Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

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.

You are lucky then if you are pursuing something other than PPI. I take it this is the one that the other solicitor is taking on that you having the meeting with.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

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?

I do not know that Marshallka what did gt 568 and M COLAK say about this cause i know M Colak went to court. surely there must be some way of getting a copy. Would the ICO not help with this Marhsallka

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

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.

I am not really bothering maxdp again TBH. I would like that solicitors actually look into this reclaim as there next venture but no-one is interested. This was posted on this is money (and I have a phone call transcript whereby I state that i never received anything at all relating to rule 78 being used on loan) and I know they are hiding something with the terms and conditions - this seems similar to my dilemma I was having here over rule 78



Update.
I have just received a copy of their solicitor’s statements to take to court and their copy of the initial agreement has a distinct difference to the original agreement in my possession (It relates to the credit agreement act 1983 which is not on the original )Why has this happened and is it legal for them to include additions to the agreement without my knowledge and why have they not included the actual or copy of the original agreement?



Really cannot be arsed to take this further now maxdp as it took up so much of my life last time. I think it would be a good one though for solicitors to look into. In fact finished all my reclaiming some time ago. This income protection was just an added bonus. It was really not anything I was looking for even. Just a complete and utter fluke but very happy if we can get the terms and conditions from work.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

You are lucky then if you are pursuing something other than PPI. I take it this is the one that the other solicitor is taking on that you having the meeting with.

That is the one but have no information about the ORIGINAL COPIES that they have been sent. Need to wait and see. Think they are going to call us in to Sign stuff on the day to cover themselves. They have no luck with that. Been stuck before so tough.

marshallka

Maxdp, I complained to the ICO about Firstplus and them blanking out phone calls whereby I argue (in 2001/02/03) about receiving no policy for PPI and no terms and conditions and certainly no rule 78 booklet. These calls were blanked on the tape BUT I have them in the transcripts. The ICO told me (yeah right) that Firstplus would not want to imcriminate themselves would they????? Some help they were. Like i say this is now history to me and life goes on. I just start to go back sometimes and then I realise how lucky i have been TBH and I have been. We all have that have managed to reclaim anything.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

That is the one but have no information about the ORIGINAL COPIES that they have been sent. Need to wait and see. Think they are going to call us in to Sign stuff on the day to cover themselves. They have no luck with that. Been stuck before so tough.

Well if they have seen what other solicitors doing this work have gone through they may come up trumps for you maxdp. In fact i have a good feeling for you on this one as this is the one that was assigned a barrister wasn't it? They wouldn't dare to threaten charges cause they would be next on the list for the SRA to have complaints about so they may cut their losses and win it good style for you. You never know.

Seems different to Watsons and they are actually doing something whereas Watsons are looking to be releasing clients without charge don't you think?

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

I am not really bothering maxdp again TBH. I would like that solicitors actually look into this reclaim as there next venture but no-one is interested. This was posted on this is money (and I have a phone call transcript whereby I state that i never received anything at all relating to rule 78 being used on loan) and I know they are hiding something with the terms and conditions - this seems similar to my dilemma I was having here over rule 78



Update.
I have just received a copy of their solicitor’s statements to take to court and their copy of the initial agreement has a distinct difference to the original agreement in my possession (It relates to the credit agreement act 1983 which is not on the original )Why has this happened and is it legal for them to include additions to the agreement without my knowledge and why have they not included the actual or copy of the original agreement?



Really cannot be arsed to take this further now maxdp as it took up so much of my life last time. I think it would be a good one though for solicitors to look into. In fact finished all my reclaiming some time ago. This income protection was just an added bonus. It was really not anything I was looking for even. Just a complete and utter fluke but very happy if we can get the terms and conditions from work.

This is the same that we have had they have sent up to date t and c and not a copy which relates to when the agreement was taken out. This is fraud. Also have had copies of letters which are meant to be original which are not cause I found original copies in the loft. Hmmmmmmm wonder what they are playing at. Can see your point about not giving a damn now. It plays on my mind at night. I know they are lying and it really gets to me I need to catch them out. How dare they. I know in my sensible head I need to let it go. But in my other head how dare they get away with this. What these lenders have done is give bad advice and make you in their own way take out further agreemenets etc etc This makes me really mad.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

Well if they have seen what other solicitors doing this work have gone through they may come up trumps for you maxdp. In fact i have a good feeling for you on this one as this is the one that was assigned a barrister wasn't it? They wouldn't dare to threaten charges cause they would be next on the list for the SRA to have complaints about so they may cut their losses and win it good style for you. You never know.

Seems different to Watsons and they are actually doing something whereas Watsons are looking to be releasing clients without charge don't you think?

I hope so Marshallka but who knows. Am going in armed with lots of info. They do seem to be supportive but I wonder how much of that is to cover their own backs. If they loose they will be no better or worse off than if I cancel the agreement at the moment. If they win they will get back 25% of the award. hmmmmmm lets see who they looking after. I will complain if I think they are not acting on the behalf of the claimant and I will tell them what has happened with the last lot. We will see but will let you know.

Yes barrister was assigned on CFA so god only knows his costs on this toooooooooooooooooo.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

This is the same that we have had they have sent up to date t and c and not a copy which relates to when the agreement was taken out. This is fraud. Also have had copies of letters which are meant to be original which are not cause I found original copies in the loft. Hmmmmmmm wonder what they are playing at. Can see your point about not giving a damn now. It plays on my mind at night. I know they are lying and it really gets to me I need to catch them out. How dare they. I know in my sensible head I need to let it go. But in my other head how dare they get away with this. What these lenders have done is give bad advice and make you in their own way take out further agreemenets etc etc This makes me really mad.

I hear what you are saying but sometimes as I was told I have to accept I am just a small person in a big world and !!!! happens. That is how I want to remain now but I don't feel a failure cause I did fight as far as i could and that I am happy with. Some you win, some you lose and its not worth my life getting bitter over it. I am a lot happier now TBH.

marshallka

maxdp wrote: »

I hope so Marshallka but who knows. Am going in armed with lots of info. They do seem to be supportive but I wonder how much of that is to cover their own backs. If they loose they will be no better or worse off than if I cancel the agreement at the moment. If they win they will get back 25% of the award. hmmmmmm lets see who they looking after. I will complain if I think they are not acting on the behalf of the claimant and I will tell them what has happened with the last lot. We will see but will let you know.

Yes barrister was assigned on CFA so god only knows his costs on this toooooooooooooooooo.

Maxdp, people have now posted that no solicitor would dare ask for fees from clients. I would perhaps be happy at paying 25% being me and getting something back than not getting anything back if that is how your complaint is whereas you cannot use FOS for it. You will just have to wait and see and time will tell but I think this one may win. They would not have taken it this far would they and no-one else has had this happen. In fact then they would open the doors for other claimers perhaps!!