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

seamanarts

jon1965 wrote: »

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

Perhaps you should of read the news article, you may have learned something about it.

The news article was Friday 13 April 2012. FYI. It wasnt an old article being bought up again!

I do hope that that has explained it for you. Despicable behaviour from a solicitor, yes very much so. Regardless of the excuses given, they were not rectified.

nottoolate

!!!!!! sake stop arguing. who cares whos got the better site or bigger whatever. grow up!

blog link was useful and relevant to the thread though. which is what this should be about.

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/santander-v-mayhew/

pt2537

I prefer to look at the exemplary work that has been done at the firm to turn things around rather than dwelling on the past. Yes errors were made, but they have been corrected.

I prefer to focus on the results this little firm has had against some of the biggest firms in the country, many many people now regularly rely on Judgments which this firm has been responsible for.

We have moved forward and hopefully can put these issues behind us, and carry on helping those who need it

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

Well you work for him, perhaps you could pass on my question.:p:D

You may get the answer quicker than me. I for one would be interested to know, Im sure there are a few others that would like to know too.
Its a very interesting subject and one Im sure Watson would like some closure on.

Wow, "Watson" thats rather ignorant isnt it, the courtesy of adding Mr wouldnt go amiss would it,

As for the payments, do you really think the firm would still be trading if it hadnt complied with the tribunals ruling??

seamanarts

pt2537 wrote: »

I prefer to look at the exemplary work that has been done at the firm to turn things around rather than dwelling on the past. Yes errors were made, but they have been corrected.

I prefer to focus on the results this little firm has had against some of the biggest firms in the country, many many people now regularly rely on Judgments which this firm has been responsible for.

We have moved forward and hopefully can put these issues behind us, and carry on helping those who need it

I have no doubts what you are stating is true.

There are many small firms around the UK that take on the Goliath's of this country, however that dosnt answer my question at hand.

What happens to the people you dont get results for, Im sure there are a few.

seamanarts

pt2537 wrote: »

Wow, "Watson" thats rather ignorant isnt it, the courtesy of adding Mr wouldnt go amiss would it,

As for the payments, do you really think the firm would still be trading if it hadnt complied with the tribunals ruling??

Did he?

Watson is the name of the firm isnt it?

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

Did he?

Watson is the name of the firm isnt it?

no, it is not, it is Watsons

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

What happens to the people you dont get results for, Im sure there are a few.

As far as losses go, i can only recall 5 or 6 from my time with the firm.

Even DLA piper, Hogan Lovells etc lose a case occasionally. im not sure what your point is?

nottoolate

what matters is the judgement and the principles in it.

who got it and wht they did in the past doesnt matter at all for that.

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

Is he a solicitor now?
or are we talking about this solicitor.

lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt-decisions/andrew-thomas-watson

this certainly dosnt look good on his firm.

NO!! the Solicitor responsible for this case was Thomas Gwyn Jones, an extremely competent solicitor.

Now im getting very tired of your persistent sniping at the firm i work for. Maybe you should read this website http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/end-line-solicitors-from-hell