Google CMC's then Google those you think might be for you to see if there's any adverse then makes your choice

Google ' Roly Ferguson' and see what comes up!

10 foot and bargepole come to mind

How about over FIFTY complaints? and the CMC is still trading

Could this be just another idle threat from another idle regulator?

For misleading advertising. This was a press release recently. How many times does anyone feel that a claims managment company should be reported before they get closed down?

once? Twice? ( three times a lady-oops sorry -got carried away)

How many do you think?

Doesn't Barrington Whyte also charge 30% back end fee? I think Chek Whyte has got enough with £450million without charging such large back end fees.

What I meant was, they have to be shown as 2 different 'loans'. The PPI cannot be added to the amount borrowed.

I have absolutely no confidence in the FSA and MoJ dealing with rogue companies who claim they can write off debts.

The MoJ are not properly resourced to properly regulate this situation which is now attracting thousands of companies jumping on the band wagon and as far as I can see are not even attempting to pick out the good from the bad.

 

 

Instead what they are trying to do is to imply that every claims company is incorrectly claiming to be able to wipe out debts using the legal system.Lots of people quote the MoJ warning on its website http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease170209a. clearly states that companies which are misleadng the consumer about being able to wipe out debts when they can not do so will be shut down.

 

If there are companies out there doing just that why don't the MoJ shut them down?There is a paradox here that needs to be appreciated.If it is impossible for any company to wipe out consumer credit agreements as I have described then why would the MoJ ever issue a registration to any company claiming to do this.

 

 

The only explanation I can find is that it must be possible for SOME companies to be able to do what they claim and wipe out SOME debts.OK so if some companies can legitimately wipe out debts but the MoJ is clearly aware that some can not but claim they can then why does the MoJ not shut them down?

 

 

Possible reasons:

 

 

1.Lack of resources

 

 

2.Incompetence

 

 

3.Maybe it suits some people for large numbers of bogus [problem] firms to exist,let me explain what I mean by this.If it is indeed possible for SOME companies to wipe out consumer credit agreements then this is very big trouble for the banks and because as we have seen previously when the banks have a problem they have to be bailed out by the Government then it is potentially big trouble for them too.

 

 

If the MoJ shut down all the bogus [problem] firms and properly regulated the legitimate ones then these firms will make lots of money from this and proliferate when getting peoples debts wiped out.Once there is firm evidence of debts being wiped out then millions of claims will be put in and the banks will be in danger of collapse(again) and the Government will once again have to bail them out.

 

 

Maybe the Government has thought about shutting down the legitimate firms to stop them using the legal system to wipe out consumer debts but the problem is that the companies have their legal advisers who would use the law to fight the Governments attempts to close them and the result would be widespread publicity about the Government trying to illegally close down legitimate companies which would publicise the fact that such companies exist and what they do.

 

 

So lets say the MoJ allow the bogus firms to proliferate in the full knowledge of what they are about but continue to spout the rhetoric about closing them down or are just too incompetent or under resourced to take action.No one would be surprised about that would they?

 

 

Ok so the bogus firms outnumber the legitimate ones many times and the negative experiences that consumers have outnumbers the positive ones by a massive amount then the general public opinion will tend to tar all the firms,good and bad with the same brush which will discourage a large proportion of people from proceeding with a claim even if presented with concrete evidence of success.

 

 

Result-The number of claims being handled by legitimate firms is restricted to much smaller numbers which can be handled by the lenders nice and quietly behind the screen of bogus claims companies without starting an avalanch of claims which positive publicity would achieve.

 

 

Unfortunately this results in very large numbers of people being ripped off by scams but hey you can't blame the Government,you were warned by the MoJ weren't you?.

 

 

Conspiracy theory?,maybe any comments would be appreciated

I know of one claims company based in Blackpool thaT HAVE HAD OVER 40 COMPLAINTS against them sent to the MOJ. The result? NOTHING!!!

The MOJ just want their fees and don't care about misledaing the consumer

If everything that had been marked confidential had been kept confidential then the Bank Charges, CCA enforcability etc etc campaign would have have got where we are today, you seem to have a real beef with a few posters on here can I ask that you keep it to yourself because it isnt helping.

I don't have a 'beef' with any particular poster. I have an opinion on peoples integrity. Thart is my opinion and I am entitled to that.

Please see my above post why I feel that it should not have been posted.

If I kept it to myself, the guys address would still be up here for all to see , and maybe even could have led to CAG being sued, I don't know. But at the moment, I am not having a go, just replying to posters.

Why would he need to? It's now case law and will be on the list for perusal soon enough... anyone can search for it when it is uploaded to the law databases...

