Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

jen_br

simon_the_poet wrote: »

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

Please feel free.

Simon

simon_the_poet wrote: »

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

Simon

Really? I am failing to see your facts.... I could quote a lot of cases where this firm has helped people and are continuing to help people.

Do you expect a lawyer to work for free?

Until you are in a situation where it could see you see your house gone along with your dignity and your self worth then I suggest you bow out graciously. The banks are the first to step on you for doing things wrong...for example You call them to say you can't make a payment (like they suggest) because of whatever reason... and they instead of help you they raise your interest rate! is that fair? Is that MORALLY right? No its not.

Banks and the likes have had problems long before Watsons and other firms like them existed the problem is we the consumer just swallowed what they said and paid whatever they demanded, at any cost!

Don't get me wrong they get it wrong sometimes, find me one firm that doesn't make mistakes?

They are hardly criminals they aren't trying to sell the fact "the glove doesn't fit" they are using the laws which govern this country to prove to Financial institution's are not playing fair.

I ask you Mr Simon if you had an operation done and it went horribly wrong because the surgeon took a short cut would you shrug it off or fight for justice?

jon1965

simon_the_poet wrote: »

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

Simon

Indeed it doesn't change the facts
The facts are
You are mistaken (I am being nice here)
You do not understand the concept of the law
You are making unfounded allegations
Watsons do a very good job the vast majority of the time, like jen said they will make poor judgement calls, we all do. I was only reading on CAG this morning where there were all fawning over Paul, I think it was the Link v Harrison case although unusually as someone said Mr Harrison was the claimant.
I am sure Niddy would be here to defend himself if he felt it necessary but as the facts speak for themselves he does not need to.
In addition this site does not allow freedom of expression which I believe is paramount, I will even let you spout your opinion so it can be shown for what it is

-taff

Arguing on the internet = doomed to failure

jon1965

So tell me Simon
If you are in a position to repay your debts and feel you should regardless of the enforceability of the debt and then something out of your control happens so you can no longer afford to repay, what should you do?

You say the creditors will not collect because it is not worth their time, well if everything is in order a CCJ is a simple matter and from there , well if the debtor has a house, bingo, Bobs your Uncle Fanny's your Aunt.
You talk about UE diaries, well I for one find keeping one useful as it is then easy to see where we are at any one time. It is far less intrusive than doing a SOA and then having people pass comment on how you spend your money.."get rid of sky " is the usual first comment.
I do think trying to discuss things with you is rather pointless as you seem to have a very narrow and blinkered view on life.
BTW who were you suggesting makes money from this. If it's Watsons well so what, but I know if I approached them and they felt it inappropriate they would decline to represent me,

endora

simon_the_poet wrote: »

You see the consumer credit act was constructed with a view to protecting people form unscrupulous creditors.

It was not introduced to provide a get out clause for people who, either cannot or will not repay their debts.

If you run into debt, which as you say we all do from time to time, should you find a way that you can repay, or should you try and avoid payment by hiring some shonky solicitor or CMC .

You still haven't grasped the basic difference between 'claimant' and 'defendant'. You see, CMC stands for CLAIMS Management Company, you would only use one if you wanted to make a claim yourself or put yourself in the role of claimant.

If someone issues a claim against you, you become the defendant. You can then choose to have legal representation from a firm of solicitors to defend you from the claimant. Even serial killers have the right to a defence and legal representation, why not debtors?

I get a feeling the UK may not be for you because you don't like the idea of consumers being able to defend themselves against creditors. You may feel more at home in Dubai, where being in debt is a criminal offence that can land you in jail.

simon_the_poet wrote: »

It is in the financial interests of the aforesaid to continue the illusion that the latter is a viable option, it is not.

What is not a viable option? to defend yourself when someone sues you? Last time I looked, it still was! Obviously, if you use the services of a law firm they'll have to be paid, but the same would apply to any other service you use.

In the Mayhew case, Santander had to pay the legal costs because the court ordered it. If Santander had behaved differently from start to finish none of this would have happened and we wouldn't be here, discussing the case.

simon_the_poet wrote: »

As far as Niddies forum is concerned it is a joke in my humble opinion, he encourages people to keep unenforceability diaries, where they record correspondence form DCa's and the clever "legal replies" designed to confound their efforts.

