Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

petermb_2

maxdp wrote: »

Loancheck is still operating abroad though isn't it. I think Belgium and America, Europe. Are they completely different than those in this country. Do they have any financial ties with Loancheck in UK?

I cannot see how Loancheck can be successfully operating in other countries when it could not get it right here. I may be wrong but then I lost interest in following their exploits some time ago.

I only get third hand information these days and I have no idea how reliable that information is. Do not forget that there are former agents and introducers, former directors, former shareholders and former service providers (PIL for example) who have all been turned over in this affair and who all have their own axes to grind and who all put their own slant on things, before even thinking about the clients.

But understand that the administrators have the responsibility of raising as much cash out of this as possible to repay the creditors and the only way to do that is win the cases on the books. If they are not going to do that they should speedily advise the clients to find alternative arrangements. That would be the only decent thing to do.

I also think the solicitors involved should do the decent thing too and make the decision to release the clients from their CFA contracts and allow them to proceed elsewhere.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

I cannot see how Loancheck can be successfully operating in other countries when it could not get it right here. I may be wrong but then I lost interest in following their exploits some time ago.

I only get third hand information these days and I have no idea how reliable that information is. Do not forget that there are former agents and introducers, former directors, former shareholders and former service providers (PIL for example) who have all been turned over in this affair and who all have their own axes to grind and who all put their own slant on things, before even thinking about the clients.

But understand that the administrators have the responsibility of raising as much cash out of this as possible to repay the creditors and the only way to do that is win the cases on the books. If they are not going to do that they should speedily advise the clients to find alternative arrangements. That would be the only decent thing to do.

I also think the solicitors involved should do the decent thing too and make the decision to release the clients from their CFA contracts and allow them to proceed elsewhere.

Yeah, correct, proceed elsewhere on their own with no help from any third party company. (Then the contact is just solely with the solicitor if they so wish to carry it on although there are not a lot of solicitors are there that would touch this type of work!!).

It just goes to show how when you have numerous companies involved (like with the people that have used a broker in a loan) people do not know who their contract is with AND they have no comebacks on the ones they think responsible. Lesson learn't i would say to anyone that has gone through this company.

maxdp

petermb wrote: »

I cannot see how Loancheck can be successfully operating in other countries when it could not get it right here. I may be wrong but then I lost interest in following their exploits some time ago.

I only get third hand information these days and I have no idea how reliable that information is. Do not forget that there are former agents and introducers, former directors, former shareholders and former service providers (PIL for example) who have all been turned over in this affair and who all have their own axes to grind and who all put their own slant on things, before even thinking about the clients.

But understand that the administrators have the responsibility of raising as much cash out of this as possible to repay the creditors and the only way to do that is win the cases on the books. If they are not going to do that they should speedily advise the clients to find alternative arrangements. That would be the only decent thing to do.

I also think the solicitors involved should do the decent thing too and make the decision to release the clients from their CFA contracts and allow them to proceed elsewhere.

I think a lot of them have broken their contract anyway Peter TBH. How many of them for instance have contacted their clients once every 28 days to update them. Also to make decisions in the best interest of their clients. I think not. However these Solicitors have had costs to date and also the cost for Loancheck to Audit the case.

I know the costs could be between 4,500 and 5,500 I think that is if it goes to trial. I presume this is where Barclays came in to finance them on these costs with a loan. How much did they have to pay Loancheck for the auditing Peter do you know.?

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

Yeah, correct, proceed elsewhere on their own with no help from any third party company. (Then the contact is just solely with the solicitor if they so wish to carry it on although there are not a lot of solicitors are there that would touch this type of work!!).

It just goes to show how when you have numerous companies involved (like with the people that have used a broker in a loan) people do not know who their contract is with AND they have no comebacks on the ones they think responsible. Lesson learn't i would say to anyone that has gone through this company.

I think you are simplifying the issue Karen. The problem is that there are few lawyers that truley understand the issues. I have never altered my opinion, knowing the underlying issues, that individuals are not in a position to win what is actually due to them doing it for themselves. You will only reclaim the maximum the lenders have negotiated in their own calculations to satisfy the powers that be and to maintain the status quo.