 

**EDITED**

What's wrong with me is he was sent confidential information. He cares not that the company who sent it ( i ASSUME) has told him it is confidential and to keep it to himself. He decides to plonk it up on the internet for all to see. If I send something to anyone and ask them to kep it confidential, I would like to think they would do just that!!!

As, and when, it comes into the public domain, good- everyone can see it for themselves then.

I would say that that agreement is totally unenforceable. The PPI premium and amount of credit have to be shown separately.

I would be happy to repost with Tippex a plenty. But will defer to more senior members for the decision. Moderators?

Bloody ell!!!

Why don't you first ask the company who sent it to you in confidence if it's OK with them to post it first!!

**EDITED**

You posted the original post on the judge freezing claims... but the actual ruling was nothing of the sort. In fact the appeal was upheld. Therefore the publishing of the documents contravened your post.

 

If I am wrong I am happy to admit it... but it seems strange to have a go at the poster of what seems to be information that stops the conjecture and actually tells the story of the case.

I was having a go at the poster because he put this guys address on the internet for all the world to see.

I can only assume the total embarrasment that may have caused him. It was totally irresponsible. I don't have a problem with the judgment being posted, if it hadn't been sent confidentially, and it didn't have the guys address on.

Not sure I understand your first part though. I simply posted a link to the news

..

Perhaps you should have been more careful before you posted the message regarding the judge "freezing credit claims"? I think it's clear the actual judgement showed you up a little personally ;-)

Want to elaborate?

Lets say I have an interest in the financial services industry. I have had my eye on the financial claims management industry since it started about 12 months ago. The quote above is from a company I deal with. I thought their take on it may be helpful to the discussion. I have removed names to protect the innocent (?!) as it were. Didn't take long to change your mind did it?

Attachment from previous post, and no, my source is not Ultimate Law, but I will withold that information, as was sent it in confidence, however, as I know this information will helpful in the public domain,

 

 

I think it's a bit naff that you should post this guys address up here for all the world to see.

I'm sure he wouldn't want all his neighbours to know he had a repossession on his house. Very unthoughtful and I hope the mods have a bit more respect for this guy and take this off.

 

**EDITED**

And our position is quite clear also - if you lend, you should comply with your legal requirements

Good answer!

My copy of the CCA 1974 gives s189 as definitions. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

What does s189 say?

So now we need a test case to determine if the precedents already set are relevant.

Do we then need a test case to see if the outcome of this test case is relevant?

How come the cases already proven don't stand up?

Test case?? I thought there had already been precedents set!

What does this mean to Joe Public? Are we getting any nearer?

BBC NEWS | Business | OFT narrows bank charges inquiry

OK Thanks Slick

Tells me that this government is powerless against the banks.

Yes,

He initially told me to send them what they want. I have written again last week to tell him they still will not release my money, but had no reply.

Quick update:

My accountant faxed a letter to them also on 7 Jan.

On Monday 19/1/09 I spoke to a Rob Boyles at credit management services and he told me the cheque would be with me on Wednesday 21/1/09. On Thursday 22 January, I rang again after not having received the cheque, only to be told that the evidence was not good enough and they could not tell me when I would be receiving the cheque.

I then rang back 10 mins later and spoke to Jackie Hine who then told me the cheque was waiting for signing by one of the directors and could not tell me when he will do that as he is ‘ very busy’. Too busy too spare 2 seconds to sign my cheque?

My business has all but ceased trading, I have had to lay off 2 staff, and I have no income. I am now getting into serious financial difficulty. This is not because of the Global Downturn, it is because the Bank will not release my money !!!!!.

They are withholding over £14,000 which is rightfully mine and I see no legal reason for them not to send it.

My business is more likely to now go under unless I can get to my money. Notwithstanding the fact that my mortgage and bills will not be paid and my family will not be fed.

This has caused the following problems:

Personal

1 Month in arrears with my mortgage

2 months in arrears with my Council tax and now threatening to take me to court

2 months arrears with my utilities. Solicitor also threatening court action

Home phone disconnected

Mobile phones disconnected

Bank overdraft of £1000 has been recalled because there is no money going into the account

Ground rent in arrears and now the lesser has added £70 on to the debt for late payment. The debt is only £6.75 !!!!!

Soon my mortgage lender will take action as will many others if I do not get this money to pay them.

Business

1 Month behind with office rent- eviction threatened

Business phones could be cut off any time

2 cars on contract hire have arrears on the monthly premium and will also be repossessed

2 staff have already been laid off

Notwithstanding the pressure all this has out on my marriage with constant rows and worries.

I cannot beleive there is no help out there for me.