Validity of claims management companies? Moved from "Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice"

[Tricky Dickie]

has anyone heard of **EDITED* claims company. They have contacted me regarding my secured loan. I don't know what they are like, or should I just ignore them and tell them that I do not need them?

 

I have not heard of them so can not comment a lot depends upon what they claim they can do for you how much it costs whether they have any sort of track record of success and if they are registered with The Ministry of Justice.

Incidentally I would be interested to know how they contacted you as there are MoJ rules governing how companies dealing in these sort of claims can promote their services.

Edited August 12, 2009 by car2403
Quotes edited post

[frettful38]

Thanks tricky dicky,

 

They are registered with the ministry of justice. They are doing this on a no win no win fee. I believe I contacted them months ago, and had forgot about it, until they wrote to me last week. I contacted them because in my subject access request that I received from my lender Blemain, there was the underwriting sheet which showed that they had paid my broker an extra commission that I was unaware of, plus this claims company is saying that the broker fee is added to my loan but showing seperately on the agreement. They have told me that they can claim this back for me, so I don't know what if anything I should do.

 

I would appreciate anyone's opinions or advice on this please.

[Tricky Dickie]

Thanks tricky dicky,

 

They are registered with the ministry of justice. They are doing this on a no win no win fee. I believe I contacted them months ago, and had forgot about it, until they wrote to me last week. I contacted them because in my subject access request that I received from my lender Blemain, there was the underwriting sheet which showed that they had paid my broker an extra commission that I was unaware of, plus this claims company is saying that the broker fee is added to my loan but showing seperately on the agreement. They have told me that they can claim this back for me, so I don't know what if anything I should do.

 

I would appreciate anyone's opinions or advice on this please.

 

On the face of it the claim sounds like a realistic one,most people on here would advise that you use the information you can find on here to do the claim yourself but I know thats not for everyone.

Be sure to read the fine print,some of these companies offer a no up front fee service but then ask you to pay a success fee of up to 30% of whatever they have written off for you so be careful.

Ask for a copy of their terms and conditions and read them very carefully.

I would also suggest that you do some more research to find out:

Do they carry out a detailed audit of your agreement to identify all and any areas of non compliance with the CCA act (assuming your loan falls into this category).This is strongly advised and any competent company would do this rather than relying upon one single breach no matter how obvious and blatant.

You should be provided with a copy of this audit so you can clearly see where the breaches are.

If they can provide you with evidence of previous successes and if not why not.

Who their solicitors are and evidence of their qualifications.

Who their barrister is that their solicitors can refer to.

Any ligit firm should have no problem with any of those questions so if they start to um and ah then I would be cautious.

If there really is a no win no fee and you are satisfied with answers to all the above then the only thing you have to lose is that if they do not get a result for you then you will have wasted your time and bearing in mind that even legit CMC's are finding it takes many months or even running into years to get a result you could have paid a lot of interest etc by then.

Good luck

[frettful38]

Thanks TD,

 

I have taken note of all of the above, and will investigate what you have advised before going any further.

 

thanks again

[Tricky Dickie]

I see the name of the company Fretful mentioned has been edited out so I guess mentioning specific companies on here is not allowed-presumably to avoid libel issues etc

[frettful38]

You guessed right TD, I already got a slap on the wrist for that:D that's two in one day, better be more careful as to to get banned:D from this site because at the moment of crisis I am in at the moment its just the rubber dingy I need to keep afloat:)

[Tricky Dickie]

Keep paddling and you'll get there in the end

[car2403]

Links to commercial sites aren't allowed under forum rules. As most CMC's tout for business on their websites, the links will be removed, yes .

[Mikey_London]

Many posters seem to hold strong views about paying CMCs when we can do the work ourslves 'for free'. One comment suggested that those who didn't do the work themselves were simply 'lazy'. I find that incredibly naive

 

Free of what exactly? Presumably money, certainly not stress. Trying to get a CCA from MBNA has cost me a several hundred pounds if I were to put a price on the time involved and the stress. Even Special delivery comes at a cost. The templates on this site are excellent - but spending half a weekend editing them to meet my needs and managing the paper trail is not my idea of fun.

 

As for deciding which CMC to use - if any - that's another matter. Clearly they can make inflated claims - such as 80% of CCAs being unenforceable. But it's possible to unrealistically get your hopes up gain that in these forums...