Truth is of course that they may just as well right back"I AM NOT PAYING" if the DCA were going to enforce they would, none of the gobbledygook would stop them, in most cases they don't, but just because it is not viable to do so(can't get blood out of a stone.)

Provides an ideal income source though.

What provides an ideal income source? Niddy's forum, like MSE and most other web-based forums, is free! Unlike other free forums, there's no advertising or link referrals there either, so it can't be an income source for him!

You also still fail to understand that if you leave the door open, people and other creatures will come in! The banks have left themselves open to challenge because of their failure to comply with the law, it's as simple as that. They are so arrogant they think themselves above the law and many of their dodgy deals wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny.

Banks love to shun responsibility and get others to do the dirty work for them. Companies the size of Santander, HSBC, etc. could easily handle all their collection activities in-house, yet they choose to pass their accounts on to the useless DCAs. One reason for this is so they cannot be accused of breaching OFT guidelines or treating people unfairly. I used to work in the financial sector so I'm well acquainted with the way such institutions operate!

magpiecottage

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

It would be a lot of effort to track down who the poster really is in order to do that and even if you won the publicity would make it a pyrrhic victory.

I also fail to see why somebody would continue trading under the name of a Solicitor who seems to have left his profession under a cloud or why somebody posting from Southampton would be working for a business which is apparently based in North Wales.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, since Good Friday 2007 consumer credit disputes can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service free of charge.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm really not sure this thread serves any useful (forum) purpose.
I strongly suspect it's being used to defend the indefensible.
(I'm especially suspicious of the number of "thanks" some comments receive on this thread)

Maybe - but remember, DNFTT

jon1965

Surely it's is irrelevant where a poster lives or says they live or indeed are at the time they post. Also as far as i know on a forum like this the owners have to take some responsibility for the contents of posts when they are made aware of them. As for the FOS in my experience, free or not,they are less than effective.

jen_br

jon1965 wrote: »

Surely it's is irrelevant where a poster lives or says they live or indeed are at the time they post. Also as far as i know on a forum like this the owners have to take some responsibility for the contents of posts when they are made aware of them. As for the FOS in my experience, free or not,they are less than effective.

Um didn't that happen with Twitter and the guy who decided to call out Tom Daley during the olympics? Internet forums may be faceless but someone knows who you are

endora

magpiecottage wrote: »

It would be a lot of effort to track down who the poster really is in order to do that and even if you won the publicity would make it a pyrrhic victory.

Not always, the poster in question is quite well known...

magpiecottage wrote: »

I also fail to see why somebody would continue trading under the name of a Solicitor who seems to have left his profession under a cloud or why somebody posting from Southampton would be working for a business which is apparently based in North Wales.

Location is irrelevant, with modern technology you can work from anywhere.

magpiecottage wrote: »

It is also worth bearing in mind that, since Good Friday 2007 consumer credit disputes can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service free of charge.

Leaving aside the fact that the FOS is useless and often biased, it won't help once you've been served court papers.

magpiecottage

endora wrote: »

Not always, the poster in question is quite well known...

Do you know where to serve notice on them then?

Location is irrelevant, with modern technology you can work from anywhere.

I know you can - I work from home.

But if somebody was forced out of business by my regulator for misconduct, I would not choose to take over that business and trade under that name.

the FOS is useless and often biased

I am sure I deal with far more cases than you and in my experience it is generally in favour of consumers, rather than businesses. It is normally only where a consumer (or somebody acting on their behalf) has attempted to use a technicality to get them out of paying what it is quite clear they legitimately owe that FOS is likely to find in favour of the lender when a court might do otherwise.

In any case, an Ombudsman's decision can be rejected by the consumer but if they accept it then it is legally binding on the business.

Thus if you like the outcome and accept it the business loses.

If you don't and you reject it the business still has not won.

it won't help once you've been served court papers.

If you are in dispute and threatened with court action then it can work VERY quickly. Furthermore, you can respond to the court by asking that proceedings are stayed and the matter referred to FOS.

Call 0800 0234567 or 0300 1239123.