CCLS - Consumer Credit Litigation solicitors - Burleys Solicitors CLOSED

marshallka

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=500974&in_page_id=62&position=moretopstories

ILW

I love the way it says that if you paid by credit card, the card company should refund you. Bet they love that.

jamesd

ILW wrote: »

Is it that the majors are truly that much more honorable and prepared to let their critics have a voice?

Consider what would happen if some company wanted to suggest that I was being unfair in comments about them here. Anyone who doubted me could just look at my other posts and see that I'm not prone to baseless criticism. Now consider a relatively new poster without the track record. Much easier to dismiss them as biased or wrong.

Same situation for companies: big companies with lots of customers have less reason to be interested in taking action than new small ones because the big ones already have a widely known reputation. The big ones also have less of a need to constantly acquire new customers so they are also likely to be less affected by a few negative comments. The big ones sometimes will have ongoing revenue streams while a business that gets money once per customer at the time of first sale will also be more affected.

The big banks know this and also have pros who manage such things who know that it would be unproductive for them to do such things.

Alpine_Star

esmerellda wrote: »

Some quotes from the BBC Article:

The regulator said the law firm had "tens of thousands" of customers files, "which just seem to have been put in boxes"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8562766.stm

THOMAS123

Alpine_Star wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8562766.stm

If each file is worth -£495 (the fee to be repaid to the client) and a box holds say 50 files then each box is worth -£24,750 to Cartel.

There are 1,400 boxes - that means -£34,650,000!!!!

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

If each file is worth -£495 (the fee to be repaid to the client) and a box holds say 50 files then each box is worth -£24,750 to Cartel.

There are 1,400 boxes - that means -£34,650,000!!!!

Maxdp posted yesterday about a directors home address being posted on the other site for all to see and it being personal and not to do with business and how they get away with it. I was thinking last night how clients "home address's" in these type business's are always on view for all to see and often with some claims companies by people not even registered to handle data! I see no difference myself. They have so many home address's and personal documents of clients. Are they in "safe" hands now?

Alpine_Star

marshallka wrote: »

I was thinking last night how clients "home address's" in these type business's are always on view for all to see and often with some claims companies by people not even registered to handle data! I see no difference myself.

While I understand your sentiments this logic leaves you open to accusations of behaving as badly as the target of your critism.

If we geniunely believe in the concept that the sharing of personal information is wrong we shouldn't be advocating it. If we believe that we hold higher values, let's demonstrate it.

Yes, these people crawled out the sewer. Let's resist the temptation to join them.

marshallka

Alpine_Star wrote: »

While I understand your sentiments this logic leaves you open to accusations of behaving as badly as the target of your critism.

If we geniunely believe in the concept that the sharing of personal information is wrong we shouldn't be advocating it. If we believe that we hold higher values, let's demonstrate it.

Yes, these people crawled out the sewer. Let's resist the temptation to join them.

Sorry, i think my wording in the post has been confused. I DO think personal data should remain personal BUT with half these companies its NOT. Its actually used and sold on. I "am not" condoning it at all. Sorry if it sounded that way. I see sites all over the internet that blatently sell of personal data from clients when they cease to trade. It is not right and something does need doing. What i actually meant was that if some companies think it is fair to trade personal data then they should have no complaints of their own personal data being used also. I was not commenting on "any one" company here. I was generalising.

marshallka

Can anyone tell me here just what authority MOJ actually has over firms and their goings on. What i mean is are they only allowed to withdraw a licence and that is it? Do they have to check their worthiness in setting up another business or being "involved" in any other business of claims management. I always wondered what their actual job was? If this is on the wrong thread then please feel free to move to a more appropiate one. Sorry.

Alpine_Star

I don't really know but I'm sure Esmerellda does. I do think the MOJ has been asleep at wheel in this which could be a result of the license fee structure. The fees the MOJ rakes in are heavily determined on the amount of profit a CMC makes. Hardly an incentive for CMCs to comply with the rules.