Tate-Lloyd/Claims Management UK

[ScarletPimpernel]

memberofstaff:

 

The email address has been edited out of your post, since the final sentence appears to be thinly-veiled advertising. Why not make us all aware of the way banks are working, rather than asking people to contact you individually - especially as workload appears to be an issue.

 

Perhaps you can answer a few questions:

 

- with whom is your contract - the individual who has paid for your services, or the introducer or intermediary?

 

- you've confirmed that Tate-Lloyd aren't solicitors, so what qualifications do the principals or staff have? What is the 'legal background' you refer to?

 

- what is your success rate?

 

- the email address you posted relates to another firm who are a debt management consultancy. Are you the same firm or a separate legal entity?

 

- a search of the ICO database reveals that Geoffrey Lloyd (retd) is registered as a data controller, but Tate-Lloyd is not - data controllers have to list all trading names. The database isn't always entirely up to date, so can you confirm your data registration number?

 

- similarly, I was unable to locate Tate-Lloyd or the principals on the OFT's database of consumer credit licence holders - and any business helping people with debt requires a licence. Again, the database may not be entirely up to date, so can you confirm your consumer credit licence number?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think many of us would be reassured if either memberofstaff or Tate-Lloyd's number 1 supporter would answer the points I raised above, particularly those relating to compliance.

 

Just to reiterate, any business that collects data (such as customers' names and addresses) is required to be registered with ICO. The OFT says that a business that helps people with debt problems (this is the OFT's own broad definition), requires a consumer credit licence. Given that these registrations are both legally required and in the public domain, I don't imagine that a legitimate business would have any problem providing confirmation.

[ScarletPimpernel]

It is most disappointing to see that Tate-Lloyd have not responded to our queries, especially on the subject of compliance.

 

However, I expect to be able to post some information later on today which may be of interest, especially to those who feel that either Claim Management UK Ltd or Tate-Lloyd have not fulfilled their expectation.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I have now spoken to the OFT, ICO and to Trading Standards.

 

Swansea Trading Standards would be interested to hear from anyone who has had dealings with Tate-Lloyd, whether it is to make a complaint, or simply to report concerns.

 

The correct way to do this is via Consumer Direct on 08454 04 05 06. They will usually pass the information to your local TS, who will then pass it to Swansea. Following this procedure ensures that statistical information is forwarded to the OFT, which is of benefit in the long term.

 

You can also email Swansea TS at trading.standards @ swansea.gov.uk (remove the spaces), but note that they can only provide advice if you live in their catchment area, although all reports will be logged.

 

As always, CAG will be happy to assist anyone who needs further help. The more people who provide information to Trading Standards, the easier it is for them to protect consumers.

[ScarletPimpernel]

All very interesting, Caroline.

 

I think the comments here are unprofessional aswell as inaccurate.

 

Which comments are inaccurate, Caroline? I'm sure readers can decide for themselves who appears to be acting unprofessionally.

 

I actually can't be bothered to respond as I am not so sad that I spend my life posting on forums!!!!!!

 

Which rather begs the question as to why you seem to feel the need to expend so much energy defending a company you claim to have no commercial connection to.

 

I also like to get on with my life rather than trying to ruin other people's by causing problems with inaccurate accusations.

For people who are having problems notfying bodies is of no help to their immediate situation. They should be going to the firm directly and asking for an update on their case.

 

People who are having problems are at liberty to notify or complain to statutory agencies who have a duty to protect consumers, especially where a company appears to be unable or unwilling to confirm that it is compliant with its legal and regulatory obligations. In your earlier posts you were shrieking about how customers should not contact Tate-Lloyd, but to the introducers who flogged the service; now you say that people should be going to the firm directly! Do try to keep up.

 

I simply can't be bothered to post anymore.

 

Jolly good.

 

This could have been such a good forum but seeing what has been written, knowing what I know, it had lost all credibility in my eyes.

 

Knowing what you know - do you know Tate-Lloyd's consumer credit licence number, or their data protection registration number? Knowing what I know, Trading Standards involvement is hardly a surprise.

