Too Good to be True?

simon_the_poet

heretolearn wrote: »

It is possible; it's a service we offer our clients BUT I would be very wary of entering into an agreement with some random company over it. When we do this, we do an analysis first of whether the loan is one that we are aware of usually having problems, we do charge a small fee up front and then a %, but if it is unsuccessful then the client is refunded in full. So there's no risk to them, all the risk is with us, if we work on a claim and it doesn't get the right result, we've lost out, not the client.

Hi

doesnt work like that though does it look at the cae above how nmany advance payments do you think went belly up when that that unenforceability argument went out the window

21seeya

oldmotherb
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!:mad:

YOU KNOW WHERE THESE 'PEOPLE' LIVE!!
I am so angry with you at the minute
How can you drive past and NOT do anything????:mad:
I would be ringing the doorbell
I would camp on their lawn
I would hound them until
I got my money back

I WOULD POST AN AD AND TELL
EVERYONE WHERE THEY LIVE!!!

Sheesh
have you read any of the previous posts??

marshallka

tinkerbell4791 wrote: »

All these people on here being 'thanked' for their 'useful posts'.... Go & preach somewhere else!!
We all know that debt can get out of control but you know what - it's just one of those things. It spirals & can become unmanageable. Of course it's bad money management but it happens - all the time.
Getting the debt frozen & then written off is a legal procedure. If by taking this option it helps people from losing their homes or getting into more financial debt, then why shouldn't they take it?
All you holier-than-thou's on here seem to be missing the point - WHAT THIS DEBT MANAGEMENT COMPANY (BUY BYE CREDIT) & OTHERS LIKE IT ARE DOING IS ILLEGAL!!!!!
Hence the fact that Cartel have been closed down.. hence the fact that Buy Bye Credit are being investigated by the Ministry of Justice & also hence the fact that at least one of the people involved with that particularly company has recently had his licence revoked.
The service they offer is not illegal but the fact that they take money & don't carry out a service is.
End of story!

Buy Bye Credit had their authorisation cancelled by MOJ

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/details.aspx/12412/Buy_Bye_Credit_Ltd/?search=simple&business=&authID=&type=-1&sector=-1&county=-1&region=-1&status=11

simon_the_poet

marshallka wrote: »

Buy Bye Credit had their authorisation cancelled by MOJ

https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/details.aspx/12412/Buy_Bye_Credit_Ltd/?search=simple&business=&authID=&type=-1&sector=-1&county=-1&region=-1&status=11

Yes but the rescent court case hich was brought by alexandra against Egg, would seem to indicate that the CMC is still operating.
They also used watsons in this.

Simon

sad_grey_lady

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???

Just about sums watsons up!

seamanarts

I thought I would just update the thread for those who may be interested
law gazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt-decisions/andrew-thomas-watson

Andrew Thomas Watson
Friday 13 April 2012

Application 10756-2011
Admitted 1994
Hearing 9 November 2011
Reasons 22 December 2011
The SDT ordered that the respondent should pay a fine of £4,000.

In relation to a complaint made by client A, the respondent had failed to respond to correspondence from the Legal Complaints Service dated 17 February 2010, 11 March 2010 and 1 April 2010 and from the Solicitors Regulation Authority dated 13 July 2010 and 20 September 2010, contrary to rule 20.05 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct 2007; in relation to a complaint made by client B, he had failed to respond to correspondence from the LCS dated 30 March 2010, 22 April 2010 and 5 May 2010 and from the SRA dated 8 July 2010 and 28 July 2010, contrary to rule 20.05; in relation to a complaint made by client C, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 18 June 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client D, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 13 May 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client E, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 29 May 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client F, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 19 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client G, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 19 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client H, he had failed to comply with a costs direction made by an adjudicator on 26 April 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession, contrary to rule 1.06 of the code; in relation to a complaint made by client I, he had failed to comply within the period required with an adjudicator’s decision dated 28 July 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession; and in relation to a complaint made by client J, he had failed to comply within the period required with an adjudicator’s decision dated 2 July 2010, thereby behaving in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public placed in him or the legal profession.

The SDT said that in the present case a number of members of the public had been affected by the respondent’s conduct and the profession had therefore suffered reputational damage. The respondent had done himself a significant favour by producing his statement, albeit belatedly. The statement, together with the oral submissions, had explained the circumstances to the SDT. The respondent had been overwhelmed by the volume of work he had taken on.