Edited August 30, 2009 by Mikey_London

[car2403]

Many posters seem to hold strong views about paying CMCs when we can do the work ourslves 'for free'. One comment suggested that those who didn't do the work themselves were simply 'lazy'. I find that incredibly naive

 

I think we've already established that some people don't have the time or the inclination to do this themselves. Each to their own. One persons opinion that means you are lazy is just their opinion, though.

 

Free of what exactly?

 

Fees - for something you can do yourself, yes some time and some money are required, but nothing compared to the fees involved if you do yuse a CMC and go ahead and lose. (Which we all know is possible)

 

Presumably money, certainly not stress. Trying to get a CCA from MBNA has cost me a several hundred pounds if I were to put a price on the time involved and the stress. Even Special delivery comes at a cost. The templates on this site are excellent - but spending half a weekend editing them to meet my needs and managing the paper trail is not my idea of fun.

 

I'm not sure why it would take half a weekend to copy/paste/amend a standard template available on CAG. I presume you used that time to a) read up on what the issues are b) understand the issues in hand c) get some help on your own thread from those "in the know" on here. I don't think that is wasted time - nor will you, if you ever get to Court and have to explain your own case to a Judge, when there's a legally qualified Barrister sat to your right and you have to counter their arguments to prevent the Judge being "thrown" in to issues they don't need to consider, such as the moral obligation to repay the debt, regardless of it's enforceability. It's worth noting that a CMC is unlikely to want to represent you in person if you get to Court - so you're on your own, then.

 

As for deciding which CMC to use - if any - that's another matter. Clearly they can make inflated claims - such as 80% of CCAs being unenforceable. But it's possible to unrealistically get your hopes up gain that in these forums...

 

Exactly. What are those figures based on? Presumably, they don't "tell" you about the CCA's that are enforceable, which they won't touch? And why, as s.127(1) still endures even after April 2007 - so what makes them think agreements after that time are "automatically enforceable"? If they were to tell you how many people have contacted them, including the ones they have "turned away", because the risk of enforcement is too high, the figure would have to be less than those quoted.

 

Sounds like hopes aren't inflated only on this forum, then, doesn't it?

[diddydicky]

I think we've already established that some people don't have the time or the inclination to do this themselves. Each to their own. One persons opinion that means you are lazy is just their opinion, though.

 

 

 

Fees - for something you can do yourself, yes some time and some money are required, but nothing compared to the fees involved if you do yuse a CMC and go ahead and lose. (Which we all know is possible)

 

 

 

I'm not sure why it would take half a weekend to copy/paste/amend a standard template available on CAG. I presume you used that time to a) read up on what the issues are b) understand the issues in hand c) get some help on your own thread from those "in the know" on here. I don't think that is wasted time - nor will you, if you ever get to Court and have to explain your own case to a Judge, when there's a legally qualified Barrister sat to your right and you have to counter their arguments to prevent the Judge being "thrown" in to issues they don't need to consider, such as the moral obligation to repay the debt, regardless of it's enforceability. It's worth noting that a CMC is unlikely to want to represent you in person if you get to Court - so you're on your own, then.

 

 

 

Exactly. What are those figures based on? Presumably, they don't "tell" you about the CCA's that are enforceable, which they won't touch? And why, as s.127(1) still endures even after April 2007 - so what makes them think agreements after that time are "automatically enforceable"? If they were to tell you how many people have contacted them, including the ones they have "turned away", because the risk of enforcement is too high, the figure would have to be less than those quoted.

 

Sounds like hopes aren't inflated only on this forum, then, doesn't it?

 

agree,

 

further, i am fully in agreement that if you dont feel confident or dont want the hassle of using your free time then use a cmc or solicitor

 

however, whatever the case- no cms OR solicitor will EVER have the same passion , beleif and total understanding of your case, and will often

"miss" ir fail to highlight certain points in court that you would have- not becuase the are imcompetent- but becuase to them it is "just another job"

 

indeed one of our greatest advantages in court is the other side's habit of using locum solicitors or lawyers who only get given the case the day before or sometimes even the same day

[car2403]

agree,

 

further, i am fully in agreement that if you dont feel confident or dont want the hassle of using your free time then use a cmc or solicitor

 

however, whatever the case- no cms OR solicitor will EVER have the same passion , beleif and total understanding of your case, and will often

"miss" ir fail to highlight certain points in court that you would have- not becuase the are imcompetent- but becuase to them it is "just another job"

 

indeed one of our greatest advantages in court is the other side's habit of using locum solicitors or lawyers who only get given the case the day before or sometimes even the same day

 

Correct. No one will spend as much time preparing for your claim as you do - and that is your advantage.

