Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

And also if you google this BWC Business Solutions Limited there is a website currently under contruction so it seems for them.

Yes noticed that do not know why it should have taken so long to construct.

That is interesting too about PIL Marshallka.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Yes noticed that do not know why it should have taken so long to construct.

That is interesting too about PIL Marshallka.

You can cached all the pages though!!

maxdp

This is laughable Whittaker thanking the FSA for investigating firms mis selling PPI.
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/loancheck-calls-for-fsa-to-get-tough-on-miss-selling-of-ppi/170851.article

This one is about Ascot Legal Services
http://www.mcr.uk.com/mcr-appointed-administrators-of-disbursement-funding-company-ascot-legal-services-limited.html

ahsila5

marshallka wrote: »

I think I must have misunderstood you then if they have ended your contract and keeping your file for 6 years. Are you allowed to have your file so that you can try to reclaim yourself perhaps. I would make sure though and get it in writing that your complaint is closed and that you owe them nothing. Its sad that they are not able to act BUT at least they seem to have released you without charge as some were thinking they would incur.

It only states that file will be placed in storage and then destroyed after 6 years,but I have been reading through all the paperwork from Watsons and found something interesting,
It says on a letter sent at beginning of claim from Watsons
"after completing the work,the firm is entitled to keep all papers and documents while there is money owing for charges and expenses.T he firm keeps papers for no more than 6 years and keeps the file on the understanding that the firm has the authority to destroy it after 6 years from the date of the final bill."

i am going to write and ask for all our paperwork back as I do want to persue the claims and I want I want it confirmed that we owe NO money .
I am sure also that we did not have any insurance policy in place as I read somehere that Watsons deemed it not necessary unless court proceedings started,Not sure if that is relevant or not.

Ahsila

maxdp

ahsila5 wrote: »

It only states that file will be placed in storage and then destroyed after 6 years,but I have been reading through all the paperwork from Watsons and found something interesting,
It says on a letter sent at beginning of claim from Watsons
"after completing the work,the firm is entitled to keep all papers and documents while there is money owing for charges and expenses.T he firm keeps papers for no more than 6 years and keeps the file on the understanding that the firm has the authority to destroy it after 6 years from the date of the final bill."

i am going to write and ask for all our paperwork back as I do want to persue the claims and I want I want it confirmed that we owe NO money .
I am sure also that we did not have any insurance policy in place as I read somehere that Watsons deemed it not necessary unless court proceedings started,Not sure if that is relevant or not.

Ahsila

Hi There

They took an insurance policy out for me as far as I am aware and court proceedings were not issued. You should make sure they send all your paperwork back. You could always send a SAR letter to them to find out exactly what documents they are keeping Ahsila

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

This is laughable Whittaker thanking the FSA for investigating firms mis selling PPI.
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/loancheck-calls-for-fsa-to-get-tough-on-miss-selling-of-ppi/170851.article

This one is about Ascot Legal Services
http://www.mcr.uk.com/mcr-appointed-administrators-of-disbursement-funding-company-ascot-legal-services-limited.html

I hope he means what he says here about the FSA and would want the same for companies that are found to be misleading clients!!!

Token fines will make no difference to these huge financial institutions.

maxdp

This was dated 2003

Question marks arising here which were ignored.
Harriet Williams
The government's data protection watchdog has dismissed lender complaints against mortgage audit firm LoanCheck.

A letter from the Office of the Information Commissioner says that a "number of financial institutions" had registered complaints against the service.

But the letter, received last Monday, says the agency "will not be pursuing this matter further" after meeting the audit firm's directors.

The LoanCheck website promises to detect "anything unusual" about a mortgage or loan with a series of simple questions on loan size, lender and arrears history. Up to 400 people use the online tool each month.

LoanCheck then uses the data to assess the likelihood of maladministration, based on its experience with specific lenders.

If the check turns up potential overcharging, consumers can opt to pay £115 for a loan audit and a solicitor will be appointed to pursue any claim on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

John Whittaker, managing director of LoanCheck, says: "We know there is only certain information we can get under the Data Protection Act. Lenders will complain as much as they can on these points.

"LoanCheck is not designed to entice people to make a claim. But simple mistakes do happen. All we're here for is giving the public a way of independently auditing their loan account."

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

This was dated 2003

Question marks arising here which were ignored.
Harriet Williams
The government's data protection watchdog has dismissed lender complaints against mortgage audit firm LoanCheck.

A letter from the Office of the Information Commissioner says that a "number of financial institutions" had registered complaints against the service.

But the letter, received last Monday, says the agency "will not be pursuing this matter further" after meeting the audit firm's directors.

The LoanCheck website promises to detect "anything unusual" about a mortgage or loan with a series of simple questions on loan size, lender and arrears history. Up to 400 people use the online tool each month.

LoanCheck then uses the data to assess the likelihood of maladministration, based on its experience with specific lenders.

If the check turns up potential overcharging, consumers can opt to pay £115 for a loan audit and a solicitor will be appointed to pursue any claim on a 'no win, no fee' basis.

John Whittaker, managing director of LoanCheck, says: "We know there is only certain information we can get under the Data Protection Act. Lenders will complain as much as they can on these points.

"LoanCheck is not designed to entice people to make a claim. But simple mistakes do happen. All we're here for is giving the public a way of independently auditing their loan account."

This was a previous incarnation of Loancheck.

Though the brand and John Whittaker seem to have remained constant the many companies, as has been posted, have come and gone.

I wonder if the clients were aware that they were apparently being passed form one company to another as the previous ones all went out of business.

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

FA Simms were wrong in their independent audit and due diligence (hmm????) report....

We have viewed a contract in place between Professional Investments Limited (PIL) and
the SAL. PIL are utilised as a ‘funnel’ for the introduction of cases from professional
intermediaries. The work flow from this source indicates that SAL can obtain case
volumes as dictated by SAL as per its business projections.



They actually meant Protected Investments Limited I assume??? Would you want your company actually linked to these lot now if they got the name wrong which is assumed they have? What a shame for Professional Investments Limited.

Also not seen this before

http://www.fasimms.com/Loancheck.html

In the sheet for investors it says:-

Given the independent valuation provided by FA Simms of € 95 million (GBP 75 million) the fair value per share is between € 1,35 (€ 95 million / 70 million
shares issued) and € 1,90 (€95 million / 50 million shares) depending of the
number of authorised shares issued for the financing.

Slightly mis-calculated I think.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

This was a previous incarnation of Loancheck.

Though the brand and John Whittaker seem to have remained constant the many companies, as has been posted, have come and gone.

I wonder if the clients were aware that they were apparently being passed form one company to another as the previous ones all went out of business.

Its similar now between the old loanchecks and the new yourloancheck isn't it or was that just a name change? I wonder if anyone has actually tried to contact the new yourloancheck as its still trading isn't it? You can cached the contact phone number I think.