The business model he had adopted when taking on work referred by LC, an organisation which had had an arrangement with the respondent’s firm under which it would refer work in connection with loans taken out by lay clients where there might have been ‘secret commission’ payments made by lenders to financial advisors, had been potentially dangerous and it had proved to be so when LC and the administration company had gone into administration. The SDT noted that there had been no complaints against the respondent since 2010. The SDT had to mark the seriousness of the numerous matters in which he had failed to respond and deal with orders made by the adjudicator. Balanced against that was the fact that the complaints and orders in question had arisen in a comparatively short period and did not reflect a pattern of behaviour over a prolonged period of time.

The SDT took account of the fact that the respondent had turned his business around, had adopted a sustainable and appropriate business model and was now taking steps to pay the various outstanding sums. The respondent had not submitted a statement concerning his financial position. However, on the information submitted it was clear that whilst he was not affluent, his practice was generating an income. In the light of the respondent’s submissions, and the SRA’s acceptance that the respondent had been co-operative and was taking steps to pay the sums due, the SDT determined that a financial penalty was appropriate and that a reasonable and proportionate sanction was the imposition of a fine of £4,000.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of £3,301.

Says it all really

27col

Anyone who seriously believes any of that "not having to pay your debts if you first give us 10% of your debts upfront", is an idiot.

woopsy

lawman1666 wrote: »

Having read the above remarks, i think some you would benefit from a little more understanding of contract law and the CCA (consumer credit act) credit card or personal loan agreements and other finance agreements or the lack of them can be challenged at court or not with alot of lenders that know their agreements are flawed and do not even bother with court and simply "write off" the debt. I would point you in the direction of a number of solicitors who offer this type of service and either charge approx 25% of any eliminated debt or work on a CFA (conditional fee agreement) . As for the first comment on this thread for a company to charge 10% of a debt to challenge it seems quite good value when from my research most others are charging from £495-£295 per agreement just to review them, then a further 25% at the back end. Was not too sure if I could list web sites on this reply but a little research will be able to give you all the information and different solicitors and companies (including their fees) that operate in this area.

Most people with that kind of money would pay their debts anyway. These so-called professionals who prey on people who are going through hard times, and more than likely had every intention of paying when they got into debt, are leeches. What about those who scrape together the upfront fee only to be told that their debt is enforceable? They're more than likely in more debt if they've had to borrow the money to pay the upfront fee.

I don't deny that there are people who probably can afford to pay and are just trying to wriggle out of it, but most are genuine principled people who have got out of their depth and fallen on hard times.

The Bank of England base rate has been at half a per cent for quite some time now, and was lowered to that rate to help ordinary people who are struggling, but it's been the banks, and other financial institutions, that have benefitted as many, particularly sub prime lenders and payday loans companies, continue to charge higher and higher interest rates.

If anyone thinks ordinary people are immoral for not paying their debts, how much worse are those who profit from their misery and keep moving the goal posts so the spiral of debt gets worse and worse.

simon_the_poet

27col wrote: »

Anyone who seriously believes any of that "not having to pay your debts if you first give us 10% of your debts upfront", is an idiot.

HI
Let us not forget that there are people who cannot handle their money, yes it is a fact. I am sure that none of the geniuses reading this fall into the category but believe it or not there are some people out there who cannot budget their money, shocking isn’t it.
I have just watched an advert on TV for a payday loan; the young chap is sat in his kitchen surrounded by bills, gas, electricity, water rates council tax.” Get a loan from us”, the voiceover says, the next shot shows him smiling, all problems cured he has taken out a loan at 1750% and apparently he is now out of trouble.
When the next month comes along and he has the same bills again plus the bill for the PDL what is he going to do? If someone like our friends earlier in this thread comes along and says, “We will make all this debt to go away, oh and by the way we are a solicitor so what we say must be true.
The solicitors that deal with these cases, the CMCs the lenders are all equally liable to the poor dope that fell for it in my view.
It is not just a matter of; they should know better and it serves them right.
The fact is we don’t know better, any of us, push comes shove, do what we have to in order to put food on the table.
Simon

pt2537

seamanarts wrote: »

I thought I would just update the thread for those who may be interested
law gazette.co.uk/in-practice/sdt-decisions/andrew-thomas-watson



Says it all really

yes, it says that people make errors, but im sure you have never made an error have you?

and the fine that was handed out was paid and the matter is now old news, not that will stop the gossips of this world.

Its clear that the Tribunal was satisfied that there was a real improvement in the way the firm operated to the days when there was involvement with Loan Check. If the firm was a risk then it would have been intervened and shut down. The fact that it remains trading today and more importantly has had results since then in cases such as Harrison, Wegmuller, Mayhew, Cunningham, Cresswell, Kotecha all of which are cases which people routinely rely on nowadays suggests to me that the firm has moved from where it was, and is now moving farward in the right direction.


so i prefer to look at the positives rather than the negatives