Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

What do you mean by forced Marshallka?

Because Petermb said that the lender could be forced to send out a true copy of the agreement as if you were thinking of taking court action (as I was) then you would need it. I only had a front and back copy BUT he said the lender could be forced with a template letter he had. I asked for a copy when I was wanting to take FIrstplus for the rule 78 and it was actually just the same as you could find on google about asking for the agreement. I had also said that you could not force a copy of any agreement (using section 77/78 CCA and the twelve day thing) when a loan was "settled" but no-one on here would listen and still people were posting saying to newbies that the firm would "HAVE" to supply it even when a loan was settled. That to me was bad advice unless there was another type of letter that forced the lender for these documents but no-one would ever post one other than the section 77/78 letter that was bog standard. A lot of bad advice was actually being given on this site.

maxdp

Who were the some? The introducers and agents and loancheck do you mean? Who was saying that they had to deliver the copy Marshallka even though it was settled?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Because Petermb said that the lender could be forced to send out a true copy of the agreement as if you were thinking of taking court action (as I was) then you would need it. I only had a front and back copy BUT he said the lender could be forced with a template letter he had. I asked for a copy when I was wanting to take FIrstplus for the rule 78 and it was actually just the same as you could find on google about asking for the agreement. I had also said that you could not force a copy of any agreement (using section 77/78 CCA and the twelve day thing) when a loan was "settled" but no-one on here would listen and still people were posting saying to newbies that the firm would "HAVE" to supply it even when a loan was settled. That to me was bad advice unless there was another type of letter that forced the lender for these documents but no-one would ever post one other than the section 77/78 letter that was bog standard. A lot of bad advice was actually being given on this site.

OK I see what you mean with that. Also the TRUE COPY. That went over my head but see what you mean. Didnt PETERMB go and help with incipience on their web site. Am sure somewhere somebody said that with FIRST PLUS and that web site. Wonder how many people are now left as the rest are here?

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Who were the some? The introducers and agents and loancheck do you mean? Who was saying that they had to deliver the copy Marshallka even though it was settled?

Yep, I cannot see that no money was made maxdp IF the solicitors paid Loancheck a fee upfront (who then paid agents etc). Don't know the extent of it but looking at web interviews by Loancheck they accepted thousands of complaints. That would say thousands of fees paid by solicitors for cases and yet they went bust. (Unless of course the interviews were full of !!!!!!!!!!). Will probably never know.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

OK I see what you mean with that. Also the TRUE COPY. That went over my head but see what you mean. Didnt PETERMB go and help with incipience on their web site. Am sure somewhere somebody said that with FIRST PLUS and that web site. Wonder how many people are now left as the rest are here?

I was told by trading standards that in order to take my complaint to court for rule 78 I would need a true copy of the agreement. It could only be a true copy. At the time I did not have one but sent off for a SAR and they sent me a front copy and back copy (seperate) of what "they" said was correct and what I signed to. I knew that they changed the terms and conditions whereby Rule 78 was not mentioned in the copy we had originally (and others the same as per complaints site I browsed) whereby a couple had actually found their originals and taken them to court later for rule 78 and the ones sent in the SAR were completely different.

I then sent them another letter and they sent me one back saying that it was strange and had not happened before BUT for some reason they had not scanned my terms and conditions of our original agreement (the reverse) but they had found some that were the same as we signed. I needed a true copy to prove them liars. I still have not got one BUT they are entitled not to send it cause the loan was settled.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

Who were the some? The introducers and agents and loancheck do you mean? Who was saying that they had to deliver the copy Marshallka even though it was settled?

If someone posted on here that they did not have any copies of agreements but they had paid the loan up there were numerous posts that said that you could request one under section 77/78 of the CCA and they had 12 days to supply it. BUT when there is no debt owing they do not need to send it. This then meant that people on here were requesting it and using this section BUT could not use the law if they did not send it so completely pointless in my view. What would someone do if the lender did not send it within 12 days? What would be there next course of action on a settled loan? I was merely stating that as I read the CCA if no debt was owing then this part could not be used in court. Correct me if I am wrong??? My loan was settled and I was told to get one? HOW would I go about it on a settled loan? Could someone enlighten me on this?

marshallka

77 Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement
(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed-sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor;

(b) the total sum which has become payable under the agreement by the debtor but remains unpaid, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date when each became due; and

(c) the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor, and the various amounts comprised in that total sum, with the date, or mode of determining the date, when each becomes due.


