Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell

[scorpio_manuk]

Hope you manage to work out the interest, lancsman, it's def worthwhile. Good luck with your claim too, thanks for your encouragement:)

 

 

Received an acknowledgement of service this morning, indicating an intent to defend. They are using Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell solicitors for my claim. They have til the 28th July.

 

Just as a point of interest every one here thinks that Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell are a firm of independant solicitors employed by LSTB if you look at site C-I-N it shows as follows

 

REFERENCES

"I have been very pleased with the service provided by CIN. The matters referred to them have generally been related to difficult ongoing litigation cases where discretion and professionalism are essential. The results have invariably been impressive and have sometimes turned an almost lost cause into a success resulting in substantial savings to our client in the context of which the cost of the service is modest. Staff are helpful and knowledgeable and focused on getting useful and useable results; they have a good understanding of our requirements and objectives."

 

Malcolm Henderson

SECHIARI CLARK & MITCHELL SOLICITORS

[email protected]

 

As you can see the contact details are for Lloyds TSB asset management. The solicitors should declare that they are direct employees of the bank in any correspondance with you and the court as there could be conflict of interest or misreprentaion. Could be a case of a complaint to the law society by any one whos case is handled by them !!!.

 

May help put pressure on for a settlement, Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk

[barracad]

every one here thinks that Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell are a firm of independant solicitors employed by LSTB if you look at site C-I-N it shows as follows ... As you can see the contact details are for Lloyds TSB asset management.

 

So?

 

We know Lloyds use them.

 

There are also references from Rochdale council and UCB Home Loans.

[scorpio_manuk]

So?

 

We know Lloyds use them.

 

There are also references from Rochdale council and UCB Home Loans.

 

So, is that they have to declare that they are direct employees of the defendent to the court not acting on behalf. If they dont declare this then you simply apply to the court to to have there defence struck out and get sumary judgement with out having to go to AQ stage and pay the extra money. Thie site I quoted was a credit reference site CIN one of the hard nut ones they also do work for the council and UCB homes as well as lloyds. I am suprised you had to ask the question "So" as you are acting on behalf of the site and giving people advice on matters you should be aware of the relevance of this.

 

Kind regards, Scorpio_manuk

[reload]

As you can see the contact details are for Lloyds TSB asset management. The solicitors should declare that they are direct employees of the bank in any correspondance with you and the court as there could be conflict of interest or misreprentaion. Could be a case of a complaint to the law society by any one whos case is handled by them !!!.

 

The fact of them carrying an @ltsbasset.co.uk address does not necessarily mean they are direct employees of Lloyds TSB. It could quite simply be the case that they have been provided with a ltsbasset.co.uk address as they are handling asset management claims for Lloyds - keeping the appearance of 'everything under one roof' to the consumer, while actually being a seperate firm of solicitors. One of my various personal email addresses ends in @googlemail.com. Does this mean I work for Googlemail?

[stadium_arcadium]

Nothing I should worry about then?

[reload]

Nope.

[lancsman]

good luck stadium let us know dates and wel be with you in spirit.same solicitors i,m dealing with...waiting till friday se how they defend.

[barracad]

So, is that they have to declare that they are direct employees of the defendent to the court not acting on behalf. If they dont declare this then you simply apply to the court to to have there defence struck out and get sumary judgement with out having to go to AQ stage and pay the extra money. Thie site I quoted was a credit reference site CIN one of the hard nut ones they also do work for the council and UCB homes as well as lloyds. I am suprised you had to ask the question "So" as you are acting on behalf of the site and giving people advice on matters you should be aware of the relevance of this.

 

Kind regards, Scorpio_manuk

 

I don't understand your point.

 

The person in question would be an employee of Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell, not LTSB.

 

Why should there be any special kind of declaration?

[scorpio_manuk]

The fact of them carrying an @ltsbasset.co.uk address does not necessarily mean they are direct employees of Lloyds TSB. It could quite simply be the case that they have been provided with a ltsbasset.co.uk address as they are handling asset management claims for Lloyds - keeping the appearance of 'everything under one roof' to the consumer, while actually being a seperate firm of solicitors. One of my various personal email addresses ends in @googlemail.com. Does this mean I work for Googlemail?

