Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

jen_br

simon_the_poet wrote: »

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

Harrison not impressive? I guess Mayhew was just beginners luck?

blimey how many plastic surgeons list how many failures they have had? They will list their achievements - I actually find it hard to think of one profession where you log onto their website and it says HEY WE ACTUALLY SUCK AT THIS but we did do well on XYZ.

With every case lost there is something to gain and put to use for the next win. Everyone in every profession looses now and again and I highly doubt you will see any one boast about their losses.


The point is Simon, you clearly have an axe to grind... you don't like Watsons I get it - You will probably never change your opinion about them. However, your inability to accept that there are any positives that come from that firm is what I find shocking.

I don't like Spanish wine but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it or at least acknowledge the fact that every now and again they come out with a nice bottle.

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

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

That is incorrect Mr Bardsley,

As for abuse? if abuse is asking you to do something you seem to struggle with, and support your facts with evidence then i guess its abuse.

However, the point is, the judge did find against the client in slater, of course you missed the part where she changed her evidence on the stand, That part seems to get missed, so that the focus can be switched to the firm. In conference with Counsel she said one thing, on the stand she said quite another, not taking away from the result but clearly the judge picked up on this inconsistency.

Anyway, As i told you we had counsel on a CFA for that case, so if it was sooo obvious it would be lost one has to ask why would a barrister waste his time like that with over a weeks work if the case was a no hoper?

Secondly, you seem to be hallucinating as the High Court never said go back to the County Court and have the evidence reheard?? where did that appear in the Judgment?

As for 90% fails?? your stats are lies, simple as that, we lost 4 cases in 48 months, we won over 100 in that same period at a rough estimate, that certainly does not fall into 90% loss

What you fail to realise, is there are banks who settle so as not to have an adverse ruling against them. So for example HSBC there have been numerous settlements that cannot be reported due to restrictions, dont mean that they are losses cos they arent reported, its just we are bound end of!!!

I think you need to stop the inaccuracies and focus on facts, and you seem very light on them.

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

of course you won’t see those facts on Watsons web page.

Simon

Unless you partake in illicit drug use of course as they simply never happened peter.

And ok lets look at this then,successfull CCA cases over the last two years,

Jones v Lloyds TSB
HFO v Samuels,
HFO v Wegmuller
HFO v Cunningham Appeal Court
HFO v Smith
Lloyds TSB v Mr L
HSBC v Mrs B
HSBC v Mrs C
Cabot v Bachellier
Cabot v Mr and Mrs P
Cabot v Mr M
Cabot v Mr Paterson
Cabot v Mr B
Harrison v Link
Kotecha v Phoenix
1st Credit v Cresswell
1st Credit v Mrs Brandon
Link v Opie
HFO v Robinson
MBNA v Hutchings
MKDP v Mr H
Cabot v Smith
Cabot v Shackleton
Yes Europa v Cresswell
Phoenix recoveries v Cresswell
HFO v Riaz
Robinson way v Legg
Hillesden v Durban
Cabot v Bacon
HSBC v Crake
Link v Broomhead
Lloyds TSB v Sandu
Lloyds TSB v Mrs H
Arrow Global v Devlin
Arrow v Devlin Appeal Court
HFO v Halford
HFO v Filby
HFO v Evans
Natwest v Lovegrove
Natwest v Hanson
Cabot v Hanson
Natwest v Mr B

The above represents successful cases over the last 24 months between the three fee earners at the firm. It is not an exhaustive list it merely represents the cases which have had a successful outcome. We are not the largest firm, and therfore the above list is pretty impressive in my view given the circumstances.

I will add to it as i find the case details.

endora

What about Santander vs Mayhew? That was some case, with my favourite Spanish bank who doesn't think UK law applies to them, being ordered to pay £50k in costs! :j:j:j

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

pt2537

endora wrote: »

What about Santander vs Mayhew? That was some case, with my favourite Spanish bank who doesn't think UK law applies to them, being ordered to pay £50k in costs! :j:j:j

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html

lol aye yes theres a few i forgot there too, but im sure simon peter whatever hes called will deny that these cases have any merit, instead he will take comfort from the 4 or 5 losses over the same period

jon1965

Paul,Endora,Jen, thank you for the explanations. Personally i really couldn't understand how or why a court would rule then tell Link to go back to a lower court. And then to find they didn't. I notice as well that most of the wins are where the bank is taking action so Watsons client is defending. That kinda blows Simon argument out of the water. Or is it Peter?

