Too Good to be True?

iitommoii

Watsons are as much to blame as BBCredit! I have a letter from them saying they where happy to take on my case and in 2 years have done nothing! They are always unnavailable, never reply to emails, letters or phone calls. A totally unprofessional outfit! I have never known solicitors be so un professional! If they didnt want to be associated with BBCredit they should never have agreed to take on our cases. It cost me £1050 and then after 2years Watsons said if I was happy to pay them £800 they would proceed with my claim! Conmen and liars!! All taking advantage of people in poor financial difficulties!

pt2537

iitommoii wrote: »

Watsons are as much to blame as BBCredit! I have a letter from them saying they where happy to take on my case and in 2 years have done nothing! They are always unnavailable, never reply to emails, letters or phone calls. A totally unprofessional outfit! I have never known solicitors be so un professional! If they didnt want to be associated with BBCredit they should never have agreed to take on our cases. It cost me £1050 and then after 2years Watsons said if I was happy to pay them £800 they would proceed with my claim! Conmen and liars!! All taking advantage of people in poor financial difficulties!

you are obviously annoyed, understandable, but

look at it this way

you entered into a contract with BBC yes?

you paid BBC the money yes?

Then BBC transfer your file to watsons , did the full file of papers get transfered? probably not, did the full information get transfered? probably not

Did you pay watsons anything? probably not, so how can you criticise someone who hasnt been paid a penny by you? yes you paid BBC, i accept that

BUT there was a promise of funding, that watsons never recieved, so no funding no case to court, sadly, you dont expect a car mechanic to repair your car for free do you? you dont expect ADSA to deliver your shopping for free ? so why would you expect watsons to pay to issuse your claim?

Did you sign a CFA? most likely you did, Go and read it , it will tell you that the obligation to fund the case falls on your the client not the lawyer

iitommoii

pt2537 wrote: »

you are obviously annoyed, understandable, but

look at it this way

you entered into a contract with BBC yes?

you paid BBC the money yes?

Then BBC transfer your file to watsons , did the full file of papers get transfered? probably not, did the full information get transfered? probably not

Did you pay watsons anything? probably not, so how can you criticise someone who hasnt been paid a penny by you? yes you paid BBC, i accept that

BUT there was a promise of funding, that watsons never recieved, so no funding no case to court, sadly, you dont expect a car mechanic to repair your car for free do you? you dont expect ADSA to deliver your shopping for free ? so why would you expect watsons to pay to issuse your claim?

Did you sign a CFA? most likely you did, Go and read it , it will tell you that the obligation to fund the case falls on your the client not the lawyer

Yes I did sign a CFA which Watsons then said they hadnt received 4mths later so I then sent another one recorded delivery. If Watsons dont want to be associated with BBCredit as I said they should never have sent me a letter confirming they where dealing with my case. Andrew Watson said he was looking at my claim then did nothing! With excuse after excuse, blaming his staff for being incompetent, and then having his child in the office so he couldnt look at my case at that time. Then putting me onto Gwyn Jones, still making out they where dealing with my claim. Unfortunately for them on one phone conversation they didnt put the receiver down and I overheard a whole conversation about what they had been paid off BBCredit for the claims. As I said before, if they didnt want to have anything to do with BBCredit they shouldnt have sent letters out confirming they where acting for them and dealing with our claims. They are as much at fault. P.S who are you? Andrew or Gwyn???

iitommoii

iitommoii wrote: »

Yes I did sign a CFA which Watsons then said they hadnt received 4mths later so I then sent another one recorded delivery. If Watsons dont want to be associated with BBCredit as I said they should never have sent me a letter confirming they where dealing with my case. Andrew Watson said he was looking at my claim then did nothing! With excuse after excuse, blaming his staff for being incompetent, and then having his child in the office so he couldnt look at my case at that time. Then putting me onto Gwyn Jones, still making out they where dealing with my claim. Unfortunately for them on one phone conversation they didnt put the receiver down and I overheard a whole conversation about what they had been paid off BBCredit for the claims. As I said before, if they didnt want to have anything to do with BBCredit they shouldnt have sent letters out confirming they where acting for them and dealing with our claims. They are as much at fault. P.S who are you? Andrew or Gwyn???

