Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

jon1965

Magpie
You are saying that someone was forced out of business by their regulator. I am interested, can you please provide the evidence?

In my (admittedly limited experience) the FOS were not good. They did not take a balanced look and it was not until I rejected their initial findings and had to spell it out in the most simplistic form and quote the OFT guidelines almost line by line that they came up with an acceptable reaction. And all I was asking was that the creditor agreed to a short repayment break during a time of extreme financial pressure as well as some serious stress/anxiety related issues that clearly put me in the vulnerable persons category. So you will forgive me if I find them less than useful.

pt2537

magpiecottage wrote: »

Do you know where to serve notice on them then?

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. PLEASE CORRECT THIS STATEMENT> IT IS IN ERROR



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.



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.

you are misguided, no one has been forced out of the profession nor do i work for a firm where the owner is no longer a solicitor.

I do not know who you are, but i would suggest you check the facts before posting incorrect information, thanks

pt2537

magpiecottage wrote: »

Do you know where to serve notice on them then?

.

Actually yes i do, seems the poet was silly enough to post his personal details on another forum before he was banned. Rather helpful that

jon1965

That is just brilliant , watch the Simon run for the hills

magpiecottage

pt2537 wrote: »

no one has been forced out of the profession

I didn't say that, I said

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

There is a difference.

You also said

pt2537 wrote: »

Infact the staff who are there now were not around in the loan check days, its a new team and that teeam has been acheiving some excellent results.

That would suggest that Mr Watson is no longer trading and it was that statement I relied on.

In fact, I now realise that that your statement misled me. I understand that Mr Watson has been told by his regulator that he can no longer run a sole trader business (see here) but he therefore now runs it as a partnership.

But that means your statement was untrue and, as I say, misleading. That does not really seem very ethical behaviour to me.

Nor does coming onto this forum and breaking the rules by spamming your services.

Or failing to clarify that you are not actually a solicitor at all.

This evidence seems consistent with what others report of your firm.

magpiecottage

jon1965 wrote: »

In my (admittedly limited experience) the FOS were not good. They did not take a balanced look and it was not until I rejected their initial findings and had to spell it out in the most simplistic form and quote the OFT guidelines almost line by line that they came up with an acceptable reaction. And all I was asking was that the creditor agreed to a short repayment break during a time of extreme financial pressure as well as some serious stress/anxiety related issues that clearly put me in the vulnerable persons category. So you will forgive me if I find them less than useful.

I do agree there have been some poor decisions, particularly by adjudicators.

However, this works both ways. Earlier this year an Ombudsman decided an IFA was wrong because a Chartered Accountant decided to do something without first checking the tax consequences!

Generally, though, they are more likely to find in favour of the consumer than a court.

jen_br

magpiecottage wrote: »

I didn't say that, I said

There is a difference.

You also said



That would suggest that Mr Watson is no longer trading and it was that statement I relied on.

In fact, I now realise that that your statement misled me. I understand that Mr Watson has been told by his regulator that he can no longer run a sole trader business (see here) but he therefore now runs it as a partnership.

But that means your statement was untrue and, as I say, misleading. That does not really seem very ethical behaviour to me.

Nor does coming onto this forum and breaking the rules by spamming your services.

Or failing to clarify that you are not actually a solicitor at all.

This evidence seems consistent with what others report of your firm.

The statement wasn't misleading... you misunderstood

pt2537

magpiecottage wrote: »

I didn't say that, I said

There is a difference.

You also said



That would suggest that Mr Watson is no longer trading and it was that statement I relied on.

In fact, I now realise that that your statement misled me. I understand that Mr Watson has been told by his regulator that he can no longer run a sole trader business (see here) but he therefore now runs it as a partnership.

But that means your statement was untrue and, as I say, misleading. That does not really seem very ethical behaviour to me.

Nor does coming onto this forum and breaking the rules by spamming your services.

Or failing to clarify that you are not actually a solicitor at all.

This evidence seems consistent with what others report of your firm.

