Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

LOL bet that will get them running to the phone. Or I could pretend I am a journalist:eek:

Perhaps it is a bit like Bank Holiday but Solicitors Holiday where they have spent too long at the BAR:rotfl: .

Journalist would perhaps make them run a mile:eek:.

maxdp

Have heard from OTHER Solicitor now and a meeting has been called. hmmmmmmm It has now come to light that because of the delays with Loancheck and themselves, i presume. The amount outstanding(which includes the PPI )has now dropped below the 5000 which is covered within the CFA agreement. When this first started there was 7000.00 plus outstanding which included the PPI and this would have been fully recovered win or lose. Now this is changing the goalposts. Again we are left with not being represented in a professional manner. I think this information is going to be passed through to MSE as this is blatantly been mis handled and they are trying to recoup their costs. If this was dealt with within the 6 to 9 months as was promised by PIL then this would not be an issue.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Have heard from OTHER Solicitor now and a meeting has been called. hmmmmmmm It has now come to light that because of the delays with Loancheck and themselves, i presume. The amount outstanding(which includes the PPI )has now dropped below the 5000 which is covered within the CFA agreement. When this first started there was 7000.00 plus outstanding which included the PPI and this would have been fully recovered win or lose. Now this is changing the goalposts. Again we are left with not being represented in a professional manner. I think this information is going to be passed through to MSE as this is blatantly been mis handled and they are trying to recoup their costs. If this was dealt with within the 6 to 9 months as was promised by PIL then this would not be an issue.

Right, this is disgusting maxdp. Can you correct me if I am wrong here....

Your original complaint would have been covered by this CFA cause it "was" thought to be over the £5000. (This was the amount that Loancheck/PIL always said that you claim had to be over) BUT this most probably covered PPI PLUS the commissions... Now that the law changed (or should I say did not stand up, cause of the case from December in the high court) solicitors are just going to claim back JUST PPI for clients which in most cases would bring the claim down to below the £5000 and then the CFA does not cover you.

This then was totally RISK FREE for the solicitors (cause they could always use this about doing their job) then cover their own !!!!!! by carrying on their work making claims UNDER £5K and recovering costs from clients. Am I right!!!

Didn't this happen to Lesley also?

How much was your PPI alone...do these solicitors actually know how to work out PPI redress's?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Right, this is disgusting maxdp. Can you correct me if I am wrong here....

Your original complaint would have been covered by this CFA cause it "was" thought to be over the £5000. (This was the amount that Loancheck/PIL always said that you claim had to be over) BUT this most probably covered PPI PLUS the commissions... Now that the law changed (or should I say did not stand up, cause of the case from December in the high court) solicitors are just going to claim back JUST PPI for clients which in most cases would bring the claim down to below the £5000 and then the CFA does not cover you.

This then was totally RISK FREE for the solicitors (cause they could always use this about doing their job) then cover their own !!!!!! by carrying on their work making claims UNDER £5K and recovering costs from clients. Am I right!!!

Didn't this happen to Lesley also?

How much was your PPI alone...do these solicitors actually know how to work out PPI redress's?

Marshallka

It is not because of any change particularly in law. When I first went through PIL it was because it was over 5000.00 what I now know is that the total amount outstanding has tobe above 5000. there is now 3500 outstanding because nothing has been done and so the CFA does not cover this. They by all accounts go for the whole amount. I was not aware of this as I was as a newbie only going for the PPI. Because at the time it went to PLI it was over the 5 then it was covered. This is absolutely rediculous. I am quite prepared to let MSE have a copy of the letter I have received so they can use this if needed. I am quite confused as this has been changed. I know they think that they confuse you with legal talk but I now have my gander up as the term goes. :mad: Anyway the good side is that I am going to publish all on here, if allowed, so everyone knows what is happening.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Marshallka

It is not because of any change particularly in law. When I first went through PIL it was because it was over 5000.00 what I now know is that the total amount outstanding has tobe above 5000. there is now 3500 outstanding because nothing has been done and so the CFA does not cover this. They by all accounts go for the whole amount. I was not aware of this as I was as a newbie only going for the PPI. Because at the time it went to PLI it was over the 5 then it was covered. This is absolutely rediculous. I am quite prepared to let MSE have a copy of the letter I have received so they can use this if needed. I am quite confused as this has been changed. I know they think that they confuse you with legal talk but I now have my gander up as the term goes. :mad: Anyway the good side is that I am going to publish all on here, if allowed, so everyone knows what is happening.

From what I remember I thought your claim for PPI etc had to total over £5K to be covered by the no costs to the client? I don't think I am understanding this correct am I?

IF claims are under £5K isn't there a fast track small claims that does not cost as much?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

From what I remember I thought your claim for PPI etc had to total over £5K to be covered by the no costs to the client? I don't think I am understanding this correct am I?

IF claims are under £5K isn't there a fast track small claims that does not cost as much?

The amount outstanding on your loan (including PPI ) has to be over 5000 for them to be interested. This is because they want this to be unenforceable as the PPI is included in this including Interest etc etc. Because of the time they took this amount is now under the 5000 limit. Anything under that is not covered by tthe Ate

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

The amount outstanding on your loan (including PPI ) has to be over 5000 for them to be interested. This is because they want this to be unenforceable as the PPI is included in this including Interest etc etc. Because of the time they took this amount is now under the 5000 limit. Anything under that is not covered by tthe Ate

But mine was paid up in full and they were still interested? Does that mean that i would have been liable for all costs??

marshallka

A good document here to have a read through

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/cp0407-responses.pdf

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

A good document here to have a read through

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/cp0407-responses.pdf

thanks Marshallka

Am not willing to publish all on here at mom but can send you a copy if you are interested. Am going to go for appointment but have told MSE that I am willing for them to see all.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

thanks Marshallka

Am not willing to publish all on here at mom but can send you a copy if you are interested. Am going to go for appointment but have told MSE that I am willing for them to see all.

Maxdp, do you feel that the solicitors are the problem here and that they have "hung on" for too long purposely, knowing that you would then not be covered by the CFA insurance?

Glad you are letting MSE know all this cause this is what they want for their investigation. I cannot tell them anything other than what is on here cause i have not got a claim with them (so glad I never went ahead) but the more that tell the better for all you clients. IF Loancheck etc have nothing to hide then they will be fine and perhaps then MSE will highlight them as being the different claims company that they claimed to be. As yet though from the posts on here just lately they have themselves to prove.