Investment In Litigation Funding ?

Options
1…1011131516…18

Comments

  • cloud_dog
    cloud_dog Posts: 6,044 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Options
    free2bfree wrote: »
    So you are saying the the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority and these companies relevant insurance providers all think that box legal and allansons are not credible and like to mislead the public and you are further saying that 250 law firms that have used box legal are numpties....

    somehow I believe the regulatory bodies over you or that malnutrition guy -
    No, I have been very specific in my point to you, one which you keep obfuscating and applying misdirection in your replies (something you seem quite adept at).

    My point, and one you continue to avoid responding to is simple... The FCA does not provide general authorisation, they provide one or more specific authorisations for one or more specific financial activities. But, because you feel you are too clever or omnipotent you have not bothered to read this thread where these deficiencies have been covered ad nauseam (with links to actual factual information not just 'alternative facts').

    So, I ask you again, what financial activity has the organisation in question been authorised to conduct by the FCA, and what activity are they actually undertaking in this scheme? I'll give you a hint... it's not the same.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True :D

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
  • redux
    redux Posts: 22,976 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    HappyHarry wrote: »
    Entertaining as this thread is, has anyone looked at the latest accounts of Box Legal?

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04871657/filing-history

    Latest accounts show a loss of £856k on a turnover of £636k, and page 6 states that due to not meeting FCA requirements, there is the potential that the company may not be considered an ongoing concern.

    I!!!8217;m surprised that FCA have given this the green light. Or maybe we haven!!!8217;t been told the whole truth in the above posts?

    Oh dear. But on the other hand someone on this thread claims to have personally made hundreds of thousands in this line of business. Perhaps this person could offer that company some consultancy advice, instead of expending so much effort addressing people who are not involved, for instance us
  • TBC15
    TBC15 Posts: 1,452 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 9 March 2018 at 9:24AM
    Options
    free2bfree wrote: »
    someone else's misery. Try telling David who could not take Goliath to court because they didnt have access to money. However now with litigation funding, David can now take Goliath to court on a no win no fee basis meaning they dont have to feel the pressure of paying the lawyers if the case loses. When David wins. David will thank the lawyers, the investor and the insurer and say that thank you for giving me justice. otherwise my misery would have continued.

    Was this David chap the foreskin obsessed mercenary that was brought in by Saul with the promise of a good marriage, pension and something to do with generous personal tax allowances for the whole of the family?

    If litigation funding had been involved what proportion of the proceeds of crime would David have walked away with?
  • HappyHarry
    HappyHarry Posts: 1,588 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    free2bfree wrote: »
    I have then spoken to the FCA and there are no warnings against box legal.

    That seems unlikely as per my earlier post and the auditors notes on the statement of accounts.
    free2bfree wrote: »
    My call with the FCA did confirm that if box legal went into liquidation then I would be protected by the FSCS.

    I’m going to call that a lie. Box Legal are arranging the insurance, that are not providing the insurance. Leeward are the ones providing the insurance, Box Legal are just the broker, getting paid commission (according to their published accounts) from Leeward. There is no way the FCA has said that you will be protected by the FSCS if your insurance broker goes into liquidation.
    free2bfree wrote: »
    I would rather believe the facts then someone simply posting without any evidence or research backing up what they are saying.

    Good point, well made.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser. Any comments I make here are intended for information / discussion only. Nothing I post here should be construed as advice. If you are looking for individual financial advice, please contact a local Independent Financial Adviser.
  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 10,944 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    free2bfree wrote: »
    Way too much time on your hands!

    ConcernedCompleteConch-size_restricted.gif
    just do this the proper way research the industry and the market the opportunity and speak to experts at woodford litigation or call box legal and report your findings.
    Sounds boring. You were the one who said you'd pay to see me destroyed by qualified solicitors in a public debate. Now I'm not only offering you the chance to see that, but you wouldn't even have to pay if it happened, and suddenly you're not interested.
    Why dont you try to tell box legal what you are saying on this forum. Get hit with a law suit for defamation and then we can read the court transcripts. and you can post the results
    Erm, defamation occurs when you make false and damaging statements in public, Mr Legal Expert, which I've already done via this thread (except they're not false). I don't have to make the same statements to Box Legal's face to be liable for defamation. If any of my posts are defamatory, which they're not, defamation has already occurred. Why don't you give them another call and tell them they're being maligned?

    I've barely even said anything about Box Legal, except to state that
    1. a broker is not automatically liable for negligence if an insurer it recommends fails to pay out; negligence only arises if the broker has failed in its duty to properly research its recommended insurer (and Box Legal has specifically said they haven't so failed)
    2. promising to compensate an investor in the event of the default of a third party where no liability for negligence exists is a security known as a credit default swap
    3. credit default swaps are not covered by the FSCS.
    All of these are well-established objective facts about finance and the UK regulatory system, and if anyone wants to sue me for stating them, have at it.

    However anyone who receives an email from an unregulated introducer inviting them to invest in litigation funding to allow a struggling insurance broker (I put it to you m'Lud that describing a business making an £856k loss and whose auditors have cast doubts on its ability to continue as a going concern as struggling is fair comment) to sue some guy on the Internet, should ensure they - what's that term? - do their research.
    I will prove on this forum step by step that My 40,000 investment will give me a significant return in 12 months time.
    It would not remotely surprise me if in 12 months' time you had made a significant return on your £40,000 investment.

    Can you guess why it would not surprise me?
  • jimjames
    jimjames Posts: 17,625 Forumite
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    redux wrote: »
    Oh dear. But on the other hand someone on this thread claims to have personally made hundreds of thousands in this line of business. Perhaps this person could offer that company some consultancy advice, instead of expending so much effort addressing people who are not involved, for instance us

    Maybe they're making hundreds of thousands because they're taking it out of the company :)
    Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.
  • redux
    redux Posts: 22,976 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    I must admit that if I were to find myself in a position of considering using no win no fee lawyers, I would be fairly p'ed off to hear that some smug offensive semiliterate twit without legal expertise stood to make more money out of the case than either I or the lawyers.
  • guy
    guy Posts: 1 Newbie
    Options
    Interesting discussion,

    I have had an audit done and Allinsons are pushing me to submit a claim on NRAM .

    No win no fee but they will take 25% of the win and £2072 for the ATE insurance. If i lose or NRAM counter claim i pay nothing.
    Allinsons are in a no lose as investors pay for the litigation, costs are paid by NRAM or the ATE insurance. Presumably the 5% for the investor is paid out of the 25%.

    It all sounds sort of OK but for the fact that Allinsons will NOT tell me how much they are claiming for nor give me a copy of the report they are basing it on other than saying that they would not pursue a claim of less than £10K.

    It seems that the only loser is the mortgage co unless the insurer fails to pay back the investor in the event of a lose.

    Looking at this post i am inclined NOT to pursue via Allinsons as concerned that the insurer may not in the end pay out.
    I may contact NRAM directly as there must be something there to give Allinsons the hots for the case.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,094 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    I have invested into The mortgage litigation with Allanson’s, through a brokerage called Regency capital. Can not fault either company, very efficient and helpful. Assigned cases within a week and have regular updates on the progress of my cases. Most people on these sites have no idea about the investment model itself usually and only want to criticise. If you want the higher returns then step away from the banks and IFA’s who are offering 2-3 percent.
  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 5 May 2018 at 1:50PM
    Options
    Unsolicited posts like these from new posters, to near to defunct threads, whether true, scam, or going to post how they were ripped off in about 3 years time, merely add to the scam-factor of the offering.

    Indeed I'd say its up to 11 now.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards