Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

maxdp

By signing the letter and sending it back that is the agreement that the Policy will be taken out. If they have not done so that is their fault. Do not know about ascot it was only given to them for "safekeeping" the policy was not cancelled so must be in place. If it is not it is without agreement by the client so surely the Solicitor is at fault. Or that is how I see it.

On my other case we are awaiting a court date after a query with the Barrister is settled. The barrister is also working under a CFA.

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

By signing the letter and sending it back that is the agreement that the Policy will be taken out. If they have not done so that is their fault. Do not know about ascot it was only given to them for "safekeeping" the policy was not cancelled so must be in place. If it is not it is without agreement by the client so surely the Solicitor is at fault. Or that is how I see it.

On my other case we are awaiting a court date after a query with the Barrister is settled. The barrister is also working under a CFA.

The client is not responsible for the loan - the ATE policy covers the disbursements - the loan monies are used to pay for these disbursements.

Clients need to

1. Check with the ATE provider to see if the insurance is still in place.
2. Check to see if the disbursements paid for by the solicitor using the loan are covered by the policy

maxdp

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The client is not responsible for the loan - the ATE policy covers the disbursements - the loan monies are used to pay for these disbursements.

Clients need to

1. Check with the ATE provider to see if the insurance is still in place.
2. Check to see if the disbursements paid for by the solicitor using the loan are covered by the policy

Thomas thanks for that. It says on mine that the disbursements are paid win or lose BUT it you win you may be liable for the interest on the loan that the Solicitors take out. If that makes sense.

Also why do you think a (Loancheck) Solicitor would ignore formal complaints even thought they go to the SRA. Surely it is best to sort them out before they get there?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Must be completely different then to what they now state in the Loancheck eu document. Also if the policy is assigned to Ascot and Ascot is no more what now? How can you check the policies were actually taken out? Also wonder if moo cow had the same letter.

Marshallka

Mine started off like that but then an updated letter when it obviously got through the first couple of audits to say ATE insurance would then be taken out. Do not know if moo cow got that far?

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The client is not responsible for the loan - the ATE policy covers the disbursements - the loan monies are used to pay for these disbursements.

Clients need to

1. Check with the ATE provider to see if the insurance is still in place.
2. Check to see if the disbursements paid for by the solicitor using the loan are covered by the policy

But moo cow said that the solicitor did not take any insurance out on their behalf and stated this

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.

Does this mean in some cases loans were taken out in clients names and no insurance????

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Marshallka

Mine started off like that but then an updated letter when it obviously got through the first couple of audits to say ATE insurance would then be taken out. Do not know if moo cow got that far?

Moo cow stated this earlier

moo cow
MoneySaving Stalwart


Join Date: Mar 2008
Post Count: 222
Thanked 209 Times in 115 Posts



Quote:
Originally Posted by marshallka
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.


From that post it looks like things got very near!!!!

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Moo cow stated this earlier

moo cow
MoneySaving Stalwart


Join Date: Mar 2008
Post Count: 222
Thanked 209 Times in 115 Posts



Quote:
Originally Posted by marshallka
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.


From that post it looks like things got very near!!!!

Don't know then Marshallka I have gone through the Paperwork here and they have stated that by the letter being signed they would proceed with the insurance up to that time I do not think they actually did much rather than send out standard letters mostly photocopied by the looks of it too. I know that it had to be audited by Loancheck etc, perhaps they did not have to take on costs until they formally accepted the Cases. I am not really sure I only know the bits I have in front of me here really. Perhaps there was another letter after but on this one they would only take the insurance out if they could establish that other insurances were not in place e.g. household, car insurance, professional cover etc.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Don't know then Marshallka I have gone through the Paperwork here and they have stated that by the letter being signed they would proceed with the insurance up to that time I do not think they actually did much rather than send out standard letters mostly photocopied by the looks of it too. I know that it had to be audited by Loancheck etc, perhaps they did not have to take on costs until they formally accepted the Cases. I am not really sure I only know the bits I have in front of me here really. Perhaps there was another letter after but on this one they would only take the insurance out if they could establish that other insurances were not in place e.g. household, car insurance, professional cover etc.

What I mean as in moo cows case above it stated in her/his letter that no insurance was actually needed until proceedings were made BUT in the document above of Loancheck eu it states that in order for the solicitor to pay loanchecks first audit fee they take out a loan in the clients name. If this is correct and how they did it with clients on here then it sounds like the client has a loan in their name to cover the audit fee BUT if proceedings are not likely to go ahead for some reason then no insurance will be taken out until they do. Does this mean the loans taken out in clients names are not insured???????

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The client is not responsible for the loan - the ATE policy covers the disbursements - the loan monies are used to pay for these disbursements.

Clients need to

1. Check with the ATE provider to see if the insurance is still in place.
2. Check to see if the disbursements paid for by the solicitor using the loan are covered by the policy

IF the ATE policy was actually taken out but in moo cows case i think they were told that this would not be taken out until proceedings were to be issued? What would happen if no insurance was taken out? Who would be liable for the audit fees paid to loancheck IF the loan is in the clients name. How would you stand legally? Wasn't there something about Cartel and insurance and the clients????

Former_MSE_Guy

Hi Folks,

We have noticed many posts about Loancheck and it is a situation we would like to look into. So please report good or bad experiences you have had with this company to [EMAIL="investigation@moneysavingexpert.com"]investigation@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

Please include the following:

1) a brief outline of your story (what happened? was your issue resolved? what is the latest as of today - or the day you're writing?)
2) a daytime telephone number.
3) if you would be happy to feature as a case study on this site.

Kind regards,
Guy