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

[WelshMam2009]

The statutory charge arises where property is recovered or preserved - and only arises where there is a shortfall in costs. Usually the rule is that the loser pays the winners costs - there is sometimes a small shortfall but it is usually only a small amount.

 

What should happen on a discontinuance - such as Underdogs - is that unless you agree to each side paying their own costs the person discontinuing should pay.

 

As Underdog points out - every case is different - Solicitors should explain in detail before they take a case on how the statutory charge works.

 

The other thing to say is that there are two types of public funding - Legal help (used to be called green form) advice - this allows the Solr to do quite a bit of work, although as a general rule does not cover attendance at court - although there are exceptions - and the statutory charge does NOT arise in legal help cases. Most debt work is done under legal help.

 

The second type is substantive public funding - this is the one that has the statutory charge - if it was a debt case involving a DCA and you had proper funding and won then the DCA/OC would pay your costs. I'd be surprised if the statutory charge arose at all in those sorts of cases. The Solr would explain it in detail and go through any risks. If they don't and the charge arises they can end up carrying the bill not you.

 

The capital limits are on the LSC website

 

Thanks also IGNM. I need to get to grips with this!!

 

I'm just investigating a back plan incase proceedings are commenced and I bottle it!! Don't think MBNA are a million miles away with this which is why I'm considering the prospect of being represented, but I can't honestly afford to pay.

[underdog13]

The statutory charge arises where property is recovered or preserved - and only arises where there is a shortfall in costs. Usually the rule is that the loser pays the winners costs - there is sometimes a small shortfall but it is usually only a small amount.

 

What should happen on a discontinuance - such as Underdogs - is that unless you agree to each side paying their own costs the person discontinuing should pay.

 

As Underdog points out - every case is different - Solicitors should explain in detail before they take a case on how the statutory charge works.

 

The other thing to say is that there are two types of public funding - Legal help (used to be called green form) advice - this allows the Solr to do quite a bit of work, although as a general rule does not cover attendance at court - although there are exceptions - and the statutory charge does NOT arise in legal help cases. Most debt work is done under legal help.

 

The second type is substantive public funding - this is the one that has the statutory charge - if it was a debt case involving a DCA and you had proper funding and won then the DCA/OC would pay your costs. I'd be surprised if the statutory charge arose at all in those sorts of cases. The Solr would explain it in detail and go through any risks. If they don't and the charge arises they can end up carrying the bill not you.

 

The capital limits are on the LSC website

 

Thanks for that very informative post, IGNM - you know more than my flippin' solicitor or barrister did!! wish I'd known you at the time;)

 

I was dragged into court four times, which ratcheted the costs up nicely for them. The judge would demand certain evidence (such as 3 different estate agents valuations), I duly got them, went into court and the same judge who had made the original order then decided on the morning of the hearing that estate agents valuations were not acceptable and I had to get a surveyors valuation - hearing discontinued and another date set; and another solicitor's and barrister's fee added to the bill.

 

I was totally stitched up to be honest - and was so much more naive then than I am now, so they got away with it.

 

Both the solicitor and the barrister told me (verbally) that I would not have to pay anything at any time. The case costs around 3-4k and I had to repay all of it in full. From your post it sounds as if they should have stumped up the costs for giving me the wrong info....too late now though:x

Edited May 10, 2009 by underdog13

[underdog13]

Apologies for going off topic, btw;)

[I've got no money]

Thanks for that very informative post, IGNM - you know more than my flippin' solicitor or barrister did!! wish I'd known you at the time;)

 

I was dragged into court four times, which ratcheted the costs up nicely for them. The judge would demand certain evidence (such as 3 different estate agents valuations), I duly got them, went into court and the same judge who had made the original order then decided on the morning of the hearing that estate agents valuations were not acceptable and I had to get a surveyors valuation - hearing discontinued and another date set; and another solicitor's and barrister's fee added to the bill.

 

I was totally stitched up to be honest - and was so much more naive then than I am now, so they got away with it.

 

Both the solicitor and the barrister told me (verbally) that I would not have to pay anything at any time. The case costs around 3-4k and I had to repay all of it in full. From your post it sounds as if they should have stumped up the costs for giving me the wrong info....too late now though:x

 

We all live and learn often the hard way unfortunately...

[underdog13]

We all live and learn often the hard way unfortunately...

 

Indeed we do, and I've got the bruises and scars to prove it:lol:

[angry cat]

 

Ok so we have established that there are reputable companies who will do a professional job and which are known to people on this forum.

All I want to know is who they are, surely thats not to much to ask

 

TD, ask National debtline;

feel sure that they will steer you in the right direction;

would imagine that claims companies are similar to IFA's;

again some good and some biased.

