on bbc: Some store card debtors may be let off with upgraded cards

seamanarts

endora wrote: »

No, it ISN'T that solicitor at all!

ANDREW WATSON is an experienced solicitor with a broad range of knowledge who specialises in litigation with the main focus being on the Consumer Credit Act.

So this isnt the A Watson I was referring to then?

Oh and I have seen the copy of the court transcript.
that FP on aad was referring too.

She can save herself the trouble;):D

seamanarts

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10756.2011%20-%20Watson.pdf

Just making sure

mo786uk

seamanarts wrote: »

CAB is in a lot of trouble then.

advice or advise may refer to:
Advice (opinion), an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct.

Some of the stuff they say may ell fall within debt advice. CAB probably has a licence.

Some of the stuff said on CAG probably is in the grey area as clearly some of them offer thought out advice (right or wrong) and clearly some of the mods are taken seriously by readers - i.e their advice will be taken.

I know people who work inethe regulatory area around credit and find CAG extremley frustrating - so I think that tells you all you need to know.

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10756.2011%20-%20Watson.pdf

Just making sure

an old article, about the earlier days when Andrew was involved with Loan Check.

It may surprise you, even shock you to learn that even a solicitor can get caught out in a scam.

I am aware of the issues, i have read the report. I would say that the reality of the situation is that the tribunal would have shut the firm if it wasnt happy that there had been substantial changes made to the way it operated.

The proof is there, the firms still going, the case loads are manageable, the victories are there for all to see, Kotecha, Harrison, Mayhew, to name but a few, so yes while an error was made in the early days, those errors are long gone

jon1965

pt2537 wrote: »

an old article, about the earlier days when Andrew was involved with Loan Check.

It may surprise you, even shock you to learn that even a solicitor can get caught out in a scam.

I am aware of the issues, i have read the report. I would say that the reality of the situation is that the tribunal would have shut the firm if it wasnt happy that there had been substantial changes made to the way it operated.

The proof is there, the firms still going, the case loads are manageable, the victories are there for all to see, Kotecha, Harrison, Mayhew, to name but a few, so yes while an error was made in the early days, those errors are long gone

Thank you PT. They were all facts I did not know, but make my point about what is done is done and how i thought it despicable that this was brought up again

pt2537

Rupert_Bear wrote: »

Its never right. She was happy to spend the money. We can now understand why apr on unsecured debt is so high.

I thought i had replied to this post but it seems my reply has been taken away sigh,

Ms Mayhew neverstopped paying!!! i can say that for certain as i was involved in the case.

Infact, if ever you want an example of irresponsibility by a bank, this is it.

Now i know Di borrowed the money, and to be fair to her she was paying each and every month, in fact it may surprise you to learn she made a payment on the day of the Court trial and only stopped paying when the formal judgment was handed down.

This lady should never have been sued end of story. The Judge, who was very hostile to us, even raised an eyebrow when she heard that Di had agreed a payment arrangment, had kept to it without waiver, and even though that had been sorted, Santander sued her.

Now if i were put in that position, despite my best efforts to pay, id darn well use whatever law i could to defend myself.

Its a double edge sword, if one wishes to use the law to enforce his rights, he must ensure he complies with the law. Shame Santander didnt

jon1965

Pt you had replied but alas someone had taken it away

pt2537

jon1965 wrote: »

Pt you had replied but alas someone had taken it away

may have been cos i put a link to my personal blog on there i guess.

If the person had read the blog before removing it, they would have seen it answered the misconceptions being bounced around about mayhew.

seamanarts

By the way , I personally think it is very childish to try and show people up for spelling mistakes, I am the first to admit my spelling is poor, doesn't make me a bad or a wrong person.

I wasnt pointing out your spelling mistakes, I was pointing out your insults, hence why the comment under the quote.
Did I mention your spelling mistakes? No, I mentioned and out lined the insulting words. I was actually going to correct them when posted up, but thought you would be offended. You really need to stop being so defensive.

All I can think is that it is not really that one person who you are trying to damage but anyone who works at that firm.

No they did that for themselves, I dont write the news articles, I showed it as a matter of interest. I havnt mentioned any one else who works for that firm, so your comment makes no sense and is very pointless.

PT>The proof is there, the firms still going, the case loads are manageable, the victories are there for all to see, Kotecha, Harrison, Mayhew, to name but a few, so yes while an error was made in the early days, those errors are long gone

As a matter of interest, has Watson paid out yet?

jon1965

Alas it's not the mods here we need to show but hopefully some will have read it