Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

jon1965

As "evidenced" here is not the way they have worked for a long time so i think you are being unfair and possibly just jumping on the bandwagon.

simon_the_poet

No I don't think i can be accused of jumping on a band wagon.

It just seems to me that if someone comes on here and promises to relive a debtor of his debt, for a fee, by finding a fault in the agreement everyone says CMC, call yourself a solicitor and it's suddenly OK.

Simon

jon1965

Simon, I think you are mistaken.
That is not what Watsons do
They defend people who have had actions brought against them and they give (I assume) advice on consumer credit issues that you will have to pay for , but that's the way with all solicitors. I went to see a solicitor for advice on my wifes estate and he charged me, even though he didn't actually do any work for me at all.
I believe that a lot of there work is done on a no win no fee basis and the costs are claimed from the other side . If you are not sure, why not give them a call or look on their website.

simon_the_poet

Perhaps they do, but I believe a major part of their business is still to offer an alternative to repaying debts.
Have a look on the preferred web site of the poster here,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!showthread.php?t=6087.

The above forum does not offer consumer advice, it offers means of avoiding paying debts, it is unashamed of the fact.

A random post from the forum mentioned

"Given the dates, it's very likely at least some of them could be unenforceable. If that's the case, why would you want to make any F&F offers to pay something that's not enforceable? As you are on a DMP you'd already have defaults on your credit file so you really have nothing to lose by trying the UE route."

This is the kind of consumer help that is really being provided.
In most cases genuine disputes between debtor and creditor can be worked out by means of the free agencies and debt charities, provided the debtor has a genuine will to repay the debt.
Not to say that solicitors aren't required on occasion of course by either side.

Simon

jon1965

Simon,
Of course i know which site you mean and it is sad that this site sees fit to edit it out.
The website concerned does not say avoid your debt at all costs, what it says is, if the agreement is faulty , i.e doesn't comply with the consumer credit act, then why should you have to repay it when you fall into difficulties. You will find that almost everyone on there has had difficulties and turned there as a last resort.
There is also a statement from a judge in a case that effectively says, if the bank have not complied with the CCA then they have gifted you the money.
I went there because i was seriously considering going bankrupt, however a large part of my debts are unenforceable and the remainder I can manage .

So if one of these creditors try to take me to court I would use Watsons to defend my legal position, what sane person wouldn't.

If you look at Cag , they talk about statute barred and using the law etc etc so it is not just All ab0ut debt that does it, just N1ddy knows how the law works better

It also does offer a wide range of advice and support on other issues ranging from benefits to housing to employment to techie stuff. They have helped me with practicalities when my wife died, help into cracking her password protected laptop, dealing with her creditors.

endora

simon_the_poet wrote: »

No I don't think i can be accused of jumping on a band wagon.

It just seems to me that if someone comes on here and promises to relive a debtor of his debt, for a fee, by finding a fault in the agreement everyone says CMC, call yourself a solicitor and it's suddenly OK.

It's not about what you call yourself. There is a crucial difference which you still fail to understand:

The CMCs that promise to 'relieve a debtor of his debt' acted with the debtor as the CLAIMANT, where the debtor sought to have their agreement ruled UE in court.

Consumer solicitors like Watsons offer to help people who have already been served court papers in their role as DEFENDANTS. You obviously don't understand the difference between the two, I suggest you look up the terms 'claimant' and 'defendant'.

Many DEFENDANTS who get served court papers have been paying on their arrangements with their creditors. I'd suggest reading Santander vs Mayhew, one of Watsons recent successes. Miss Mayhew had been paying Santander all along as agreed, yet they saw fit to issue a claim against her, out of the blue.

I'm sure if someone suddenly sued you, you'd also like to have legal advice, wouldn't you? Nothing to do with CMCs or debt avoidance. Even criminals are entitled to legal representation, why not debtors?

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Perhaps they do, but I believe a major part of their business is still to offer an alternative to repaying debts.
Have a look on the preferred web site of the poster here,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!showthread.php?t=6087.

The above forum does not offer consumer advice, it offers means of avoiding paying debts, it is unashamed of the fact.

A random post from the forum mentioned

"Given the dates, it's very likely at least some of them could be unenforceable. If that's the case, why would you want to make any F&F offers to pay something that's not enforceable? As you are on a DMP you'd already have defaults on your credit file so you really have nothing to lose by trying the UE route."

DMPs are not legally binding, creditors can still issue a claim when you are paying (as happened to Ms Mayhew above). They have also been known to accept a F&F then sell on the remainder to a DCA. They like to play dirty. There's nothing wrong with the statement above, it's based on the Consumer Credit Act, that clearly sets out the requirements that make an agreement properly executed. If a financial institution that employs thousands of people, including in-house legal teams and hordes of back-end operators to process data, can't get something as simple as a credit agreement right, despite the fact that their core business IS precisely to offer credit, and they handle millions of such agreements, why shouldn't they face the consequences? Anyone else running any other business would!

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

Sadder still to spend your life cashing in on others misery.

Simon

Cashing in? In what way and be very careful with your answer unless you want a visit to the high court for a defamation action

jon1965

I have to say that this is a perfect example as to why people need help to represent them. Endora has argued the point much more effectively than I was able to do, with authority and examples which are backed up by fact. The Mayhew case is of course the perfect example as to why we need solicitors like Watsons and forums like AAD

simon_the_poet

pt2537 wrote: »

Cashing in? In what way and be very careful with your answer unless you want a visit to the high court for a defamation action

No i think "cashing in" is an excellent description in my opinion.

Please feel free.

Simon

simon_the_poet

I expected Niddies rescue squad to jump on this thread, doesn't change the facts.

Simon