It depends who the CMC is and the name of the solicitors could any one tell who they are???????

How did you request the actual document, how was the request phrased

If it helps the barrister was David Berekley QC and the decision was dated 1st June 2009

Why did uou agree to pay them anything assuming you where dealing with Central Ticketing

Again not wishing to be pedantic. Southern Pacific Loans Limited does not exist. It is a trading name of Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited. Some of the papers in the case were issued in the T/A name and some in SPML's name. In fact the original summons the SPML name was used. The order is incorrect but the copy you have is the unsealed version (guessing that is)

Sorry to be picky Southern Pacific ML v Walker Chester county Court

I run and work for a training firm but also advise 150 firms about FR cases as well as having an interest in a CMC which does not charge upfront or backend nor does it make money from lending money to firms nor from selling or brokering insurance.

Based on my panel solicitors issuing proceedings and the results from those proccedings.

Before the new changes the argument you use was run in Liverpool, manchester, Romford and Richmond CC. The lenders sent senior council to the hearings and the awards went from £275 to £600 against the applicant. 55 cases in three days. We now have this asspect insured.

The lenders argue that they are the agent of the insurance company at the point of sale and therefore owe no duty. I have now argued around this, quite simple in the end. Lenders selling direct earn the most commission of all.

The courts are awarding disclousure and Black v Sumitomo tells you what not to do if you want to make a sensible application for 31.16. Thats still not an answer to the problem as was the DPA requests, the infromation you need is not held in the client records and what is needed is the issuing of proceedings, but I accept that the new rules may help on the matter of costs. Making sure the lawyers run the cases the right way also helps. Some do not even understand send all letters to lenders and their lawyers recorded delivery simple but still ignored to often.

Next Miss selling is an over sold irrelevant term in respect of the arguments over PPI. The term allows an easy 'get out' for lenders, FOS system, CMC's running the FOS system, and brokers. The money recovered on this method is 30/40% to what they should recover.

Very very few now exactly how and more importnatly how much the lenders are making he money that they earn. Only brokers earn a secret commission lenders do not earn a commission.

This is why lawyers are needed. Let me start with the Pre action matter. CPR 31.16 in the last 20 months some 2000 of these actions have been taken with a win rate of 70% but a costs awarded against the applicant of over 80%. This elaves either the lawyer or the client with a bill for 300 to 400 pounds. The CPR claim rarely gets you what you wnat in the documents field.

Companies like this specialise in selling claims to lawyers and still do on the grounds of unenforceability alone. They are very new into the market and have been in the sector for a few months. They make their money from lending money to solicitors selling insurnace from which a large commission is earned and selling expensive and unrecoverable reports which alos earn the aprties a large commission. The insurnace has to be paid upfront and the lawyer has to fund it. So all in all they do very well out of it. But have they been succesful as yet ????