Loancheck/Watsons Solicitors

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

Where do they get paid from?

Solicitors acting for the clients do so on a no-win, no-fee agreement.

If they win the case the Lenders have to pay all of the legal fees in addition to the money the refund to the client.

If the solicitors lose the case they do not get paid at all (it's their risk).

The client is insured against the cost of losing.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

Solicitors acting for the clients do so on a no-win, no-fee agreement.

If they win the case the Lenders have to pay all of the legal fees in addition to the money the refund to the client.

If the solicitors lose the case they do not get paid at all (it's their risk).

The client is insured against the cost of losing.

This sounds like then if a solicitor "does" take on a case there is very good chance of winning as they will lose out if they do not. I bet there will not be so many cases taken on though somehow!

THOMAS123

maxdp wrote: »

Thomas have you seen Lesley 65 post on the other Loancheck thread. Do you know of any way of helping her?

I have sent a reply - I hope she's OK

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

This sounds like then if a solicitor "does" take on a case there is very good chance of winning as they will lose out if they do not. I bet there will not be so many cases taken on though somehow!

I think that would be a faily safe bet.

I think all the hype about millions of people being able to wipe off their debts etc was only marketed by CMC's as a way of suckering people into parting with money.

It's a shame that it has taken so long for the Regulators to do something about it.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

I think that would be a faily safe bet.

I think all the hype about millions of people being able to wipe off their debts etc was only marketed by CMC's as a way of suckering people into parting with money.

It's a shame that it has taken so long for the Regulators to do something about it.

Glad they have and are doing something then. Its good that they have begun to listen then but just a shame it took so long and for some on here maybe.

What i never understood was that if people were asked "why" they were claiming back their loans etc would they actually have to know why for themselves? Should they have been the ones to actually say firstly what they thought was wrong with their loans RATHER than being told by Loancheck what they thought was wrong?

I probably have not explained myself well here thomas123 but do you see what i mean.

maxdp

THOMAS123 wrote: »

I have sent a reply - I hope she's OK

Thank you Thomas

petermb_2

maxdp wrote: »

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.

I will explain the bribery thing as simply as I can. I am not talking about all loans or the majority of loans. I am talking specifically where brokers are concerned and where PPI has been added to the loan amount.

Both the broker and the lender will receive commission when arranging the loan and the ppi. If you went straight to your bank and the bank added PPI then the bank will receive and income or derive an income for arranging the insurance.

If the bank derives an income from arranging the insurance they were using your money to purchase the policy.

Dont forget that they must have already lent it to you to be able to use it to buy the insurance. So if they are using your money they have a fiduciary duty to provide the best product at the best price and must disclose exactly how much they earned from doing so.

If you revert to Hurstanger v Wilson of 2007 it clearly states that a secret commission is deemed by the courts as bribery and in such an instance it is the lender who has received a bribe.

So this applies predominantly to PPI. And as this is the PPI thread, why I made the statement on here.

It is not about getting out of payments, simply seeking justice.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

I think that would be a faily safe bet.

I think all the hype about millions of people being able to wipe off their debts etc was only marketed by CMC's as a way of suckering people into parting with money.

It's a shame that it has taken so long for the Regulators to do something about it.

Also where does this with Loancheck come in then? Who did they sucker into parting with their money? Apparently it was not the clients as it would be free "completely risk free service from start to finish" (and most assumed this mean't from start to finish meaning form starting the claim to finishing the claim) to clients?

marshallka

This may help anyone that has a problem with their ongoing complaint.

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/__wysiwyg/UploadedFiles/File/MoJ%20Conduct%20of%20Authorised%20Persons%20Rules%202006(1).pdf

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

Also where does this with Loancheck come in then? Who did they sucker into parting with their money? Apparently it was not the clients as it would be free "completely risk free service from start to finish" (and most assumed this mean't from start to finish meaning form starting the claim to finishing the claim) to clients?

Not the clients (well not intentionally)

Maybe the solicitors - possibly the organisations who provided loans to the solicitors to enable them to run the cases - the Investors.