 

Reload

Well a quick phone call confirms they are indeed Lloyds TSB Asset Management from both lloyds and Law Society. Reload not declairing that they direct employees is missleading and dependant on what they say and what they try to do is unlawful. There was a recent case when Bromley council in London and a call centre where both fined heavly for misrepentation as when people called to speak to council employees they where speaking to a contract call centre in Leeds who where answering the phone as being bromley council employees When they should leaglly be identifiying themselves as XXX Co acting on behalf of Bromley council !! Trading standards are really clamping down on this type of deception at the moment. All callers both on phone/doorstep and in writting e-mail must clearly identify who their employeer is and if they are acting on behalf of another company who that company is as well. In certain circumstances trading standards are refering these cases to the police as if money has changed hands or lost through a belief that they where dealing with one company and it was another then thats criminal deception. So beware of who you are dealing with it may not be who you think.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[scorpio_manuk]

I don't understand your point.

 

The person in question would be an employee of Sechiari Clarke and Mitchell, not LTSB.

 

Why should there be any special kind of declaration?

 

Barracad, The point being if you read things carefully this time is that they are Lloyds employees not Sechiari so when you get the court forms they show as acting on behalf this is missleading as they are employees of and the box should be left blank simple !!! You should never assume anything when in litigation if you make one mistake they will get your claim struck out. So what good for them is good for us they make a mistake and they get struck out !!!> Not being funny or wishing to start a bun fight but have you had any lay or formal law training Barracad for giving advice here ???.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

[reload]

Reload

Well a quick phone call confirms they are indeed Lloyds TSB Asset Management from both lloyds and Law Society. Reload not declairing that they direct employees is missleading and dependant on what they say and what they try to do is unlawful.

 

Your only evidence so far that they are a direct employee of Lloyds TSB stems from an email address on an unrelated 3rd party's website, and two 'quick phone calls'.

 

Even if Lloyds are paying their wages, in terms of these cases they're acting as a firm of solicitors employed to act on behalf of their client (the Bank). Bully for them, they get paid twice by the bank.

 

If they were sending letters out on Lloyds TSB Bank Plc headed notepaper, or if you were able to provide evidence of Lloyds being a 100% shareholder in SCM, then I might credit this with more legitimacy. I certainly don't want to discredit the rest of your assertions, but until such time as you can prove unequivocally that SCM and Lloyds are the same company...

 

So what good for them is good for us they make a mistake and they get struck out !!!

 

Call me skeptical, but I seriously, seriously doubt SCM will have operated a large chunk of legal cases for Lloyds TSB for the last 8 years (At least, to my knowledge), while actually being illegitimately signing as solicitors 'acting on behalf of' rather than as 'the defendent/claimant'. Try telling a judge that the solicitors are actually the defendent in your case, and he will laugh you out of the court.

 

Not being funny or wishing to start a bun fight but have you had any lay or formal law training Barracad for giving advice here ???.

 

Do you? If so, given the precedent of what you're trying to say/sabotage here and the absolute garbage which was contained in your earlier thread, I certainly wouldn't be employing you to act on my behalf.

 

Lastly, we are NOT a legal site. As is mentioned in various places on this site, and in various signatures, all information and advice is offered without liability, and people are advised to use their own judgement and seek the advice of a qualified professional if they are in doubt.

[barracad]

Scorpio please read my sig:

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal expereince. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

Having said that, I have never heard so much rubbish as what you are coming out with. Stating that a large firm of solicitors are deliberately concealing facts for hundreds of cases. Nonsense.

 

And asking me if I have any legal knowledge? In your previous posts you have suggested that a case would be transferred to the local court of the defendant, when the defendant is a high street bank!

 

I have moved these posts from the thread in question as it is unfair to hijack somebody else's thread, especially with such drivel.

 

And I am now going to lock this thread to avoid any further nonsense from Scorpio.

[Robertxc]

Barracad, The point being if you read things carefully this time is that they are Lloyds employees not Sechiari so when you get the court forms they show as acting on behalf this is missleading as they are employees of and the box should be left blank simple !!! You should never assume anything when in litigation if you make one mistake they will get your claim struck out. So what good for them is good for us they make a mistake and they get struck out !!!> Not being funny or wishing to start a bun fight but have you had any lay or formal law training Barracad for giving advice here ???.

 

Kind Regards, Scorpio_manuk.

scorpio, Lloyds TSB can have anyone they like represent them. If they want to get the YTS to do it, that's entirely up to them. The only thing which will matter is that the individual dealing with it claims to be a certified lawyer when he isn't. Whichever organisation he happens to work for is irrelevent.