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 ????

In my experience the ones that do not charge upfront and back end are those charging the lawyers fro the cases. The whole claims 'industry' is based on the payment of legal costs and the destruction of the Legal Aid scheme by the current government. Claims do not run themselves and with the greatest respect to this site and the others who help people to run their own cases it is but a fraction of claims being run. Most people need actual hands on support, and yes before anyone starts saying you have a vested interest in this ...........I do. I do accept that these sites CAG being one of them has done more for Consumer Rights than the CAB, Legal Aid board, as well as all the other voluntary groups etc put together. It is still a drop in the ocean. A single example for those who challenge ASU/PPI insurance policies. A Question How does the mechanism work for lenders and brokers to make money from the sale of these types of polices and once knowing that they do how do you prove it. ???

Ive been out cassed .....................why do you still not practise ?? Have you ever been in court on a CCA or Law of Agency matter??

price copying hohoho

Happy to agree, I am very new to this type of communication. I am keen to help or give advice to anyone who needs it. I have seen lenders and their lawyers playing on the sensitivities of lower court judges who still believe the maxim that lenders and their lawyers do not lie, always tell the truth and that if they say you owe the money then you must owe it. Very very wrong I also note I cannot spell because HOHO

Consumer Credit law is complex becuase it is tied in with a number of other disciplines. I train lawyers to run cases under these headings (CCA and Law of Agency) and find that an understanding of litigation and the CPR rules is not of as much assisatnce as you would at first think. All lawyers are looking for other fee earning work, what this area of law really needs is agressive litigators..........its the only thing the lenders are their packs of highly paid lawyers understand.

ATE insurance is something that the solicitor does not pay for if you use the right company. Don’t understand what you mean. In PI many lawyers/CMC’s made client’s pay for their ATE. The lawyers should pay for, however most premiums from the companies in the market are deferred. secondly , "Many who are running these have 'borrowed' my ideas and are now passing them off as their own" im not sure im convinced by this comment either, unless of course you are the famous Mrs Wilson I was running these cases as defensive actions against sub prime lenders before Mrs Wilson or for that matter Dimond v Lovell. So I do say that most of the CMC’s use the ideas. I train lawyers (over 150 firms) to run these cases and have written a entire manual used by many firms to run these cases. as for "Please do not mis-understand me. Some claims can be run by lawyers but becuase the lower courts are really only now just learning about these types of claims you risk losing at the first hurdle and in some cases losing you home because of the wrong application of the law." the only thing i can say that that is utter rubbish, the courts are only just learning?????? I seem to have annoyed but I think you know little about me and what I have done and do at the moment. The problem is with the ADJ’s and DJ’s who have for years been very hard to convince that the claim’s/defences have real validity. no way, this is soooo wrong in my view, the courts apply the law to the facts, you bring the law to the courts attention and in the cases on here where the case is lost, invariably it is the fact that the LIP fails to advance the correct arguments that causes the loss. the courts are not there to conduct legal research for you. One would ask how many times you have been in court on these matters. I have over 250 repossession actions fought and won to my credit 2/3’s based on the CCA74 and breaches of fiduciary matters. equally, if you read the Walker judgment for example you will see that they faield even to plead the fact that the agreement was unenforceable until bringing the matter to appeal I worked on the SPML v Walker case and contributed to the action that was won. The Walker case faced a very serious hurdle which was to stay the possession action then to persuade the court to here the defence. I became involved after the action had been commenced. Finally why are you so hostile to what I have to say. I am very supportive of any taking actions against lenders for any sort of claim. The text is dark is my response to the post

With claims under financial irregularities the insurance should be a cost paid by the solicitor who takes on the claim, at no cost to the person brining the action. As to assessments of claims I have seen and read some widely varying ideas on this and other forums. Some of the suggestions are spot on some are very wide of the mark. The CCA 74 has forty plus pieces of legislation attached to it, on top of that there are numerous Office of Fair Trade regulation and guide lines the two principle ones run to 85 pages each. Then there are the cases 25 plus of them then you have the various texts on Consumer Law (Goode in particular) Finally there is disclosure of the various documents that you need from the lender and assessment of those to see if they give rise for a claim for breaches of fiduciary duty, law of agency, Consumer Credit Act claims, and where a case ceases to be a claim under one head and becomes a claim under another. Please do not mis-understand me. Some claims can be run by lawyers but becuase the lower courts are really only now just learning about these types of claims you risk losing at the first hurdle and in some cases losing you home because of the wrong application of the law. Even where it is for unsecured debt, how do you prevent the lender marking an unpaid card or loan as a default rather than a debt which should be removed from your record? I have been running this sort of case for over 10 years even before CMC's had even heard of the Consumer Credit Act. Many who are running these have 'borrowed' my ideas and are now passing them off as their own...................very annoying

At £295 it is prob Brunel Franklin, ??

The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It's a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims) To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together. The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It’s a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims) To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together.

I recieved a ticket from this loathsome company and then many letters at the rate of £1.50 a letter must have cost £50 to date. They then sent the matter to 'fake' lawyers heard no more. Beware Tesco's they now have their yellow coated thugs issuing the tickets as well. I was threatened with a ban from Tesco's for telling a fellow motorist to ignore the ticket.