 

AC

[yourbank]

I think if you are going to talk about dodgy/non dodgy claims management companies, you may need to widen the discussion to include lead providers. If you do a serach on Jobcentreplus website(it's down today, btw) there are jobs regularly advertised which from what I can make out are for lead providers offering sums of £100 per lead. The dodgy claims of lead providers has perhaps tarnished some claims management companies with a brush that may be difficult to get away with.

[WelshMam2009]

I think if you are going to talk about dodgy/non dodgy claims management companies, you may need to widen the discussion to include lead providers. If you do a serach on Jobcentreplus website(it's down today, btw) there are jobs regularly advertised which from what I can make out are for lead providers offering sums of £100 per lead. The dodgy claims of lead providers has perhaps tarnished some claims management companies with a brush that may be difficult to get away with.

 

I think Tricky is just looking for a list of names of reputable companies rather than a debate YB.

 

Reading the other thread, it seems that the Walkers used My Claims Supermarket. Naturally, I can't comment on their integrity but it may be one that you wish to add to your shortlist.

 

Best of luck!!

[steven4064]

IMHO, "non dodgy claims management companies" is an oxymoron

[I've got no money]

IMHO, "non dodgy claims management companies" is an oxymoron

 

At the end of the day they are in it to make money...

[reggie76]

Just received this email from a debt management company-

 

 

It is estimated that there are around 100,000 claims in the court for unenforceable credit agreements.

 

On 8th May 2009 this form of business activity was effectively closed for at least several years, if not for good by a ruling in Chester County Court by Judge Derek Halbert who froze litigation.

 

The ruling effectively put all cases on hold whilst a handful of test cases are heard in the High Court by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith, head of the Commercial Court. This process is likely to take several years to reach a conclusion.

 

The Ministry of Justice (the government body responsible for regulating this industry) is expected to make an announcement shortly. A major claims management company has already pulled out of the market, with more likely to follow.

[vjohn82]

Just received this email from a debt management company-

 

 

It is estimated that there are around 100,000 claims in the court for unenforceable credit agreements.

 

On 8th May 2009 this form of business activity was effectively closed for at least several years, if not for good by a ruling in Chester County Court by Judge Derek Halbert who froze litigation.

 

The ruling effectively put all cases on hold whilst a handful of test cases are heard in the High Court by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith, head of the Commercial Court. This process is likely to take several years to reach a conclusion.

 

The Ministry of Justice (the government body responsible for regulating this industry) is expected to make an announcement shortly. A major claims management company has already pulled out of the market, with more likely to follow.

 

Sounds like a good way of keeping hold of customers money with no prospect of them having to return it ;-)

 

The judgement is clear... the BBC website had it correct when they stated thet Halbert was seeking clarifications on how to proceed with these claims.

[pt2537]

At the end of the day they are in it to make money...

Yes, and so are solicitors, barristers, court staff, infact everyone i know who works does so for money

[I've got no money]

Yes, and so are solicitors, barristers, court staff, infact everyone i know who works does so for money

 

True - the difference is that there is a fairly robust regulatory framework for Solicitors, Barristers and Court Staff

 

I'm not sure about claims management companies

[pt2537]

True - the difference is that there is a fairly robust regulatory framework for Solicitors, Barristers and Court Staff

 

I'm not sure about claims management companies

Hmm,

 

well there is the Ministry of justice

 

then if you step into the world of consumer credit, you need a OFT licence and then become subject to the OFT rules

 

id say the regulation is there, the question really is, why isnt it being used

[I've got no money]

Hmm,

 

well there is the Ministry of justice

 

then if you step into the world of consumer credit, you need a OFT licence and then become subject to the OFT rules

 

id say the regulation is there, the question really is, why isnt it being used

 

I know - I've had that thought - perhaps its' just me but the OFT has never struck me as the worlds best regulator - I know that occasionally they do take action but it just seems to take forever...

[car2403]

IMHO, "non dodgy claims management companies" is an oxymoron

 

I've heard of lots of these in my time; "Military Intelligence" springs immediately to mind.

[Tricky Dickie]

I know - I've had that thought - perhaps its' just me but the OFT has never struck me as the worlds best regulator - I know that occasionally they do take action but it just seems to take forever...

 

The best way for the banks and the government to keep the unenforceability option from joe public is to let them think every claims firm is a [problem].So they do nothing to discourage the [problematic] and hey presto there are so many [problematic] about that joe public forms the opinion they want aided and abetted by a tame media and claims numbers are kept to a manageable number.

The big losers in all this are the poor saps who having no way of telling whether a claims company is a [EDIT] or not loses his money.

But hey joe,everyone knows that every claims company is a [EDIT] so its your own fault-only thats not the case as pt has stated and has been proved by the case of Mr Walker.

