Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

maxdp

My belief is that they do so far then Loancheck stuff happened and they have been sitting back wondering how they can cover costs. They have been very professional up until the loacheck stuff i think it is damage limitation and trying to confuse the client by hiding behind legal speak

marshallka

This is so unfair if it is like you think. What would happen if you argue this with them about never being told of this happening and it was not written in the contract? (it was not was it!!)

maxdp

I am going to argue it cause when this was taken on it fitted with all the criteria to claim back PPI and costs. Because it has taken so long they are at fault and by them I mean all others rather than me. It is not the problem of the client it is the problem of the solicitor to sort it out. They need to be acting professionally and with the client in mind. So far to date that is not as it is.

marshallka

I am going to argue it cause when this was taken on it fitted with all the criteria to claim back PPI and costs. Because it has taken so long they are at fault and by them I mean all others rather than me. It is not the problem of the client it is the problem of the solicitor to sort it out. They need to be acting professionally and with the client in mind. So far to date that is not as it is.[/QUOTE]


I thought you said that in the contract there was no time limit though? I remember asking you that earlier on in the thread?

maxdp

No there is no time limit but for the CFA to be in place but see below

The recoverability of legal fees and disbursements will depend on how much your claim settles for. If you recover £5000 or less then you would not be entitled to recover your legal fees and disbursements (save for the Court fees) from..Bank plc even if you were successful and as such, under the terms of the CFA these would be payable by you.

If you recover more than £5000 then you would also be able to seek the recovering of your legal fees and ddisbursements from...bank However you would be unlikely to be able to recover all of your legal fees, usually a 60-75% recovering is made. Any shortfall would be payable by you under the CFA with this firm. (This was never in the original agreement before Loancheck went belly up)

Anyway because the outstanding loan is now considerably under 5000 that is why the above now takes place. If it had been settled middle of last year they would have been over 5000 If they were settled May or June 2008 they would have been 8000.

My reason stating the time limit is because of the whole Loancheck debacle this has taken nearly 2 years and has therefore weakened the case. There were a couple of other small points which should have been picked up in the Original audit with Severn which I have also pointed out.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

I thought you said that in the contract there was no time limit though? I remember asking you that earlier on in the thread?

No there is no time limit but for the CFA to be in place but see below

The recoverability of legal fees and disbursements will depend on how much your claim settles for. If you recover £5000 or less then you would not be entitled to recover your legal fees and disbursements (save for the Court fees) from..Bank plc even if you were successful and as such, under the terms of the CFA these would be payable by you.

If you recover more than £5000 then you would also be able to seek the recovering of your legal fees and ddisbursements from...bank However you would be unlikely to be able to recover all of your legal fees, usually a 60-75% recovering is made. Any shortfall would be payable by you under the CFA with this firm. (This was never in the original agreement before Loancheck went belly up)

Anyway because the outstanding loan is now considerably under 5000 that is why the above now takes place. If it had been settled middle of last year they would have been over 5000 If they were settled May or June 2008 they would have been 8000.

My reason stating the time limit is because of the whole Loancheck debacle this has taken nearly 2 years and has therefore weakened the case. There were a couple of other small points which should have been picked up in the Original audit with Severn which I have also pointed out.[/QUOTE]




When I was going to go ahead with petermb I was sent something to sign by email and in the terms and conditions it actually read that I could be laible to some fees. This is when I actually was asked to speak to peter who then told me that it does say that but in reality it means you will not pay anything cause of insurance put in place. I then said that i could not sign up to that as this was how I got into the mess in the firstplace and that was cause of terms and conditons etc so I did not sign. I was still going to but then something snapped and told me that I would only be doing what I had done before and that is trusting a salesman!!

If in your terms and conditions it tells you that you are liable for fees if the claim is under £5K then did you have it in writing that your claim would definately be over £5K. Isn't that how they would look at it? They could easily say that nothing was ever guaranteed.

If however you actually signed something that did not read as above (since Loancheck went belly up) then surely they cannot change the terms or add to them can they?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

No there is no time limit but for the CFA to be in place but see below

The recoverability of legal fees and disbursements will depend on how much your claim settles for. If you recover £5000 or less then you would not be entitled to recover your legal fees and disbursements (save for the Court fees) from..Bank plc even if you were successful and as such, under the terms of the CFA these would be payable by you.

If you recover more than £5000 then you would also be able to seek the recovering of your legal fees and ddisbursements from...bank However you would be unlikely to be able to recover all of your legal fees, usually a 60-75% recovering is made. Any shortfall would be payable by you under the CFA with this firm. (This was never in the original agreement before Loancheck went belly up)

Anyway because the outstanding loan is now considerably under 5000 that is why the above now takes place. If it had been settled middle of last year they would have been over 5000 If they were settled May or June 2008 they would have been 8000.

My reason stating the time limit is because of the whole Loancheck debacle this has taken nearly 2 years and has therefore weakened the case. There were a couple of other small points which should have been picked up in the Original audit with Severn which I have also pointed out.

When I was going to go ahead with petermb I was sent something to sign by email and in the terms and conditions it actually read that I could be laible to some fees. This is when I actually was asked to speak to peter who then told me that it does say that but in reality it means you will not pay anything cause of insurance put in place. I then said that i could not sign up to that as this was how I got into the mess in the firstplace and that was cause of terms and conditons etc so I did not sign. I was still going to but then something snapped and told me that I would only be doing what I had done before and that is trusting a salesman!!

If in your terms and conditions it tells you that you are liable for fees if the claim is under £5K then did you have it in writing that your claim would definately be over £5K. Isn't that how they would look at it? They could easily say that nothing was ever guaranteed.

If however you actually signed something that did not read as above (since Loancheck went belly up) then surely they cannot change the terms or add to them can they?[/QUOTE]

Yes it was definitely over 5000 cause that was the outstanding amount.

It has definitely changed in their terms and conditions.

Have just written long letter asking how because of their incompetence and stalling that the terms and conditions have changed.

marshallka

I never really understood this right then cause my loan was actually paid up so nothing was owing but I was led to believe that the actual amount of your claim had to be over £5000 (The PPI amount that they would claim back) for them to be interested. I was not aware that you had to have over £5000 owing on your loan.

I was told that if your claim was over £5000 which mostly on secured loans they are cause the PPI and interest alone amount to more than that let alone any commissions etc added then even if the loan was redeemed early you could still try to claim back using these CFA/ATE things. I did not really understand them TBH but all I know was that mine was still of interest to Loancheck/PIL even though it was already repaid so I have no idea about why you had to have £5000 owing on your loan at least. Is this for unenforceable agreements and not anything to do with PPI. Mine was going to be a simple PPI claim.

maxdp

This was also supposed to be in the beginning that is why I wonder if the goal posts have now been moved.

marshallka

Just read on scam that it seems section 75 is not upholding complaints for the fees that customers paid to Cartel as someone has posted. It was with Barclays too and they have written this.


""On this occasion, it is noted that your account has been debited by Cartel Client Review L whereas the claims have been passed on to Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, who are not a party to the "debtor-creditor-supplier" agreement. As such, it is Barclaycard's view that Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not afford protection in this regard.""


Don't know how true this is but that must be a bummer for some. I wonder if all credit cards will do the same.