 

I suspect it is because too many of the posters are probably male!!!!

 

Never mind. Run along and crochet yourself a chip for your other shoulder.

 

[ScarletPimpernel]

C123 - see my post above which gives details of how to report your concerns to Swansea Trading Standards, who are actively investigating Tate-Lloyd.

 

Have you raised your concerns with Tate-Lloyd in writing?

[ScarletPimpernel]

c123 - It would be interesting to know what claims either Tate-Lloyd or the firm who introduced you to them made in terms of what outcome you could expect if you used their services; whether or not they said that success was guaranteed (or not), and what the potential consequences of a failure were.

 

Did you receive any documentation at all?

 

Have Tate-Lloyd offered a refund?

[ScarletPimpernel]

I suspect that there will be little purpose on tracking Ms Tate down; the firm is registered as a Limited Liability Partnership. Consequently, the partners are not personally liable - except in certain circumstances, which may apply in this case.

 

The first step is to establish what has happened. I'd suggest phoning Swansea Trading Standards, or even sending an envelope Special Delivery to see if it's signed for or returned.

 

I must confess that he signs don't look good for anyone getting money back unless partners are found personally liable and they have assets.

[ScarletPimpernel]

ajf73 - contact Swansea Trading Standards, who are investigating this outfit.

 

An office move was previously used as the excuse for failing to communicate - is this another move?

[ScarletPimpernel]

The fact that all these companies are based in Swansea suggests that there may be some sort of connection between them. Perhaps the fact that Legal Redress Ltd., CMUK's new best mates, also had offices in the same building as Tate-Lloyd and City Legal Solutions should ring an alarm bell. Legal Redress's website bears a marked similarity to CMUK's (possibly because they are registered to the same person). LR is a limited company, yet its website does not comply with the Companies Act 2006 - odd for a 'legal' company.

 

Anyone who's used Tate-Lloyd, or who's considering using CMUK or anyone they recommend should contact Swansea Trading Standards before making any commitment or handing over any money.

[ScarletPimpernel]

In these cases the contract is between the individual and Claim Management UK.

 

Although I have not seen a copy of the contract, it appears from some comments on this thread that CMUK may be in breach of contract in some cases.

 

It is perhaps unsurprising that in light of the Tate-Lloyd debacle, CMUK customers may be reluctant to allow their cases to be passed to another company nominated by CMUK. Perhaps CMUK should be offering a refund and compensation to those who no longer have any confidence in their ability to manage this business?

 

However, the advice remains the same: contact Consumer Direct, who can provide advice, and ask that the details be passed to Swansea Trading Standards, who are actively investigating this matter. 42Man has provided the details of the Claims Management Monitoring and Regulation Unit, who should also be informed.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I'd suggest that all communication with Claim Management UK should be in writing, especially if you are making a complaint or asking for a refund.

[ScarletPimpernel]

I suspect that this will end in tears. I would have neither your faith in these people nor your patience.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Well, J1803 is posting from Swansea, so might have local knowledge....

[ScarletPimpernel]

Looking at recent decisions by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal, I came across some interesting information that I thought I'd share:

 

On 2 February 2010, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal made an Order in respect of one Geoffrey Lloyd, against whom an allegation of dishonesty was proved, and he was also found liable for costs. This is a matter of public record.

 

Geoffrey Lloyd was a solicitor's clerk, and a partner in a LLP called Swansea Legal Services which took over another solicitor's practice (PJ Williams).

 

What has all this to do with Tate-Lloyd, you may ask. Well, PJ Williams address was Corner Chambers, 53 Mansel Street, Swansea - the same as Tate-Lloyd! I note that the premises are currently to let.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Martin - see my post above.

 

The date that Lloyd resigned coincides with the SRA investigation into his other activities.

 

Interestingly, at one point Tate-Lloyd claimed that they did not need to be licenced by MOJ because they were solicitors - they were not - Lloyd was a clerk.