Oh and bye the way, Watsons bless them did say if I was happy to pay them a further £800 they would look at my case QUICKER! That was nice of them, after taking a fee off BBCredit and telling me a year before they where looking at my case. Liars and Conmen! All in it together!!!

inmypocketnottheirs

Fools and their money.......

pt2537

iitommoii wrote: »

Yes I did sign a CFA which Watsons then said they hadnt received 4mths later so I then sent another one recorded delivery. If Watsons dont want to be associated with BBCredit as I said they should never have sent me a letter confirming they where dealing with my case. Andrew Watson said he was looking at my claim then did nothing! With excuse after excuse, blaming his staff for being incompetent, and then having his child in the office so he couldnt look at my case at that time. Then putting me onto Gwyn Jones, still making out they where dealing with my claim. Unfortunately for them on one phone conversation they didnt put the receiver down and I overheard a whole conversation about what they had been paid off BBCredit for the claims. As I said before, if they didnt want to have anything to do with BBCredit they shouldnt have sent letters out confirming they where acting for them and dealing with our claims. They are as much at fault. P.S who are you? Andrew or Gwyn???

Im neither

Check my skype icon you will see that

Just because i disagree with you you want to openly try to discredit me, clearly you are a silly person

~Brock~

pt2537 wrote: »

Im neither

Check my skype icon you will see that

Just because i disagree with you you want to openly try to discredit me, clearly you are a silly person

With respect pt2537, by defending Watsons you imply that you are either connected with them or are at least a very satisfied customer. For the benefit of a person who is clearly dissatisfied with them it would be both helpful and courteous to clarify which.

pt2537

~Brock~ wrote: »

With respect pt2537, by defending Watsons you imply that you are either connected with them or are at least a very satisfied customer. For the benefit of a person who is clearly dissatisfied with them it would be both helpful and courteous to clarify which.

I am a moderator for the Consumer Action Group,

I have knowledge of people who have been helped by Watsons Solicitors, including people who would have lost their homes had it not been for them

yes you cant please everyone all the time i accpet that

but the sad thing here is, people who are slating them do not know the full story, if they did they would understand

As for the chap who signed the CFA, i suggest you read it

the CFA covers the solicitors fees for work done, it does not however cover the disbursements, dibs are payable by the client unless there is pre funding arrangements in place, in this case there is not so the client has to pay their own fees, if they want the case pushed to court


sorry but thats a fact of life,

Pownelli

Morning posters.

Just reading back through a few of the latest comments and I see that I might be missing a trick here. If I am following this correctly then BBCredit have passed over some, if not all, of the cases to other organisations, Watsons seem to be prevalently mentioned here. Is there anyone reading this that is in a position to clarify the current trading status of BBCredit, basically I want to know if they have shut up shop?

As for the poster, IMPNT, who felt it acceptable to make the bold statement about "fools and their money" I suggest a short course in diplomacy. If it was your intention to incite some sort of response in your Trollish way I am afraid all you achieved from me was a heart felt disdain, more fool you.

It is one thing to have been duped by a Grifter, it is quite another to feel you have been duped by a professional, registared, legal organisation. Whilst I may not be the sort to shout and stamp my fury with the system is no less focused.

Many thanks to all of those who have shared their experiances and offer help.

inmypocketnottheirs

Pownelli wrote: »

Morning posters.


As for the poster, IMPNT, who felt it acceptable to make the bold statement about "fools and their money" I suggest a short course in diplomacy. If it was your intention to incite some sort of response in your Trollish way I am afraid all you achieved from me was a heart felt disdain, more fool you.

Quite why anyone who is so obviously superior would find it neccessary to part with a substantial amount of money to get out of a substantial amount of debt eludes me. Especially when with a little research one can either do it themself, or clarify that their agreements are enforceable and therefore it is not appropriate to pursue this route.

So as I said.....

Fools and their money .......


P.S. Pownelli, check my history around these boards against yours. Hardly makes me a troll, don't you think? Perhaps I hit a nerve of truth.