Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

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. ?

They started a Gold service early last year where they charged new clients [FONT=&quot]£199+VAT [/FONT]

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

They started a Gold service early last year where they charged new clients [FONT=&quot]£199+VAT [/FONT]

About LoanCheck SA Luxembourg

Listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange, ISIN LU0374350667, LoanCheck
SA Luxembourg is a leading provider of forensic research into
consumer loans and mortgages. Through it subsidiary, Ascot Legal
Services Ltd, the company also provides litigation finance to Lawyers
for disbursements associated with a case, which enables the firm to
represent a consumer client with a strong claim against their
lender. It is important to LoanCheck that the consumer is not put
under any further financial stress in the process of pursuing the
case to conclusion. To complement the case finance supplied by Ascot
Legal Services Ltd the Lawyer is responsible for insuring the case
against loss, therefore and in turn, securing the repayment of the
litigation finance.

The company was originally founded in 2007 and listed on the
Frankfurt Exchange in the summer of 2008. Most recently, the company
has launched 2 new services; the LoanCheck Gold Service, for clients
seeking faster redress, and the Payment Protection Insurance
Service. The PPI service is a direct response to client feedback and
dissatisfaction with this discredited product.

This service was for a faster redress, yeah right!!!!!

marshallka

Millwallpaul, as promised I would post on site for you. Just pm'd you back but maybe better for you to read here.

Your lender was Firstplus. Your broker was the famous Bespoke untouchables in GIB and Freedom were only processing for Bespoke so they were just middle men. Your loan was prior to regulations anyway BUT there is another way that you "may" be able to get FOS to help. This is to make the complaint against the insurer. FOS have a team that are actually dealing with complaints like yours where the broker is off shore and untouchable and they are "trying" to make insurers responsible for these missales. Your insurer was most probably Lloyds of London (I know there is a breakdown and Cassidy Davis is mentioned also) but you have to go through Lloyds of London's complaint procedure first. This is where FOS will no doubt write on your behalf and give them 8 weeks to respond. They will then pass the complaint to Cassidy (now Jubilee!!) and they may write to you to ask for your file from Firstplus. You will then have another letter off Lloyds explaining things are taking time and they may ask for more time. If they dismiss the complaint then you would then be in the queue for FOS but at least you are not at threat EVER of legal fees for this and hopefully FOS "will" get jurisdiction over them.

All I can say is that unless you are prepared for a long court battle I would forget Bespoke in this. They will only keep insisting they sold this to you correct etc. and you will most probably be wasting more time. They are very difficult to deal with!!!

Gunforhire

I have been reading these and related threads with great interest following the recent news about Cartel Client Review and Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

In February 2004 Terry Lindon, then chairman and chief exec of litigation funder Invaro and legal services firm Wishsprite, wrote an article that appeared in a New Statesman supplement about the future of legal services and giving his analysis about the failures of PI litigation funders Claims Direct and The Accident Group :

“Some operated fundamentally unstable business structures:
- insurers provided after-the-event insurance cover to fund cases in the event that they were lost, but ceded the decision-making about which cases were signed up to third-party claims handlers;
- claims handlers were in turn motivated by the business stimulus of signing up as many cases as possible, without regard to the prospects of success, as they could make their money in three ways – from selling insurance policies, from non refundable signing-on fees charged to the lay clients, and from referral fees charged to solicitors for cases obtained from high street canvassing.
It was only a matter of time before the business model collapsed under the weight of the hopeless cases signed on with no prospect of success but still requiring funding. The true depth of the risk to which these companies had exposed themselves could not be known until the cases were settled – or, worse still, simply collapsed for want of quality control. In addition, the law firms on the claims handlers' panels were not always quality-assured. The result has been the spectacular business failure of companies such as Claims Direct and the
Accident Group.”

