Is Morgan Solicitors Regulated by SRA?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thats right. - as I said, Wonga has been ordered to pay £2.3 million compensation. -

 

 

Not a regulatory fine!

[toymaker1]

Not a regulatory fine!

 

Call it what you like, a regulatory fine, a bag of potatoes, or financial compensation, the outcome is that Wonga have been made to pay £2.6 million in compensation by the FCA, for carrying out unfair and misleading debt collection practices, which consisted of sending out letters which gave the impression that they came from law firms, when in fact they came from Wonga. - exactly the same (it now turns out) as all the other banks have been getting away with for years, including Cabot, who send out letters headed 'Morgan Solicitors" giving the impression that they came from a law firm called Morgan Solicitors, when the letters are actually from Cabot.

 

FCA NEWS RELEASE:

 

Wonga, the UK’s biggest payday lender, has entered an agreement with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which will see it pay compensation of over £2.6m to around 45,000 customers for unfair and misleading debt collection practices.

 

In an investigation begun by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and taken forward by the FCA, Wonga was found to have sent letters to customers in arrears from non-existent law firms, threatening legal action. In some instances, Wonga also added charges to customers’ accounts to cover the administration fees associated with sending the letters.

 

Clive Adamson, director of supervision at the FCA, said:

 

“Wonga’s misconduct was very serious because it had the effect of exacerbating an already difficult situation for customers in arrears. We are pleased that Wonga has been working with us to put matters right for its customers and to ensure that these historical practices are truly a thing of the past.

 

“The FCA expects firms to pay particular attention to fair treatment of those who have difficulty in meeting their loan repayments.”

 

The failings, which took place between October 2008 and November 2010, saw Wonga, and other companies within its group, use unfair debt collection practices which put customers under great pressure to make loan repayments that many could not afford.

 

During this time, Wonga sent communications to customers in arrears under the names “Chainey, D’Amato & Shannon” and “Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries”, leading customers to believe that their outstanding debt had been passed to a law firm, or other third party. Further legal action was threatened if the debt was not repaid.

 

In fact, neither Chainey D’Amato & Shannon nor Barker & Lowe existed and Wonga was using this tactic to maximise collections by piling the pressure on customers.

 

Wonga is the UK’s biggest payday lender; in 2012 it made nearly four million loans to over one million customers. The agreement with the FCA says:

 

Wonga must identify and pay redress to all affected customers. While some customers will receive cash, others will likely have their outstanding balance reduced.

The FCA has appointed a skilled person to oversee the process and ensure that affected customers get what they are owed.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Call it what you like, a regulatory fine, a bag of potatoes, or financial compensation, the outcome is that Wonga have been made to pay £2.6 million in compensation by the FCA, for carrying out unfair and misleading debt collection practices, which consisted of sending out letters which gave the impression that they came from law firms, when in fact they came from Wonga. - exactly the same (it now turns out) as all the other banks have been getting away with for years, including Cabot, who send out letters headed 'Morgan Solicitors" giving the impression that they came from a law firm called Morgan Solicitors, when the letters are actually from Cabot.

 

FCA NEWS RELEASE:

 

Wonga, the UK’s biggest payday lender, has entered an agreement with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) which will see it pay compensation of over £2.6m to around 45,000 customers for unfair and misleading debt collection practices.

 

In an investigation begun by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and taken forward by the FCA, Wonga was found to have sent letters to customers in arrears from non-existent law firms, threatening legal action. In some instances, Wonga also added charges to customers’ accounts to cover the administration fees associated with sending the letters.

 

Clive Adamson, director of supervision at the FCA, said:

 

“Wonga’s misconduct was very serious because it had the effect of exacerbating an already difficult situation for customers in arrears. We are pleased that Wonga has been working with us to put matters right for its customers and to ensure that these historical practices are truly a thing of the past.

 

“The FCA expects firms to pay particular attention to fair treatment of those who have difficulty in meeting their loan repayments.”

 

The failings, which took place between October 2008 and November 2010, saw Wonga, and other companies within its group, use unfair debt collection practices which put customers under great pressure to make loan repayments that many could not afford.

 

During this time, Wonga sent communications to customers in arrears under the names “Chainey, D’Amato & Shannon” and “Barker and Lowe Legal Recoveries”, leading customers to believe that their outstanding debt had been passed to a law firm, or other third party. Further legal action was threatened if the debt was not repaid.

