CCLS - Consumer Credit Litigation solicitors - Burleys Solicitors CLOSED

~Brock~

ILW wrote: »

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

I'm gobsmacked that credit card companies and banks give these firms credit card accepting facilities in the first place. Are they mental?

If I ran a credit card company I would tell anyone trying to claim their worming out of debt fee back via s75 to get lost, and withdraw their credit limit at the same time, law or no law.

marshallka

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8565486.stm

Not looking good for clients here?

~Brock~

Alpine_Star wrote: »

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.

There will hopefully be some very serious questions raised about the role of the MoJ in this debacle. Is anyone actually surprised tho?

I mean, come on, they contracted this job out to Staffordshire bleedin' Council. :eek: I have it on good authority from a friend who lives there that they can't even collect the bins reliably!

CMC's are professional con-artists by their very nature. Their claims about the chances of success for unenforcibility claims were never going to hold water. They need a damn sight more regulation than they are getting.

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked that credit card companies and banks give these firms credit card accepting facilities in the first place. Are they mental?

If I ran a credit card company I would tell anyone trying to claim their worming out of debt fee back via s75 to get lost, and withdraw their credit limit at the same time, law or no law.

It actually mentions it in the bbc report above on advice from MOJ!!! I really cannot believe this...

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

There will hopefully be some very serious questions raised about the role of the MoJ in this debacle. Is anyone actually surprised tho?

I mean, come on, they contracted this job out to Staffordshire bleedin' Council. :eek: I have it on good authority from a friend who lives there that they can't even collect the bins reliably!

CMC's are professional con-artists by their very nature. Their claims about the chances of success for unenforcibility claims were never going to hold water. They need a damn sight more regulation than they are getting.

And what is wrong with Staffordshire. (I am Moorlands though:p)!!!

~Brock~

marshallka wrote: »

And what is wrong with Staffordshire. (I am Moorlands though:p)!!!

Nothing at all - I understand it to be a lovely place.:)

Just not sure how any council, no matter where they are, can expect to enforce regulations against CMC low-lifes effectively.

marshallka

~Brock~ wrote: »

Nothing at all - I understand it to be a lovely place.:)

Just not sure how any council, no matter where they are, can expect to enforce regulations against CMC low-lifes effectively.

I was only kidding Brock. It is lovely on a sunny day:). But understand what you are saying.

I think that there will be an uproar if MOJ don't start doing a "better" job than of past as it seems that loads of companies just close down and re-emerge doing the same type of thing ripping more people off and an eyelid is not even bat. WRONG!!!

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

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.

The MOJ have a great deal of power over CMC's and can ultimately remove their license to trade.

There is now apparently far more initial due diligence investigation into new applicants than there was in the past.

If you look at the list of registered firms a lot are "home businesses".

However, and here's the conflict, the MOJ are funded from the profits of the CMC's.

The larger the CMC, the larger the profit, the more money that the MOJ receive.

If they close down Cartel and other major CMC's their income will reduce and jobs will be lost.

The expression "turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind.

marshallka

THOMAS123 wrote: »

The MOJ have a great deal of power over CMC's and can ultimately remove their license to trade.

There is now apparently far more initial due diligence investigation into new applicants than there was in the past.

If you look at the list of registered firms a lot are "home businesses".

However, and here's the conflict, the MOJ are funded from the profits of the CMC's.

The larger the CMC, the larger the profit, the more money that the MOJ receive.

If they close down Cartel and other major CMC's their income will reduce and jobs will be lost.

The expression "turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind.

But don't MOJ see that the way of making large profits from most of these firms is to take the upfront fee from a client and do nothing else (as a lot just leave the files lying around for 2 years with no work on them). So what you are saying is ultimately MOJ are actually applauding that as it gives them a job!!

THOMAS123

marshallka wrote: »

But don't MOJ see that the way of making large profits from most of these firms is to take the upfront fee from a client and do nothing else (as a lot just leave the files lying around for 2 years with no work on them). So what you are saying is ultimately MOJ are actually applauding that as it gives them a job!!

Not so much "applauding" but more passive acceptance.

I'm sure that they have had many complaints before now about Cartel