simon_the_poet

So much bull Mr Tilley it is difficult to know where to start, but you have years of practice. start with this

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bailii.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmarkup.cgi%3Fdoc%3D%2Few%2Fcases%2FEWCA%2FCiv%2F2011%2F105.html%26query%3Dphoenix%2Band%2Bkotecha%26method%3Dboolean&ei=p0KOUOqDOOO20QWHxYDYBA&usg=AFQjCNFQlvBBHGJ5P52AUMMYOahxx7dF-w&sig2=bk06cc83k83X-KC4PAw2DQ



Accordingly, there may be a case for this Court on allowing the appeal to remit the case to the county court so as to give the claimant an opportunity to put in further evidence and to try again to comply at last with the request made under Section 78 in February 2007 rather than to dismiss the claim entirely. Whatever order should be made in consequence, however, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judge's order on the basis that the claimant has not shown that the documents in evidence are a true copy of the agreement between the defendant and Beneficial Bank in July 1998 and therefore has not shown that the obligation under Section 78, which arose on the request made in February 2007, has been complied with.

Simon

pt2537

simon_the_poet wrote: »

So much bull Mr Tilley it is difficult to know where to start, but you have years of practice. start with this

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bailii.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmarkup.cgi%3Fdoc%3D%2Few%2Fcases%2FEWCA%2FCiv%2F2011%2F105.html%26query%3Dphoenix%2Band%2Bkotecha%26method%3Dboolean&ei=p0KOUOqDOOO20QWHxYDYBA&usg=AFQjCNFQlvBBHGJ5P52AUMMYOahxx7dF-w&sig2=bk06cc83k83X-KC4PAw2DQ



Accordingly, there may be a case for this Court on allowing the appeal to remit the case to the county court so as to give the claimant an opportunity to put in further evidence and to try again to comply at last with the request made under Section 78 in February 2007 rather than to dismiss the claim entirely. Whatever order should be made in consequence, however, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judge's order on the basis that the claimant has not shown that the documents in evidence are a true copy of the agreement between the defendant and Beneficial Bank in July 1998 and therefore has not shown that the obligation under Section 78, which arose on the request made in February 2007, has been complied with.

Simon

well slap me with a wet haddock for missing that Kotecha was a case that turned on s78.

I mean section 78 was never argued to give rise to the right to dismiss the claim in Kotecha, the point which was taken and er maybe you missed the order made but im sure it was in our favour, but the point was, if the Claimant could not discharge the s78 burden and given Mr Kotecha had documents which showed the Claimant had not discharged that burden, then the Claimant was not entitled to its Judgment.It was argued that the failing showed the learned Judge at the first instance could not have been satisfied s61 was complied with due to the clear errors. The Court of Appeal order was entirely restrictive on the Claimant in Kotecha, and the Court did not give them an open door to walk through, far from it, the order was restrictive and did not allow the creditor open season to find the papers

Moreover there have been a number of decisions that show the Courts are not prepared to allow claims to succeed where a creditor turns up without its tackle in order.

Eleventh hour adjournments are frowned upon in any event, see Fitzroy Robinson v Mentmore Towers [FONT=&quot]: [2009] EWHC 3070 (TCC),


[/FONT]

simon_the_poet

Yes you have a problem with selective memory don't you Paul.
Take the Slater vs egg case mentioned earlier.
This was lost because the claimament changed her story was it?

as I remember it the basis of you argument consisted on the idea that , because the creditor user the words, "applied limit" instead of "credit limit" the agreement was unenforceable.
The court of course threw the ridiculous argument out.
Many lost a lot of money over this.
There is a thread still in existence on here i think, the main huge thread was on CAG of course but you deleted it when you fled from there, don't like to evidence of your mistakes do you Paul?

simon_the_poet

It is usual practice for companies like this to print out lists of wins, if you look into them you generally find they are nothing but wishful thinking.

and of course they dont tell you about all the many losses.

These firms are thankfully on there last gasp now, which is why they have to go to such extraordinary lengths to get clients.

There current preferred method is to frequent consumer forums where people are already of the mindset that they can avoid paying their bills. This has the benefit of producing leads and minimizing advertising costs, its win win, but it cannot last.