 

Also, once you've been there and done that, you will be a lot more confident in challenging any other legal issues - if you don't believe me, search for threads with "car2403" in the title and compare the oldest one with the newest, you'll soon see the benefits of defending your own position. I've also gone on to help a lot more people, (I prefer to donate time, rather than money, to the site, as it's worth a lot more IMHO) including my parents, who would have been walked all over and wouldn't have considered using a site like this, a CMC, or a Solicitor, as they come from the generation that believe what the Banks say must be true and they can't challenge it.

[Rhia]

Just popping by to say Amen to all that CAR2403. I made a hash of my first claim but boy have I learnt since then and use my knowledge to pass on to others.

Also, the templates now on CAG have been refined and require little trouble. This is all about self-help and as both the above comments have said you really need to own your problem and be prepared to fight it all the way - in a court-room if necessary.

Read and re-read your own case and also pay special attention to the court procedures (this is where I initially went wrong) as you can lose because you don't understand the system.

[Mikey_London]

My point was that I didn't consider the DIY route to be free; not free in terms of actual cost, cost in ways other than financial, nor free in terms of opportunity cost. I would be interested to hear how much time others invest in dealing with, for example, companies such as MBNA. By the time they have chased the CCA and applied for a subject access request (after familiarising themselves of what that was and whether they needed to make one) many hours will have passed. And what about the Civil Procedure Rules? Copying and pasting a letter doesn't take long but I trust we agree there is rather more too it than that.

 

So I think we're in agreement on that then? I battled with MBNA over a few months in both pursuing a complaint and finally getting my CCA. Please don't tell me there was no cost.

 

Apart from noting the obvious difficulty of chosing a reputable CMC I made no assumptions about quality of service or the financial risks involved. So I'm grateful to the previous 2 posters for apearing to respond to points I didn't make.

 

For what its worth, I would only consider a CMC if it came with a strong recommendation and the fees were reasonable. With a credit card balance of £10K I would seriously consider paying a few hundred to get that wiped - if I had it. But my preference is to go it alone too.

[car2403]

Mikey, I think we need to agree to disagree on this one. You clearly aren't a fan of the DIY route, I don't like CMC's. Simples. 2 people can have different opinions without the need to degrade in to argument, so I won't continue.

 

I also don't recall you having to make a point before I can put my opinion forward - I'll remember that one for all of my future posts, then.

 

If you'd care to read the success forums for MBNA, you'd see that they use template replies to template letter, so it's tit-for-tat on that front. Also, there's nothing in CPR to say you can't use a template letter from an internet forum

 

Finally, there's plenty of people around who have seen much more than you and I put together - if you want to use a CMC instead of experience on CAG, then go ahead. The choice, as they say, is - and always had been - yours to make.

[Tricky Dickie]

Very interesting debate around this subject regarding the DIY route versus the CMC route and both have merits and drawbacks so its just a matter of personal choice.

As stated earlier in this thread the vast majority of people will never be confident enough to try to take on their lender themselves regardless of how much help and information there is on this forum or how much time and effort they spend to understand the process.

For these people the CMC route is their only alternative to just giving up and accepting they are going to have to play the lenders game.

CMC s can help these people however the important thing is for them to find the right CMC.

Just to address a few points raised regarding CMC s made in various previous posts.

Commitment versus expertise-an interesting argument that no one else will ever be as committed to your case as you are.

Whilst there is no doubting the validity of this argument there is more to getting a result than just commitment it takes knowledge expertise and experience too which takes us back to how many people will be confident enough to take on their lender alone.

CMC's have a very significant incentive to win a case on behalf of their client as if they lose then in most cases their after the event insurance will only pay for their costs and those of the lenders whereas if they win they can also claim from the lender a success fee which can be up to 100% of their costs.

A good CMC will always provide the necessary representation in court - in the case of Bank of Scotland vs Mitchell mentioned elsewhere on this forum the CMC acting for Mitchell provided representation consisting of two firms of solicitors and one barrister.