Dont forget that simply going after the PPI premium and the interest is not the full story here. You are not addressing the huge con that the lenders have created. While you have claims companies and the ombudsman service following the lender line then you are not going to break the real ground.

While you let the lenders get away with robbery they will continue to rob.

While people are facing repossession when they may not even be in arrears or may not even have a legal contract to fulfill there is still work to be done.

The only way forward is the legal route. Especially for those with say Welcome or Black Horse loans prior to 2005 where the lenders are claiming they were not regulated at the time so they can get away with it. Oh no they cant, not if you have the other legal issues to fight with and the means to litigate.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

I think you are simplifying the issue Karen. The problem is that there are few lawyers that truley understand the issues. I have never altered my opinion, knowing the underlying issues, that individuals are not in a position to win what is actually due to them doing it for themselves. You will only reclaim the maximum the lenders have negotiated in their own calculations to satisfy the powers that be and to maintain the status quo.

Dont forget that simply going after the PPI premium and the interest is not the full story here. You are not addressing the huge con that the lenders have created. While you have claims companies and the ombudsman service following the lender line then you are not going to break the real ground.

While you let the lenders get away with robbery they will continue to rob.

While people are facing repossession when they may not even be in arrears or may not even have a legal contract to fulfill there is still work to be done.

The only way forward is the legal route. Especially for those with say Welcome or Black Horse loans prior to 2005 where the lenders are claiming they were not regulated at the time so they can get away with it. Oh no they cant, not if you have the other legal issues to fight with and the means to litigate.

And how long have you been saying this for? Nothing has been done so far and lots have been let down and investors into companies like Loancheck have also lost out. What have they done so far petermb. Nothing according to this forum. How many people have been let down? It seems to me a bit pot and kettle if what you are saying as to why loancheck failed, money - very much like greedy banks.

petermb_2

maxdp wrote: »

I think a lot of them have broken their contract anyway Peter TBH. How many of them for instance have contacted their clients once every 28 days to update them. Also to make decisions in the best interest of their clients. I think not. However these Solicitors have had costs to date and also the cost for Loancheck to Audit the case.

I know the costs could be between 4,500 and 5,500 I think that is if it goes to trial. I presume this is where Barclays came in to finance them on these costs with a loan. How much did they have to pay Loancheck for the auditing Peter do you know.?

The issue of broken contracts is something we are looking into and my lawyer has already agreed to study the CFA docs that Loancheck Clients have signed to see if there are escape clauses that can be used. If the issues that now prevail were not explained correctly at the onset of signing the agreement then there may well be grounds to walk away. We are working on it.

As for the costs, Yes I believe Barclays or one of it's subsidiaries at least were involved as were other funding groups and I believe it was one of those other groups that eventually brought the thing to an end for Severn Administration or whatever it was called at the end. I was sent the details by the Administrator as I was personally deemed to be a creditor too.

I am not prepared to comment further on the issue of Loancheck or its demise or what the principals are doing now but I will assist individuals when I can.

Hopefully, soon I can finish what I started back in 2002.

marshallka

Petermb, why don't you go to the FOS and the FSA and cite what you want to do. Help people (free of charge) with no interest in this for yourself (not wanting to earn money from it - your interest lies wholely with the consumer so you are saying) and see if they will listen. Surely if the banks are robbing people then this is a criminal matter also? I just cannot understand that you continue this business?? Don't you think people should pay back what they borrowed?

petermb_2

marshallka wrote: »

Petermb, why don't you go to the FOS and the FSA and cite what you want to do. Help people (free of charge) with no interest in this for yourself (not wanting to earn money from it - your interest lies wholely with the consumer so you are saying) and see if they will listen. Surely if the banks are robbing people then this is a criminal matter also? I just cannot understand that you continue this business?? Don't you think people should pay back what they borrowed?