Almost six years on, and whilst there are obvious differences in detail of business models, Mr Lindon’s analysis seems extremely prescient about what appears to be happening in the world of financial services claims handling. Mr Lindon was arguing the case for effective regulation of claims management services. Unfortunately (or is it ironically) for Mr Lindon, Invaro went under a short time after this article was published according to news reports I have read. Nevertheless he was highlighting a fundamental risk inherent in some business models in this sector and therefore the significant risk to consumer interests posed by those models.

Lets hope that the customers of all of the organisations (authorised CMCs, non-authorised CMCs and solicitors firms) mentioned on these threads ultimately get a fair deal and appropriate service from them and, where consumers do have a legitimate underlying financial services claim, they are helped to bring those claims in an appropriate, professional and cost effective way. If consumers do not get a fair deal, lets hope they are able to get appropriate redress from the MOJ and SRA.

It would also be a crying shame if any businesses with questionable antecedents and motives have been allowed to enter a (now) regulated marketplace and exploit that market to only their own significant benefit (or at least to the benefit of those who control, direct, beneficially own and take the income from them but who may have no nominal or apparent with them) and to the significant detriment to their customers, creditors, suppliers and those persuaded to invest in them. To my mind that would be a significant failure of regulation – effectively allowing crooks to be crooked under the apparently respectable cloak of regulation. I am not suggesting or inferring for one minute that the organisations mentioned here fall in to this hypothetical scenario, I am making a general point that there seems to be so much obvious dissatisfaction evidenced on this and other forums with the whole claims management industry that I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and noting that, notwithstanding regulation, businesses and individuals who in hindsight had no place being in this market in the first place in fact caused more harm to the interests of consumers than the wrongs they said they were set up to help correct.

Lets hope that the MOJ and the SRA have the appetite, teeth and wherewithal to tackle quickly and decisively what, from the posts I have seen, seems to be a significant matter of public interest. I think that the recent activity in relation to Cartel and CCLS is a signal of their intent.

It will all come out in the wash, as they say.

Gunforhire

unlucky45 wrote: »

Just for everyones information

The lady that runs Stokes & Co is a former watsons employee that worked out of the loancheck office near shrewsbury.

She ran the legal team at loancheck along with a barrister they had allthough i cant remember his name

I believe she was then poached by black knight to create a new solicitors practice in telford, and occupies or did occupy the office that black knight used to trade from as i received literiture from them at this address about being and introducer of cases to black knight (not a chance)

I believe from my research and speaking to the people on the ground that Stokes and Co was set-up and funded by black knight as somewhere for them to put all the cases they have, most of which are some 2 years down the line still having not been placed with solicitors.

I would consider all of this before you think that your cases being transfered from one firm to the next is a positve step in the right direction.

Good Luck

This is really interesting Unlucky45.

marshallka

Gunforhire wrote: »

Lets hope that the customers of all of the organisations (authorised CMCs, non-authorised CMCs and solicitors firms) mentioned on these threads ultimately get a fair deal and appropriate service from them and, where consumers do have a legitimate underlying financial services claim, they are helped to bring those claims in an appropriate, professional and cost effective way. If consumers do not get a fair deal, lets hope they are able to get appropriate redress from the MOJ and SRA.

It would also be a crying shame if any businesses with questionable antecedents and motives have been allowed to enter a (now) regulated marketplace and exploit that market to only their own significant benefit (or at least to the benefit of those who control, direct, beneficially own and take the income from them but who may have no nominal or apparent with them) and to the significant detriment to their customers, creditors, suppliers and those persuaded to invest in them. To my mind that would be a significant failure of regulation – effectively allowing crooks to be crooked under the apparently respectable cloak of regulation. I am not suggesting or inferring for one minute that the organisations mentioned here fall in to this hypothetical scenario, I am making a general point that there seems to be so much obvious dissatisfaction evidenced on this and other forums with the whole claims management industry that I hope we don’t find ourselves looking back and noting that, notwithstanding regulation, businesses and individuals who in hindsight had no place being in this market in the first place in fact caused more harm to the interests of consumers than the wrongs they said they were set up to help correct.