Interesting rumour I have heard about MBNA CCA's from a guy who claims that several years ago he was employed by MNBA on a project to produce electronic copies of every one of their CCA s.

The originals were then allegedly shredded and disposed of .

I have two MBNA cases going forward and in both cases what they have sent in response to my section 77 request is a copy of an application form with no terms and conditions on it and a totally seperate document containing the terms and conditions they even arrrived in seperate envelopes.

As for having to pay costs should your CMC lose your case any decent CMC will take on the case on a conditional fee agreement and take out ATE insurance which will also indemnify the client against any possible costs in the event of the case being lost.

Competent CMC's are now not only examining agreements for breaches of prescribed terms etc but are now also applying a test of 'unfair relationships' to agreements which is not reliant upon the agreement predating April 2007.

Mikey stated that he thought that a few hundred quid was a bargain to dispute and write off a 10k debt and I would agree completely and thats just what it should cost for a decent CMC to take on a case.

The norm is now for a CMC to offer a full refund if when they audit your agreement they find its properly executed in which case it has cost you nothing to find out.

If its not properly executed the CMC will do all the work to cancel your debt.

Would CMCs offer such refunds if they were not confident that the vast majority of agreements were improperly executed?

I know of one which has audited literally thousands of agreements and have only found a few hundred which were not improperly executed.

The few hundred quid a CMC may charge to audit an agreement just about covers the cost to do this but the big money is in the success fees when the case is concluded or the lender concedes so that is the incentive for the CMC to win the case or force the lender to concede.

[diddydicky]

Mikey, I think we need to agree to disagree on this one. You clearly aren't a fan of the DIY route, I don't like CMC's. Simples. 2 people can have different opinions without the need to degrade in to argument, so I won't continue.

 

I also don't recall you having to make a point before I can put my opinion forward - I'll remember that one for all of my future posts, then.

 

If you'd care to read the success forums for MBNA, you'd see that they use template replies to template letter, so it's tit-for-tat on that front. Also, there's nothing in CPR to say you can't use a template letter from an internet forum

 

Finally, there's plenty of people around who have seen much more than you and I put together - if you want to use a CMC instead of experience on CAG, then go ahead. The choice, as they say, is - and always had been - yours to make.

 

there is of course sometimes an advantage to be had using a third party (though not necessarily a cmc) in a difficult case, and there have been one or two occassions where i have informed the other side that i welcome their legal proceedings and that i have a CFA in place and it has clearly put them off action (or it was a co incidence)!

[Rhia]

Ah MBNA! I was involved in a CAGGers court case a while back where they tried to get the original agreement. MBNA swore under oath that they did destroy the originals and microfiched them - I saw it in writing too from them.

These companies were so arrogant they never thought they'd get a riot a few years down the line did they?

[Tricky Dickie]

Ah MBNA! I was involved in a CAGGers court case a while back where they tried to get the original agreement. MBNA swore under oath that they did destroy the originals and microfiched them - I saw it in writing too from them.

These companies were so arrogant they never thought they'd get a riot a few years down the line did they?

 

Good old MBNA

 

Take a look at this,very interesting

 

Reported this morning on BBC

 

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartal Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartal Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

 

Very interesting information and well worth looking into.

 

As discussed elsewhere and recommended by the Ministry of Justice everyone should take advice before paying a CMC to take on their case

 

http://[problem].com/showthread.php?t=35395

[angry cat]

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

 

London & Edinburgh & MBNA...

 

MBNA have dug themselves, a nice big hole!

 

Games up MBNA;

Give us back our money.

 

AC

[angry cat]

Kevin Heath - Salans

[sequenci]

Get the Aviva deal!

[Tricky Dickie]

Kevin Heath - Salans

 

 

Sorry don't follow where this fits in?

[angry cat]

Try Reading it TD!

 

Gamekeeper and Poacher...

 

Kevin also advises purchasers of distressed debt on the implications of disputes regarding default charges and the impact of the unfair relationship law (introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) and the changes required to debt purchase contracts to protect against these issues."

 

Unfair RelationshipTest!

[diddydicky]

Try Reading it TD!

 

Gamekeeper and Poacher...

 

Kevin also advises purchasers of distressed debt on the implications of disputes regarding default charges and the impact of the unfair relationship law (introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006) and the changes required to debt purchase contracts to protect against these issues."

 

Unfair RelationshipTest!

 

conflict of interests ? does he work for specific creditors?