CCLS - Consumer Credit Litigation solicitors - Burleys Solicitors CLOSED

marshallka

esmerellda wrote: »

Grass Roots Financial was authorised last year but yes is intended, it seems, to be the parachute company Cartel also recently (november last year) gained MOJ authorisation on personal injury etc claims with Cartel Claims Ltd.

Lets see what happens Tuesday.

Yeah, read that one over at the other site.

I also think that if MOJ takes away the claims management authorisation from any company then it should be personal too. It should be that any person/people who are directors, or plays any other role in management at that company that has had authorisation taken away should not be allowed to act in any way whatsoever in the involvement/running of any furture companies too (or if they already are then these also should also have their authorisation revoked!!). A bit like being struck off as a director.

marshallka

esmerellda wrote: »

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/userfiles/file/CMR_Impact_Update_2009.pdf

A useful read - Impact of Regulation – Assessment – Update 2009 July



ALSO Page 41 on....

It says on that link above

17.11 The contract that the Ministry of Justice has with Staffordshire County Council expires in 2011, and by then it should be clear as to whether or, as seems likely, not, the LSB is capable of taking over responsibility for claims management regulation.

(must be crazy as i have just read through it all - not saying i have taken it all in though:eek:!!!)

orc_2

Link to Radio 4's Money Box, which includes a feature on Cartel.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moneybox/moneybox_20100313-1250a.mp3

"Interestingly" or perhaps not, this programme said a senior employee of Cartel was paid £800,000 during 2008/09. Just shows the extent of money involved- and shows the benefit of joining a community on line where you can get help, support and guidance for £zero.

For those people that have been caught out by CCLS collapse and who paid by credit card- please consider attempting to claim the up front fee from your credit card provider.

You may have grounds for this as the service was paid for on the credit card and the service Cartel were supposed to provide was not delivered within the set timescale.

That could be quite ironic for many, if the claim CCLS were supposed to handle was against the same credit card firm that CCLS were paid with for their "service".

Follow this process:

In fact, it was good advice to tell people to pay their Cartel fees by credit card because they are covered by section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, the bank issuing the credit card is jointly liable with Cartel. This means that anyone who can show that there has been breach of contract (failure to make refunds despite the claims being rejected) can require the credit card company to refund them if the Cartel has not refunded them. All you need to do is to write to your credit card company as follows:

1. Refer to the credit card company's joint liability for the payment to Cartel Client Review under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
   
   
2. Give your credit card number and state the amount and date of the transaction.
   
   
3. Enclose some evidence of the refund requests you have made to Cartel.
   
   
4. Enclose the following two pieces of documentation from the Cartel Client Review website:
   
   a. Frequently Asked Questions
   
   Print off page one of:
   
   http://www.cartelclientreview.co.uk/faqs.aspx
   
   and highlight the text under question 2 which says:
   
   "The review fee is refunded should a claim be unsuccessful (subject to Terms and Conditions)."
   
   b. Terms and Conditions
   
   Print off a copy of the Terms and Conditions here:
   
   http://www.cartelclientreview.co.uk/remote/files/
   cartel_client_review_terms_and_conditions.pdf
   
   and highlight paragraph 4(a) which says:
   
   "(a) If during the provision of the Services You have an Unsuccessful Claim, You will be given the option to transfer the Review Fee (but not a deferred Review Fee) to another Product. If You confirm that You do not wish to transfer the Review Fee that You have paid We will refund it to You within a reasonable period of time, which will not exceed thirty (30) days."
   
   
5. Send the letter by Recorded Delivery.

Note that you can still make this claim even if your credit card has been cancelled, and you have six years to make a claim under section 75.

marshallka

orc wrote: »

"Interestingly" or perhaps not, this programme said a senior employee of Cartel was paid £800,000 during 2008/09. Just shows the extent of money involved- and shows the benefit of joining a community on line where you can get help, support and guidance for £zero.

I quite agree about getting help on here for £Zero but have a feeling that the site may have been used and abused by claims management company "staff". All for free as you say!!!

orc_2

marshallka wrote: »

I quite agree about getting help on here for £Zero but have a feeling that the site may have been used and abused by claims management company "staff". All for free as you say!!!

Interesting point, and you may be quite right in what you say, but I was not referring to this web site ie MSE.

Personally I think, for issues like this and bank reclaims/ PPI etc that far better help and support is available on CAG, penalty charges or LB. For those issues I would not recommend anyone come here and indeed, I have not referred anyone here- ever.