 

In fact, neither Chainey D’Amato & Shannon nor Barker & Lowe existed and Wonga was using this tactic to maximise collections by piling the pressure on customers.

 

Wonga is the UK’s biggest payday lender; in 2012 it made nearly four million loans to over one million customers. The agreement with the FCA says:

 

Wonga must identify and pay redress to all affected customers. While some customers will receive cash, others will likely have their outstanding balance reduced.

The FCA has appointed a skilled person to oversee the process and ensure that affected customers get what they are owed.

 

 

 

What ever is said the letters from Morgan / Cabot will not affect the status of an outstanding debt, Morgan is qualified and registered and signs as such.

 

 

No 'get out of debt free card here'.

[caro]

Wonga lend money and implied that they were using solicitors which were made up company names with no solicitors involved. This was done in-house.

 

 

Cabot/Morgan do not lend money and are real qualified solicitors, whether they do the work themselves or oversee what more junior staff do, for which they take ultimate responsibility.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think they're doing anything wrong with regard to this.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Wonga lend money and implied that they were using solicitors which were made up company names with no solicitors involved. This was done in-house.

 

 

Cabot/Morgan do not lend money and are real qualified solicitors, whether they do the work themselves or oversee what more junior staff do, for which they take ultimate responsibility.

 

 

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think they're doing anything wrong with regard to this.

 

 

 

I agree this stance has absolutely no merit.

[Ganymede]

Right, but 'Morgan Solicitor's' is not a law firm.

 

Did you not read the link I posted to the Law Society website where it says Morgans Solicitors are a law firm not regulated by the SRA.

 

I think you are getting confused by the Wonga story which is different as they falsified letters from fictitious law firms etc.

 

Morgans does exist and has a fully qualified and regulated solicitor working there.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Did you not read the link I posted to the Law Society website where it says Morgans Solicitors are a law firm not regulated by the SRA.

 

I think you are getting confused by the Wonga story which is different as they falsified letters from fictitious law firms etc.

 

Morgans does exist and has a fully qualified and regulated solicitor working there.

It appears that "toymaker" is more than confused by the terminology.

 

 

None the less Morgans in relation to its activity with Cabot is a "law firm".

[toymaker1]

It appears that "toymaker" is more than confused by the terminology.

 

 

None the less Morgans in relation to its activity with Cabot is a "law firm".

 

In March 2014 the OFT investigated The Student Loans Company regarding it's practice of sending out letters from it's legal department headed 'Smith Lawson & Company' OFT ordered Student Loans Company to review it's procedures in this respect, as it could give the impression that Smith Lawson & Company was not merely the legal department of The Student Loans Company, but was a law firm, separate from the Student Loans Company.

On 2nd July 2014 The Student Loans company stopped sending out letters headed 'Smith Lawson & Company.

Since the Wonga compensation of £2.6 million, ordered by the FCA, it is starting to come to light that all the other financial institutions, including Cabot, have been doing the same, or very similar, practice. Light is finally being shone on a dodgy, barely legal, practice which has been going on unchallenged for years.

 

To give a direct comparision between Cabot and Student Loans company.

 

Student Loans Company Company is regulated by SRA.

Cabot is regulated by SRA.

 

Student Loans Company Company created the trading name 'Smith Lawson & Company' for what was actually it's own legal department.

 

Cabot created the trading name 'Morgan Solicitors' for what is actually it's own legal department.

 

'Smith Lawson & Company' is not regulated by SRA .

 

'Morgan Solicitors' is not regulated by the SRA (Solictor's Regulation Authority).

 

The Student Loans Company employs two regulated solicitors. Those two solicitors do not constitute a law firm called Smith Lawson & Company.

 

cabot employs one regulated solicitor. That solicitor does not constitute a law firm called Morgan Solicitors.

 

The practice outlined above, which is carried out by most other financial institutions is not unlawful, but it it unfair and misleading, as it gives the impression that the letters are from law firms which are separate entities, wheareas in fact they are not separate entities, but are simply the legal department of the relevant companies.

This is what the FCA has acted upon in the case of Wonga, and I suspect there will be a lot more heard of these matters over the next year or so, and that this very unethical practice in the debt and finance industry will finally be forced to end.

 

The two chief reason for financial institutions/debt collectors using this unfair and misleading practice are probably;

1. It is intended to give the impression that the letter is from a law firm, (and would therefore frighten most recipients).

