Jump to content


gd47

Legalcare and GPB making demands

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2200 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I've started receiving 'threat-o-grams' from GPB re: LegalCare.

The 'legal advice' I received from them was utterly useless and I cancelled via Paypal the same day.

I was under the assumption that the advice was going to be from a qualified solicitor, which it obviously wasn't.

Unfortunately for GPB, I'm fairly confident that I can put across a solid case against paying a single penny to this thoroughly unscrupulous company (LegalCare, that is...certainly not GPB, who I'm sure are paragons of virtue!).

Oh, and I'll also contact Watchdog, Trading Standards and anyone else I can think of!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my reply...

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

(Well, that's how you referred to me, despite my name being George...perhaps you read "The Famous Five" at one point in your sad life?).

 

Actually, it's ME who should be taking action against YOUR client for purporting to offer me "legal" advice.

 

The so-called "legal" advice was not even from a qualified solicitor.

 

Irrespective it was garbage, I cancelled my "subscription" immediately via PayPal (which, as you are no doubt aware, is completely in accordance with the ruling deliverd by Mr Justice Kitchen in the case of OFT v Ashbourne Management Services Ltd).

 

Incidentally, your client LegalCare is involved in a MLM business which is possibly on the very fringe of UK legallty. Check this link, should you have any doubts: http://10pstreet.co.uk/legal-care/

 

Should you wish to pursue this matter further, then by all means proceed.

 

If you choose to do so , then I would respectfully bring to your attention the reply in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), which I would rely upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gd,

 

Your posts have been moved into your own thread.

 

Please keep us informed of any developments on this.

 

:-)


We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPB have been put out of business by the SRA for being crooks so dont reply to them at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's possibly some good news!

Who will LegalCare turn to now?

Surely not SDK law, because if so, there is a conflict of interest issue.

 

Anyway, I'll keep everyone informed of any further developments.

 

Oh, and many thanks slick132 for creating a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...