Karen, I find your post a conflict. You feel it is ok to claim back the ppi premium because it has been mis-sold yet you are quite happy for the lender to get away with the far more serious offences of bribery and fraud. ????? I dont understand your thought process here. One offence is ok to claim against but not another?)

I only learned the knowledge I possess because I worked full time on the issue and dealt with the legal eagles who knew their stuff.

You seem to live in this ideal world where everything is lovely. The FSA and the ombusdman service are part of the establishment with the lenders.

As for getting paid. I have not seen a pay cheque in a long time but surely if the client does not pay then you cant have any real issue with me plying my trade and knowledge to assist others and earn a living surely?

I will raise your point about using solicitors without using third party companies. I see my job as ensuring that solicitors receive cases that will be successful. This implies that the client will end up a happy one with 100% of their compensation. Not part of their compensation or a portion that the lender is happy with but what is due.

Tell me the name of a solicitor that you know that understands all the issues, is running cases without charging the client an up front fee or deducting a percentage of the compensation at the back and fully understands the litigation protocols to win claims. Can you name one off the top of your head?
I hear all the time of lawyers who are in this business that do not. Where would you begin to look to find one?

It is only by Solicitors who litigate joining forces with people like me who understand consumer credit law that you end up with action.

Many of the solicitors who have gone into this sort of work were previously conveyancing practices who suddenly had no business to work with. They knew nothing about the claims industry prior to getting involved. How is a client going to know this?

As for people paying what they owe their lender.

If after that event the client still owes the lender money then so be it. If they end up walking away from the loan then so be it. But be well assured that a client will only walk away from a loan if the law deems it to be the right and just outcome.

If the judiciary did not put in place such laws then the lawyer and client could not use them. These are not loopholes but law based on case history.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

Karen, I find your post a conflict. You feel it is ok to claim back the ppi premium because it has been mis-sold yet you are quite happy for the lender to get away with the far more serious offences of bribery and fraud. ????? I dont understand your thought process here. One offence is ok to claim against but not another?)

I only learned the knowledge I possess because I worked full time on the issue and dealt with the legal eagles who knew their stuff.

You seem to live in this ideal world where everything is lovely. The FSA and the ombusdman service are part of the establishment with the lenders.

As for getting paid. I have not seen a pay cheque in a long time but surely if the client does not pay then you cant have any real issue with me plying my trade and knowledge to assist others and earn a living surely?

I will raise your point about using solicitors without using third party companies. I see my job as ensuring that solicitors receive cases that will be successful. This implies that the client will end up a happy one with 100% of their compensation. Not part of their compensation or a portion that the lender is happy with but what is due.

Tell me the name of a solicitor that you know that understands all the issues, is running cases without charging the client an up front fee or deducting a percentage of the compensation at the back and fully understands the litigation protocols to win claims. Can you name one off the top of your head?
I hear all the time of lawyers who are in this business that do not. Where would you begin to look to find one?

It is only by Solicitors who litigate joining forces with people like me who understand consumer credit law that you end up with action.

Many of the solicitors who have gone into this sort of work were previously conveyancing practices who suddenly had no business to work with. They knew nothing about the claims industry prior to getting involved. How is a client going to know this?

As for people paying what they owe their lender.

If after that event the client still owes the lender money then so be it. If they end up walking away from the loan then so be it. But be well assured that a client will only walk away from a loan if the law deems it to be the right and just outcome.

If the judiciary did not put in place such laws then the lawyer and client could not use them. These are not loopholes but law based on case history.

So basically what you are saying is that most people that had a loan was sold it with bribery and fraud involved? I know that when I had a loan I "needed" the money. They offered to loan it to me, I was free to go where ever I wanted to get the money and I was given an APR that I agreed to. It was then my responsibility to repay that money. The only time I would argue "loans" is where rule of 78 (which I find an unfair penalty) is involved on early settlement. NO-one bribed me as I know to??? When PPI was sold alongside my loans I was led to believe I could not have a loan without it (but since found out to the contrary) so I have managed to claim it back. As regards commissions etc that are paid to brokers, lenders etc, then I have no objection to them (as long as my APR and number of months of the loan adds up to the figure I repay to them monthly - i had no gun at my head to actually have the loan and it was not sold as compulsory to ME - unlike PPI) unless they sell me the loan and then blantently charge it on the agreement and make my repayments more for this and I did not agree. If it is hidden then fine. I think a lot of companies hide lots of things where money is concerned.