2. It saves the financial institution/debt collecter many thousands of pounds each year, because they are not having to pay the professional fees of a regulated law firm

Edited July 6, 2014 by toymaker1
additional point.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It matters not as long as any letters are signed by a registered and regulated solicitor.

NOT an imaginary one OK!

[toymaker1]

It matters not as long as any letters are signed by a registered and regulated solicitor.

NOT an imaginary one OK!

 

Why then, did FCA compel Wonga to pay £2.6 million compensation.? It mattered not a jot that the Wonga letters may have been signed by one of the two solicitors employed by Wonga. FCA considered that the relevant point was that the letters were misleading, as they gave the impression of being sent by law firms separate to Wonga.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Why then, did FCA compel Wonga to pay £2.6 million compensation.? It mattered not a jot that the Wonga letters may have been signed by one of the two solicitors employed by Wonga. FCA considered that the relevant point was that the letters were misleading, as they gave the impression of being sent by law firms separate to Wonga.

 

What you do not seem to understand is that this will not in any way affect your liability for any debt. The compensation is for the supposed stress of receiving such a letter only.

 

 

Example One has a Law degree and completes onward training to become a solicitor and is registered with the Law Society and regulated by the SRA and opens a law practice as a sole trader, calls his/practice xxxxx solicitors the form is not regulated the solicitor is.

[toymaker1]

What you do not seem to understand is that this will not in any way affect your liability for any debt. The compensation is for the supposed stress of receiving such a letter only.

 

 

Example One has a Law degree and completes onward training to become a solicitor and is registered with the Law Society and regulated by the SRA and opens a law practice as a sole trader, calls his/practice xxxxx solicitors the form is not regulated the solicitor is.

 

The fact remains that Wonga and the Student Loans Company have both been compelled to end their practice of sending out letters which gave the impression - regardless of not being unlawful - that the letters were send out by law firms which appeared to be separate entities from Wonga and Student Loans Company. Wonga case got more publicity because of massive £2.6 million compensation payment orderd by FCA.

FCA has judged that this practice - carried out by most financial institutions including Cabot is an unfair and misleading trading practice. Which of course, it clearly is.

I agree totally with you that the practice is lawful. The point, as recognised by FCA, is that it is unfair and misleading.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The fact remains that Wonga and the Student Loans Company have both been compelled to end their practice of sending out letters which gave the impression - regardless of not being unlawful - that the letters were send out by law firms which appeared to be separate entities from Wonga and Student Loans Company. Wonga case got more publicity because of massive £2.6 million compensation payment orderd by FCA.

FCA has judged that this practice - carried out by most financial institutions including Cabot is an unfair and misleading trading practice. Which of course, it clearly is.

I agree totally with you that the practice is lawful. The point, as recognised by FCA, is that it is unfair and misleading.

 

 

I have seen no mention of Cabot being ordered to pay????

 

 

I fail to see what you want out of this dead end, none of affects liability for any debts you owe to the companies involved.

[barns66]

I knew when i was dealing with Cabot and Morgans that Morgans where Cabot's in house solicitors and when i asked anything many times they would plead CONFIDENTIALITY between solicitor and client.i found that strange as they seem to me that solicitor and client work for the same company.maybe i am mistaken,

Edited July 6, 2014 by barns66
amending

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I knew when i was dealing with Cabot and Morgans that Morgans where Cabot's in house solicitors and when i asked anything many times they would plead CONFIDENTIALITY between solicitor and client.i found that strange as they seem to me that solicitor and client work for the same company.maybe i am mistaken,

Have you any evidence of this please?

[barns66]

Have you any evidence of this please?

 

Hi Brig,it's a while ago since i dealt with them,i will look through my paper work and see if i have got anything,i shredded most of it,if not all.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi Brig,it's a while ago since i dealt with them,i will look through my paper work and see if i have got anything,i shredded most of it,if not all.

Ok anything you have may well be useful. Thanks.

[Ganymede]

The fact remains that Wonga and the Student Loans Company have both been compelled to end their practice of sending out letters which gave the impression - regardless of not being unlawful - that the letters were send out by law firms which appeared to be separate entities from Wonga and Student Loans Company. Wonga case got more publicity because of massive £2.6 million compensation payment orderd by FCA.

FCA has judged that this practice - carried out by most financial institutions including Cabot is an unfair and misleading trading practice. Which of course, it clearly is.

I agree totally with you that the practice is lawful. The point, as recognised by FCA, is that it is unfair and misleading.

