Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

It is really Marshallka. From what I understand that is what these companies were telling them to do to pay buy card and then live off the card till it was up to its limit then claim it back as unenforceable. ~0~

Its actually asking someone to commit fraud but I blame the people that did it just as much as cartel. Just cause someone tells you of a way of commiting a crime does not mean that they hold a gun to your head to do it. The act still comes from the clients doing it. BOTH client and Cartel are actually in the wrong.

I have seen workers saying they were duped also. Also posting how they were "told" to do things this way and it was a job etc. Now to me they had a choice as to lead a client up the garden path and a lot of the agents knew just what they were doing also in duping clients. It seems to me that lots that were duping were also duped in the end but as the saying goes, what goes around comes around.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Its actually asking someone to commit fraud but I blame the people that did it just as much as cartel. Just cause someone tells you of a way of commiting a crime does not mean that they hold a gun to your head to do it. The act still comes from the clients doing it. BOTH client and Cartel are actually in the wrong.

I have seen workers saying they were duped also. Also posting how they were "told" to do things this way and it was a job etc. Now to me they had a choice as to lead a client up the garden path and a lot of the agents knew just what they were doing also in duping clients. It seems to me that lots that were duping were also duped in the end but as the saying goes, what goes around comes around.

Yes I see what you are saying. The claim back your credit card balance was offered to me too I have to say. I did not go down that line I just wanted to claim back the PPI for the people I was helping.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Some info here on phonenix companies.


PAGE 93 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.54 There is nothing in itself illegal or improper about directors of a failed company walking away and trying again with a brand new company. There is likewise nothing illegal about a new company being formed which has a very similar name to a company which has been dissolved. Nonetheless the law sees it as being against both the public interest and commercial ethics for directors of an insolvent company to continue their business activities in circumstances where they appear to be trying to delude past and prospective clients and customers into thinking that the defunct business is continuing. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.55 A new company which is formed in these circumstances is often referred to as a ‘phoenix company’ because of the false impression it creates that a company has risen intact from the flames of insolvency. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.56 Special safeguards exist to prevent directors of companies that have gone out of business from becoming involved in phoenix companies. Where a director becomes involved with such a company he or she will commit a criminal offence and may also be made personally liable for the debts of that company. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.57 Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court: [/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]

PAGE 94 [FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]10.59 It must also be borne in mind that the restrictions on directors apply not only to acting in respect of new companies formed after another company has gone into liquidation – this is the common understanding of the term ‘phoenix company’. The restrictions apply equally to acting in respect of existing companies and businesses. This means that persons who have been directors of two companies with similar names may find themselves in breach of section 216 once one of the two companies goes into insolvent liquidation. The restrictions can, therefore, have particular ramifications for group companies, many of which will have very similar names. [/FONT][/FONT]

Under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986, certain restrictions on future activity are placed on persons who have been directors or shadow directors of companies at any time during the 12-month period leading up to the entry of those companies into insolvent liquidation. Such persons may not, within a five year period beginning on the date of entry into liquidation, be associated with any company or business that carries on its business under a ‘prohibited name’ without the leave of the court. A name is a ‘prohibited name’ if it is either the corporate name or trading name of the company that went into liquidation or a name so similar as to suggest an association with that company. Specifically, a person subject to these restrictions must not, without leave of the court:
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• be a director of any other company which is known by a prohibited name either in its corporate name [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]or business name[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation, [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]management of any such company[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]• in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned in or take part in the carrying on of business [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT][FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]carried on by an unincorporated body under a prohibited name. [/FONT]
[FONT=NewsGoth BT,NewsGoth BT]A person who infringes these rules commits an offence (section 216 IA 86). [/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT]

I do not understand the above how did loancheck keep opening up under similar names. Perhaps they used their wives names or sons names or how do they do it. Or do they take another director on as in a name and become a sleeping partner.

maxdp

So was this one of the major investors of Loancheck

Dated 4th March 2009 also one for Luxembourg dated couple of days later. Surely investors can get their money back from these other international Loancheck companies. I do not really understand this but would be grateful if somebody does.