Coming here is however, far better than going to a "claims management" company.

Have a read of the following Independent article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/simon-read-cracking-down-on-claims-management-firms-1920614.html

"However there are hundreds of people on a very active internet message board who have successfully taken on banks and other financial institutions to reclaim charges or have debts written off. Their stories make fascinating reading and have made me think again about the issue of wriggling out of debt.
What I've learnt from the members of the Consumer Action Group is that many people have been treated very badly by banks and other lenders through excessive fees or unnecessary charges. For them, you can't help but cheer when they get their debts written off or compensation paid out. And for anyone in a similar position I would recommend visiting the website at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk.
As well as plenty of stories of posters' experiences, there's a wealth of advice for anyone facing debt problems or wanting to take on their bank. I'm willing to bet that anyone spending a few minutes on the site will end up better off than if they spend time dealing with a claims management company. "

marshallka

Cartel customers face £30k court fees

Customers of claims company Cartel Client Review could find themselves further in debt to the tune of £30,000 after it has emerged its legal firm botched their court cases.

The firm working almost exclusively on Cartel's 'debt-free' cases, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, was shut down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority last week due to concerns over 'suspected dishonesty'. It has now emerged CCLS took four cases to a Manchester High Court before Christmas as part of 10 test cases chosen by a Judge Waksman to decide the circumstances in which debts could be deemed 'unenforceable'.

CCLS failed to win the cases for its clients and had costs awarded against them.

However, the solicitors did not have insurance in place to cover it in the event of a failed court case, according to a source at Manchester Civil Justice Center, which has details of all upcoming cases. This means the indebted individuals who originally hoped Cartel would free them of their debts could now be slapped with further court fees of up to £30,000 each.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=501017&in_page_id=62&position=moretopstories#ixzz0iG2AgoMu

natweststaffmember

marshallka wrote: »

Cartel customers face £30k court fees



http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/credit-and-loans/dealing-with-debt/article.html?in_article_id=501017&in_page_id=62&position=moretopstories#ixzz0iFOf9zpH

You read that one sole comment on there?

marshallka

natweststaffmember wrote: »

You read that one sole comment on there?

Sorry, did not think I was allowed to actually post a lot:D

Will change it just for you. (when I tried before I got all the piccies and all the links up too but have added more now - )

esmerellda

Have to say I agree with the comment in the main part.

Coming to consumer forums you are likely to get a much more realistic view on whether your debt might be in the tiny minority of agreements that may be unenforceable. Even if you can't push on with that on your own you are extremely unlikely to get ridiculous success rates quoted at you and can make a sensible decision taking all the pros and cons into account with what to do with your account/debts.

You'll also find a number of cases which have lost and have had costs awarded against them, as well as successes, and you'll find successes pre court tailed off nearly 100% since the December Judge Waksman judgment.

We've always said to use the CCA 1974 correctly - to get your creditors to treat you fairly, to ditch their excessive fees and ridiculous collection charges, and to get them to accept repayment plans if you are struggling, or to defend cases bought against you by lenders especially where the claims are unfair and unparticularised. There is a lot of misunderstanding across the forums tho - I think mainly where the hype from CMCs has been believed, and where CMCs have used forums to market themselves and the theories (without being entirely open about who they are) . It has been hard to fight back against, because the law IS that missing prescribed terms and miscalcs etc can render agreements iredeemably unenforceable (well was up to the 2006 amendments) - it is just the distinct lack of common sense being applied by the CMCs to their own ends is detroying any credibility of any defence/claim replying legitimately on the CCA. Trying to make people see that has been a bloomin difficult task.

Francis Bennion (draftsman of the CCA) was pretty bummed that the legislation laid down in 1974 was now being abused to such a level that the intended protection of consumers was being whittled away.

It is greed, but I do sympathise with people who got caught up in the hype over unenforceable agreements, the salesmen are very good at their jobs, and when you are desperate and have red letters and bailiffs you are very vulnerable to these kind of promises.

It isnt going to be over with Cartel, you'll get the leaches swooping in trying to sell 'resuce' packages for customers. My only advice to people would be to get out completely and get as much of your money back as you can, and forget about unenforceability unless you understand the CCA and have a good case (not a minor technicality, an ACTUAL case)

Listen to people who you KNOW are impartial and who want the best for consumers, not the best for banks, or to line their own pockets.

orc_2

esmerellda wrote: »

Listen to people who you KNOW are impartial and who want the best for consumers, not the best for banks, or to line their own pockets.

Excellent post and good advice.:)