[vjohn82]

The best way for the banks and the government to keep the unenforceability option from joe public is to let them think every claims firm is a [problem].So they do nothing to discourage the [problematic] and hey presto there are so many [problematic] about that joe public forms the opinion they want aided and abetted by a tame media and claims numbers are kept to a manageable number.

The big losers in all this are the poor saps who having no way of telling whether a claims company is a [EDIT] or not loses his money.

But hey joe,everyone knows that every claims company is a [EDIT] so its your own fault-only thats not the case as pt has stated and has been proved by the case of Mr Walker.

 

Ok... time to put you to rights...

 

1) You do not know whether Mr Walker paid a fortune for his representation

 

2) If he did then the "unenforceable debt" wiped out has now been replaced with enforceable legal fees

 

3) Ergo he is technically in a worse position than when he started

 

4) All of the claims firms I looked at during this whole debate promise a no-win-no-fee arrangement but if they all cover it up with other fees for time and if claims are unsuccessful... the majority charge 29% of the total balance being written off and then advertise this can be paid back in installments subject to a credit agreement

 

5) Ergo the claims companies are using unenforceable debt to levy claimants into enforceable debt

 

That's the best case I can make for doing it yourself... the whole idea of taking action is to get yourself out of unenforceable debt... how can it be considered a success if you then end up with enforceable debt?

 

Explain that and I will be converted

[Tricky Dickie]

Ok... time to put you to rights...

 

1) You do not know whether Mr Walker paid a fortune for his representation

 

2) If he did then the "unenforceable debt" wiped out has now been replaced with enforceable legal fees

 

3) Ergo he is technically in a worse position than when he started

 

4) All of the claims firms I looked at during this whole debate promise a no-win-no-fee arrangement but if they all cover it up with other fees for time and if claims are unsuccessful... the majority charge 29% of the total balance being written off and then advertise this can be paid back in installments subject to a credit agreement

 

5) Ergo the claims companies are using unenforceable debt to levy claimants into enforceable debt

 

That's the best case I can make for doing it yourself... the whole idea of taking action is to get yourself out of unenforceable debt... how can it be considered a success if you then end up with enforceable debt?

 

Explain that and I will be converted

 

1.Neither of us know if or how much Mr Walker paid for representation but I would like to find out,would you?.

Items 2 and 3 are based upon the unsubstantiated assumption that some fees were paid and are therefore inconsequential.

pt has previously stated that he has personal knowledge of at least one reputable claims company which operates a bona fide no win no fee basis.

The fact that you have not found such a company does not prove that they do not exist and in fact confirms my opinion that most claims companies are [problematic] or at least can not do what they say they can.

The mystery of why these dodgy companies are being allowed to proliferate and not being shut down is explained by what I have previously written but I would gladly listen to other arguments which can give other explanations.

I have no wish to convert anyone,if you have already decided that every claims company is dodgy then fine thats your prerogative how ever I have an open mind on the subject and am only interested upon gathering facts to make informed decisions

[vjohn82]

1.Neither of us know if or how much Mr Walker paid for representation but I would like to find out,would you?.

Items 2 and 3 are based upon the unsubstantiated assumption that some fees were paid and are therefore inconsequential.

p

 

Assumption? That a legal firm will not take legal fees? I can show you 4 claims companies websites that all charge legal fees if they win. Do the adverts state "If you win you pay us nothing"?

 

 

You are indeed someone who has an open mind...

[Baggio]

i could point you to a number of claims companies who charge 0% legal fees, 0% completition fees and a 100% ( not minus a admin fee and all that jazz ) refund if they cannot proceed with the case.

 

you have an agenda my friend... its clear for all to see.

 

that or you are not very good at research.

 

how open is your mind....????

[vjohn82]

i could point you to a number of claims companies who charge 0% legal fees, 0% completition fees and a 100% ( not minus a admin fee and all that jazz ) refund if they cannot proceed with the case.

 

you have an agenda my friend... its clear for all to see.

 

that or you are not very good at research.

 

how open is your mind....????

 

 

Ok name one

[steven4064]

TD and vjohn

 

open discussion and banter is fine - just make sure it doesn't get heated, please

[Baggio]

Debt Regret - Regulated Consumer Champion

 

They are handling my case, i have paid them £288 to collate all my information and have my agreements hand audited by a professional with experience in legally dealing with CCA 74.

 

If they have a case following audit they keep the £288 and they fund the legal case, which is also insured by a tier 3 linked premium policy.

 

They won't challenge unless they know they will win.

 

If they cannot challenge... guess what ?

 

£288 back in full as per their T&Cs

 

Fancy sticking that in your pipe?