 

I thought you said that Wonga made up fake solicitors and letter heads etc?

 

Morgans solicitors is registered and recognised.

[Ganymede]

I knew when i was dealing with Cabot and Morgans that Morgans where Cabot's in house solicitors and when i asked anything many times they would plead CONFIDENTIALITY between solicitor and client.i found that strange as they seem to me that solicitor and client work for the same company.maybe i am mistaken,

 

The SRA code of conduct would still apply.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I thought you said that Wonga made up fake solicitors and letter heads etc?

 

Morgans solicitors is registered and recognised.

Confusing ain't it Gany???

[Ganymede]

Confusing ain't it Gany???

 

 

Yes it is!

 

From what I understand Wonga's solicitors were a made up fantasy whereas Cabot's solicitors are very real.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes it is!

 

From what I understand Wonga's solicitors were a made up fantasy whereas Cabot's solicitors are very real.

 

 

 

 

Exactly, the cases are totally different.

[toymaker1]

Exactly, the cases are totally different.

 

Lloyds debt collection letters 'calculated to mislead' - MP

 

July 17, 2014, 3:34 am

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Letters sent by Lloyds Banking Group to debtors that appeared to come from independent lawyers were "calculated to mislead", the chairman of the parliament's Treasury Select Committee said on Wednesday.

In a letter to the committee's chairman Andrew Tyrie, Lloyds Chief Executive Antonio Horta-Osorio acknowledged the bank had issued debt collection letters under the name Sechiari Clark & Mitchell, or SCM Solicitors, since the late 1980s. He said a decision had been made this year to stop the practice.

The letters were actually sent to customers by the bank's in-house litigation department.

Tyrie said evidence from Lloyds, which included an example of one of the letters, was very concerning.

"The sample letter seemed calculated to mislead. Lloyds failed to convince us that this was not the case, or to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why it issued letters in this form, but at least this practice has been brought to an end," Tyrie said.

The sample 'SCM' letter submitted by Lloyds began by saying "We are solicitors for Lloyds Bank and act for them".

"I agree that could be misleading, that particular clause," Tim Hinton, managing director of Lloyds' small-and-medium-enterprises banking division told the committee on Wednesday.

Committee member Pat McFadden replied: "I think if I asked 100 people what that meant 99 out of 100 would say that was (from) somebody outside of the bank".

Lloyds' actions came to light after payday lender Wonga was ordered by Britain's financial regulator to pay 2.6 million pounds in compensation to customers after sending them bogus letters from non-existent law firms.

The Treasury Select Committee, which oversees the work of Britain's finance ministry, was taking evidence as part of an inquiry into small business lending.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Lloyds debt collection letters 'calculated to mislead' - MP

 

July 17, 2014, 3:34 am

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Letters sent by Lloyds Banking Group to debtors that appeared to come from independent lawyers were "calculated to mislead", the chairman of the parliament's Treasury Select Committee said on Wednesday.

In a letter to the committee's chairman Andrew Tyrie, Lloyds Chief Executive Antonio Horta-Osorio acknowledged the bank had issued debt collection letters under the name Sechiari Clark & Mitchell, or SCM Solicitors, since the late 1980s. He said a decision had been made this year to stop the practice.

The letters were actually sent to customers by the bank's in-house litigation department.

Tyrie said evidence from Lloyds, which included an example of one of the letters, was very concerning.

"The sample letter seemed calculated to mislead. Lloyds failed to convince us that this was not the case, or to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why it issued letters in this form, but at least this practice has been brought to an end," Tyrie said.

The sample 'SCM' letter submitted by Lloyds began by saying "We are solicitors for Lloyds Bank and act for them".

"I agree that could be misleading, that particular clause," Tim Hinton, managing director of Lloyds' small-and-medium-enterprises banking division told the committee on Wednesday.

Committee member Pat McFadden replied: "I think if I asked 100 people what that meant 99 out of 100 would say that was (from) somebody outside of the bank".

Lloyds' actions came to light after payday lender Wonga was ordered by Britain's financial regulator to pay 2.6 million pounds in compensation to customers after sending them bogus letters from non-existent law firms.

The Treasury Select Committee, which oversees the work of Britain's finance ministry, was taking evidence as part of an inquiry into small business lending.

And your point is??

[caro]

And your point is??

 

I'd say the point is that they were in-house and not Lloyds solicitors and their intention was to mislead.

Edited July 20, 2014 by caro