I certainly do not live in an ideal world where everything is lovely petermb. Quite the opposite actually. I just realise that I am only a small person in it.

If as you say you have not been paid for ages then I assume you have money locked up in the companies gone bust and perhaps are needing the banks to assist you now in living.

Also do you honestly think that every client that has waited for the solicitors to act on their cases is going to get somewhere? If all cases were good cases for the likes of Watsons (who people were told were a solicitors that knew their business!!) then why are people getting turned away now after all this time?

You continue to run your business (that is not costing the clients anything as you say and yet some are posting that they MAY be charged hefty fees, no-one is stopping you) You are assisting people in your own way and I am assisting in my way. I have no objection to you or any other claims company for that matter BUT if you come on this site and recruit clients from here and they post back about their experience then what do you expect? For us all to believe you have proved your business. As yet I have not seen one happy customer. Time will tell then, is that what you are saying?

Also if it so good this thing you know and only few lawyers know then why not let Martin know and perhaps he would put his name to it??

maxdp

petermb wrote: »

Karen, I find your post a conflict. You feel it is ok to claim back the ppi premium because it has been mis-sold yet you are quite happy for the lender to get away with the far more serious offences of bribery and fraud. ????? I dont understand your thought process here. One offence is ok to claim against but not another?)

I only learned the knowledge I possess because I worked full time on the issue and dealt with the legal eagles who knew their stuff.

You seem to live in this ideal world where everything is lovely. The FSA and the ombusdman service are part of the establishment with the lenders.

As for getting paid. I have not seen a pay cheque in a long time but surely if the client does not pay then you cant have any real issue with me plying my trade and knowledge to assist others and earn a living surely?

I will raise your point about using solicitors without using third party companies. I see my job as ensuring that solicitors receive cases that will be successful. This implies that the client will end up a happy one with 100% of their compensation. Not part of their compensation or a portion that the lender is happy with but what is due.

Tell me the name of a solicitor that you know that understands all the issues, is running cases without charging the client an up front fee or deducting a percentage of the compensation at the back and fully understands the litigation protocols to win claims. Can you name one off the top of your head?
I hear all the time of lawyers who are in this business that do not. Where would you begin to look to find one?

It is only by Solicitors who litigate joining forces with people like me who understand consumer credit law that you end up with action.

Many of the solicitors who have gone into this sort of work were previously conveyancing practices who suddenly had no business to work with. They knew nothing about the claims industry prior to getting involved. How is a client going to know this?

As for people paying what they owe their lender.

If after that event the client still owes the lender money then so be it. If they end up walking away from the loan then so be it. But be well assured that a client will only walk away from a loan if the law deems it to be the right and just outcome.

If the judiciary did not put in place such laws then the lawyer and client could not use them. These are not loopholes but law based on case history.

With the bribery and fraud are you meaning how much people were being paid to sell PPI alongside Loans. How they were given targets to meet each month so they got points towards holidays etc. Is that what you are meaning Peter?

I was on a jury once and it was to do with agents selling Life Insurance etc. These were two of the well known Insurance Companies. They took on Agents without checking their background etc. A lot of these people were ethnic minorities, would rent flats in different names and have bank accounts in different names. One Agent had 11 different bank accounts.

Anyway what they were paid to do as sell insurance for a commission. Their commission was paid into like a credit card account. What the Agents were doing was getting their vast families and friends to sign up for insurance, make a couple of monthly payments, just so the commission was paid into their accounts then they would cancel the insurance.

Now I am talking twenty five years ago here and they were getting paid about £150.00 for selling life insurance.