LOANCHECK SA completes its successful bridge financing round

LoanCheck SA today announced that it had successfully raised the full round of bridge finance from Thomas Lloyd Secured Finance Fund. This capital will be used to further grow its litigation finance subsidiary, Ascot Legal Services.
LoanCheck is the leading supplier of forensic information and audit services for borrowers in the United Kingdom. Through its operating subsidiary, Severn Administration Ltd, the company operates 'www.loancheck.co.uk'. At no initial cost, the website Allows borrowers to Check Whether they have been correctly charged fees and interest on any mortgage or consumer loan. Should there be cause for a claim, then the company offers a range of services to help consumers seek redress.
In late 2008, the company extended its business model into the provision of finance litigation, in order to help less fortunate claimants secure pre-financing of their legal costs. The company believes that in the current economic climate, this is a key service. As Tim Hadley, CEO of SA LoanCheck says, 'We aim to make justice affordable for everyone. "
This new round of finance will enable Ascot Legal Services to increase its funding to solicitors, who take up these cases of mis-sold and mis-priced consumer loans and mortgages. Says Michael Thomas Lloyd victory of the Secured Finance Fund, 'We were very excited when first introduced to LoanCheck. It offers a very important social service to many people, at their time of greatest need and greatest vulnerability. "

maxdp

More information on Loancheck International.................

http://www.loancheck.eu/downloads.asp

marshallka

Companies Court Winding Up List 3 March 2010

It is emphasised that the following list is provisional and subject to change until 4.30pm. Any alterations after this time will be telephoned or emailed direct to the parties or their legal representatives.

THE DAILY LIST
COMPANIES COURT

Court 4

Main Building
First Floor East

Before

Registrar Barber

on

Wednesday 3 March 2010

ROBED

at

10:30am

17372 /2009 Thomaslloyd Group Plc

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

Do not know if it has all been spent Marshallka really, that was just a throw away comment. They usually have enough to open their next business but not enough to refund their investors.

Was told it was an Executor of a fund and perhaps they may reveal themselves on here, or not, perhaps they like to help in the background.

The investors between them have lost about £4.5m in Loancheck (at least).

Also, they started charging clients last year - how many of these have been re-paid?

maxdp

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The investors between them have lost about £4.5m in Loancheck (at least).

Also, they started charging clients last year - how many of these have been re-paid?

Thomas what do you mean when you are saying they started charging clients last year. Who Did and how did they charge their clients. Who were the clients Us? Also the how many of these have been repaid. Do you mean the investors or the clients. Sorry am sure it makes sense to you just want to make it clear. Thank you.

That is a huge amount to lose. Where THomas do you think all this money has gone? Have the directors milked this off or do you think this is running costs and also promises that do not happen. ?

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The investors between them have lost about £4.5m in Loancheck (at least).

Also, they started charging clients last year - how many of these have been re-paid?

The investors are the ones I feel sorry for most in all of this. Investing into a company that seemingly fake. I say that cause if all the information that was given in press releases and interviews was actually true then these companies would still be standing now wouldn't they.

As regards loancheck charging clients is this the company still trading now being yourloancheck or another one??

marshallka

I hope we are not going to see an interview like this one but from the Loancheck directors instead over the insurance on the clients cases

When was Wright aware that CCLS hadn't taken out indemnity insurance covering the Cartel cases it to the High Court last November?
At the 11th second of the 11th minute of the 11th hour.
There was a conference with the barristers, several meetings over three days leading up to November 13 and it was during that time that it became evident that the ATE cover ("after-the-event insurance") for those particular cases wasn't in place.
Gobsmacked was the expression I would give. When an introducer passes a case to a solicitor, if there's a requirement for ATE insurance, it is normally put in place. My understanding was always that would be in place.
When it got to that point, the people running the cases needed to decide whether to proceed with those cases or not. What was sought at that time was the advice of the barristers of the merits of the case, ie whether they were going to win or not.
On the back of that, it was decided that it was in the best interest to proceed because the costs had already been racked up in the previous months.
It was the right thing, in my opinion, to proceed at that point.
And also I think it is important to note that in the majority of those cases the costs, if everything had been done in the right way, would have been awarded against the banks due to their conduct of the cases.


http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2010/03/carl-wright-the-interview.html