Spamming your services?

where? clarify please?

I never said i was a solicitor, i have infact made it very clear on my blog, and on many other places i am not a "solicitor" but then again i dont need to be a "solicitor" because i am a member of Cilex and i pay my subscription each year, unless im doing something wrong there, then i dont see your point.

May i add that none of my witness statements i have ever produced has held me out to be anything that i am not. My subscription is paid to Cilex each year, end of. Please clarify what you are actually accusing me of here?

As for accurate reports of the firm??

Ok, lets clarify, yes old news was that Andrew did go before the disciplinary panel. The report is there, i cannot nor do not defend that, it was wrong end of!!

However, the firm has moved on, there are no complaints outstanding against the firm, and our firm has been having success, yes there is always the odd case where a judge disagrees but in the main we are succeeding with cases.

Lets not also forget that people dont tell the truth some times either, one complaint that was raised was full of proven untruths, so when someone (and i dont mean the loancheck cases here either) jumps up and complains about poor service etc, then until the regulator finds in their favour it is unfair to try and tar a firm of professionals whom are all working to try and earn a living for their respective families, with a brush that was used to tar one person long before the others joined the practice.

I dont feel that is very fair, i have done nothing wrong yet it seems to be suggested that i was responsible for this loancheck fiasco. I was not!!!!

magpiecottage

pt2537 wrote: »

Spamming your services?

where? clarify please?

I never said i was a solicitor, i have infact made it very clear on my blog,

That, I think is your problem.

You have not clarified it on this forum that you are not a solicitor.

On the other hand, you have given links to your blog, which appears to be a commercial one - and other commercial activities by you (and your employer).

You may not think that amounts to spam but I think "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck".

So I think those criticisms of you are fair.

pt2537 wrote: »

Ok, lets clarify, yes old news was that Andrew did go before the disciplinary panel. The report is there, i cannot nor do not defend that, it was wrong

It is not that old news, it was this year.

Lets not also forget that people dont tell the truth some times either, one complaint that was raised was full of proven untruths, so when someone (and i dont mean the loancheck cases here either) jumps up and complains about poor service etc, then until the regulator finds in their favour it is unfair to try and tar a firm of professionals whom are all working to try and earn a living for their respective families, with a brush that was used to tar one person long before the others joined the practice.

I think we have common ground there.

You would be wise to remember that clients can not only lie about you but also about other professional advisers.

And if they are lying about the other adviser, you might be their next victim!

Be careful - you have a B2C business that has an ombudsman scheme which now has one Walter Merricks overseeing it. He used to be Chief Ombudsman at FOS - and was a great advocate of ignoring legislation that is meant to provide fair protection from stale claims.

pt2537 wrote: »

I dont feel that is very fair, i have done nothing wrong yet it seems to be suggested that i was responsible for this loancheck fiasco. I was not!!!!

Clearly there are things you have done which I find questionable but that is not one of them.

The only thing I might accuse you of in that respect is naivety - because you do not seem to have appreciated that, fair or not, you were likely to be tarred with the same brush.

simon_the_poet

Trying to ignore the mindless abuse: I do not know what more proof you need, if you mean proof of cases lost I suppose you could look at Slater Vs Egg , see the linkabove.

This was the focus o fa huge thread on CAG that encouraged people to stop paying the agreements because Watsons/PT said they were unenforceable, the judge threw the case out,it is all on here.
The way that these people work is similar to CMCs and RLPcompanies, after the hundreds of cases that go through their books there is bound to be an occasional" win".The company then publicise these and claim that it is representative of all cases it handles, of course it isnt, 90% fail. These you never hear about of course, unless on forums like this.

Incedently if you examine these “wins” most are in fact, not so impressive. Harrison was down to a section 140/127)1) judgment the debtor was unfairly treated, he could have stated this himself, one I notice was only a temporary win, the court recommended the creditor re-represent its evidence at the lower court where the agreement would be enforced, of course you won’t see those facts on Watsons web page.

Simon