Lets hope that the MOJ and the SRA have the appetite, teeth and wherewithal to tackle quickly and decisively what, from the posts I have seen, seems to be a significant matter of public interest. I think that the recent activity in relation to Cartel and CCLS is a signal of their intent.

It will all come out in the wash, as they say.

Well done to Mr Lindon then for writing the article and wanting something done about it. Thanks for posting that. Its just that its taken another 6 years!!


As regards the redress issues then "most" loancheck clients could not seek a redress from MOJ or SRA cause they did not pay anything over and cases were never 100% guaranteed to win. I also think that redress should first be sought from the companies that took the fees and if they are found to have made the money dishonestly then their own personal assets should be put into a pot and used firstly. If i did not pay back my debts and did something dishonest then I would be put in prison or my house would have bailiffs in taking my personal possessions. It should be the same for directors etc that do this also.

By using section 75 to claim back fees paid to companies its actually going to get this law more difficult to use as it is now being abused by ones that have ran up their cards in the hope of getting them written off. Such a shame for people that want to use it for "genuine" reasons.

millwallpaul

Hi all

Just to say I have decided to not go down the solicitor route again and instead have registered my complaint with the FOS today. Can't believe how easy it was and how helpful they were. They have written to the insurer for me outlinning my case and if unresolved in 8 weeks, I am to send in all correspondance and they will take it from there. Just wished I had done this 2 1/2 years ago and never got involved with the Loancheck/Watsons stitch up. Fingers crossed it all works out and I finally get my money back.

Just wanted to say a big thankyou to all who have helped, but especially Karen (Marshallka) who I have constantly leaned on to spoon feed me through this process. All the contributors on this site help install a bit of faith back into you that there are some honest and decent people left in this world.

Lets hope the MSE team can come up trumps in dealing with the Loancheck fiasco.

Cheers
Paul

marshallka

millwallpaul wrote: »

Hi all

Just to say I have decided to not go down the solicitor route again and instead have registered my complaint with the FOS today. Can't believe how easy it was and how helpful they were. They have written to the insurer for me outlinning my case and if unresolved in 8 weeks, I am to send in all correspondance and they will take it from there. Just wished I had done this 2 1/2 years ago and never got involved with the Loancheck/Watsons stitch up. Fingers crossed it all works out and I finally get my money back.

Just wanted to say a big thankyou to all who have helped, but especially Karen (Marshallka) who I have constantly leaned on to spoon feed me through this process. All the contributors on this site help install a bit of faith back into you that there are some honest and decent people left in this world.

Lets hope the MSE team can come up trumps in dealing with the Loancheck fiasco.

Cheers
Paul

Thanks Paul, I just really hope you win on this one. It may take some time and it may be that they cannot look into it for you (but I think they will do as they ARE accepting complaints against insurers !!) but at least you are getting somewhere. Well done for doing something positive. Cannot wait to hear of the outcome.

maxdp

Hi Millwallpaul

Have Solicitors released your case . Good luck with your case. Fingers crossed for you.

millwallpaul

Hi maxdp

Black Knight took it from Watsons stating they weren't acting in my best interests, which breaches the code of conduct and gave it to Stokes & Co. They are asking me to sign a new CFA which means I am not tied in legally with them. I wrote to Black Knight and they assured me that I owe them nothing, so that just leaves Watsons. I wrote to them cancelling my contract and then again quoting what Black Knight told me and stated if I didn't hear back in 7 days I will take it he is agreeing to the contract being terminated. Suprise suprise, I never heard back. I also got it in writting from Stokes and Black Knight that Watsons should not pursue me for any money, and that if he did, they would ensure that I did not have to pay it. Obviously they will not do that now, but when I saw Citizen Advice they instructed me to write to him stating what I did so hopefully it is enough.