(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.


(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.


(5) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement.



78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

(c) the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.


(2) If the creditor possesses insufficient information to enable him to ascertain the amounts and dates mentioned in subsection (1)(c), he shall be taken to comply with that paragraph if his statement under subsection (1) gives the basis on which, under the regulated agreement, they would fall to be ascertained.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to—

(a) an agreement under which no sum is, or will or may become, payable by the debtor, or

(b) a request made less than one month after a previous request under that subsection relating to the same agreement was complied with.

I pointed out that people on here (regulars but cannot remember who) were telling people to ask for a copy of their agreement sending £1. To send £1 for the agreement meant usually that the above was being used BUT even when people were stating in their posts that loans were paid up and settled this advice was still being given. I could not understand cause how I read it (as above) there was naff all you could do if they did not send it. All I wanted to know was how you force the lender to send it. (and still do!!).Obvioulsy I am not a lawyer so must be doing something wrong maybe or reading it wrong maybe?

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

OK I see what you mean with that. Also the TRUE COPY. That went over my head but see what you mean. Didnt PETERMB go and help with incipience on their web site. Am sure somewhere somebody said that with FIRST PLUS and that web site. Wonder how many people are now left as the rest are here?

Yeah I read about Firstplus website using Petermb. I thought that firstplus website though was mainly about interest rates hiking? ALso seems to me that there must be happy bunnies with Loancheck as the ones that posted on these threads have now stopped posting. Maybe they have got their settlements sorted and everything is now fine. I wonder how many have got in touch with Guy? In fact I think this will all die a quick death TBH cause unlike Cartel, clients were not actually charged anything and solicitors seem to be accepting they cannot charge fees also.

IF loancheck figures were correct in that they had thousands of customers and only a handful on here are posting negatively then maybe the others are actually happy and settled? You will always have a few unhappy customers with any business. Just seems to have all died now. I was just curious as to how these solicitors were wanting fees from clients but seems to have all been sorted now also. Maybe everything is actually fine with loancheck BUT still cannot understand how a business that is doing so fine went bust. Probably will never know?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

I was told by trading standards that in order to take my complaint to court for rule 78 I would need a true copy of the agreement. It could only be a true copy. At the time I did not have one but sent off for a SAR and they sent me a front copy and back copy (seperate) of what "they" said was correct and what I signed to. I knew that they changed the terms and conditions whereby Rule 78 was not mentioned in the copy we had originally (and others the same as per complaints site I browsed) whereby a couple had actually found their originals and taken them to court later for rule 78 and the ones sent in the SAR were completely different.

I then sent them another letter and they sent me one back saying that it was strange and had not happened before BUT for some reason they had not scanned my terms and conditions of our original agreement (the reverse) but they had found some that were the same as we signed. I needed a true copy to prove them liars. I still have not got one BUT they are entitled not to send it cause the loan was settled.

I to have had a not true copy of A T AND C which said that the PPI was not optional. So i understand where you are coming from there. Luckily after spending many hours in the loft looking for paperwork the original agreement has been found.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

I was told by trading standards that in order to take my complaint to court for rule 78 I would need a true copy of the agreement. It could only be a true copy. At the time I did not have one but sent off for a SAR and they sent me a front copy and back copy (seperate) of what "they" said was correct and what I signed to. I knew that they changed the terms and conditions whereby Rule 78 was not mentioned in the copy we had originally (and others the same as per complaints site I browsed) whereby a couple had actually found their originals and taken them to court later for rule 78 and the ones sent in the SAR were completely different.

I then sent them another letter and they sent me one back saying that it was strange and had not happened before BUT for some reason they had not scanned my terms and conditions of our original agreement (the reverse) but they had found some that were the same as we signed. I needed a true copy to prove them liars. I still have not got one BUT they are entitled not to send it cause the loan was settled.

Marshallka

Have you looked on CAG etc cause I know some of them have original copies of T and C? Am sure you have but somebody somewhere must have a copy of the original year you took this out.