of the generic advice covering all aspects of the relevant issues identified by LoanCheck and originally provided by leading Queens Counsel, David Wilby QC, and latterly updated by Counsel – Steven Turner, a specialist in Consumer Law and Litigation.

Some of ST experience
Litigation Funding
Considerable expertise in the recent law relating to funding arrangements and associated after-the-event insurance policies. Instructions have involved:
• Advising upon the enforceability of scheme documentation used by large accident management organisations.
• Advising solicitor clients in respect of the enforceability of conditional fee retainers and upon the application of the indemnity principle.
• Appearing as advocate at detailed assessment hearings, particularly with a view to defending challenges to the enforceability of CFAs and the recoverability of the ATE premium.

There was another document on the internet that mentioned quite a few names and I am sure that a "qc" was mentioned and other "ex policemen" etc.... trying to find it now.