Lets Help More People reclaim their charges!!!

[sycostill]

If they get their money back (in most cases they get all their charges plus interest) what's the problem with that?

 

the issue, is the fact you are taking your cut, or charge a fee, no win no fee types. very cleverly worded to confuse joe public into thinking its a free service but it's clearly not.

[Guest ian cognito]

yeah, while you're winning

[podgydad]

the issue, is the fact you are taking your cut, or charge a fee, no win no fee types. very cleverly worded to confuse joe public into thinking its a free service but it's clearly not.

 

We quite clearly offer people examples (as required in the Compensations act incidentally) As long as the majority of charges are over 12 months old then they will get all their charges back plus some interest. I'm not in to confusing people, I believe in keeping things simple and explaining things in plain English. People aren't stupid.

 

To be honest, I try my best not to be cynical. I don't believe there is a terrorist and pedophile around every corner, I don't believe there are loads of people wanting to go through my rubbish to steal my identity. I believe that essentially most people are honest and good and not everyone is out to con you.

 

I'm a nice guy, if you met me you'd like me honest

[podgydad]

Anyway folks, I have been procrastinating way too long this afternoon. Its been good chewing the fat with you.

 

I hope I can prove you wrong by offering an honest and ethical service that benefits real people.

 

I guess only time will tell.

[sycostill]

why over 12 months old? plus some interest? how much?

 

not very transparent, when you don't mention figures...

 

indeed it has been a good debate.

[Mindzai]

The difference here is there is an excellent FREE resource available. The fact that people still choose to use a fee based service shows that there is demand for such a service. People have lots of options, thats the difference.

 

 

Or it shows that they happened accross an advert offering to take the banks on and get them back their money without ever reaslising how easy it is to do yourself...

[meagain]

To try and get away from random flaming (not to mention getting In Before The Lock™), a few people seem to be mistaken on copyright.

 

Copyright was originally designed to protect the expression of an idea. Original works are usually protected from the time of their creation - when they are put down in "fixed" form. Works where the expression and the idea behind it are inextricably linked are not protected, to prevent people from using copyright to block off an idea. Some of the templates here fall foul of this, since (e.g.) if you are going to build a spreadsheet to calculate the amount owing with interest, it will inevitably look and work similarly to the ones we already have. Some will be insufficiently original (e.g. S10DPA notice), or are form text derived from Statute (in which case any copyright belongs to the Crown).

 

"We" (tinw) don't own any part of the process of getting charges back, and in some cases may not even own any copyright in the documents we use to do it. This is not to say that "ambulance chasers" using "our" forms to get other people's money back for a cut is in any way justified.

[podgydad]

why over 12 months old? plus some interest? how much?

 

not very transparent, when you don't mention figures...

 

indeed it has been a good debate.

 

Because we charge contractual interest, if the charges are older than 12 months then our fee is less than the interest. For example if there is a claim for £7k plus £5k in interest, our fee would be £2400, they would get all their charges back plus £2600 in interest.

[sycostill]

£2400!!!!!!!! that can't be fair or right!

[Guest ian cognito]

And didn't you say you had devised a system to automate the process? Hmmm ever thought of a career in banking?

[podgydad]

The guy just got £9600 back, money he waived goodbye to a long time ago, he's over the moon. The chances are if he had even bothered to do this himself, he would have only claimed statutory interest. Its the banks that are paying, not him! Of course not many claims are this large, it was just an example.

[podgydad]

And didn't you say you had devised a system to automate the process? Hmmm ever thought of a career in banking?

 

Hang on, its the banks money I have taken, not his. I think in the example I quoted the customer has done quite well out of it, don't you?

[meagain]

Tell me why that justifies a 70% cut of the profits?

[podgydad]

Tell me why that justifies a 70% cut of the profits?

 

70% ?

 

Its less than 50% of the interest but only 20% of the whole claim. You're playing with numbers Meagain. As I've already said, its unlikely the customer would have claimed contractual interest even if they had claimed themselves. Of course most claims are around the £3000 mark and our fee in that case is only £600.

[podgydad]

Its worth noting that at 20% we are one of the cheapest. One of the main players charges 40%

[meagain]

70% ?

 

Claim+statutory is what the guy could have expected to get. Anything more than this is the profits. I figure that if the contractual is £5k, the statutory is around about the £1k-1500 mark. £2600/4000 = 65%.

 

I assume you have explained to your clients that the banks can countersue for champerty and get the entire £12k back, regardless of how much you've deducted as your fee, right?

[Mindzai]

70% ?

 

Its less than 50% of the interest but only 20% of the whole claim. You're playing with numbers Meagain. As I've already said, its unlikely the customer would have claimed contractual interest even if they had claimed themselves. Of course most claims are around the £3000 mark and our fee in that case is only £600.

 

And that's a fair price to pay for sending a couple of letters and filing a court claim?!

 

Incidentally was the contractual interest your idea? I notice you didn't post that up anywhere? If so how is this not just profiting from the work of others by offering a very, VERY poor level of value? And how is this a good thing? I mean, 2 letters plus filing a claim earns you £2400? And you claim to have automated much of this? Seems you clients would have a reasonable claim against you under the sale of goods and services act for charging a price that is neither fair nor reasonable!

 

I pity the ones who don't find the info for free and happen accross you first. They must kick themselves when they realise they spent £2400 on 2 first class stamps and the bus fare to the court.

[podgydad]

And that's a fair price to pay for sending a couple of letters and filing a court claim?!

 

Incidentally was the contractual interest your idea? I notice you didn't post that up anywhere? If so how is this not just profiting from the work of others by offering a very, VERY poor level of value? And how is this a good thing? I mean, 2 letters plus filing a claim earns you £2400? And you claim to have automated much of this? Seems you clients would have a reasonable claim against you under the sale of goods and services act for charging a price that is neither fair nor reasonable!

 

I pity the ones who don't find the info for free and happen accross you first. They must kick themselves when they realise they spent £2400 on 2 first class stamps and the bus fare to the court.

 

As I have pointed out already, many of our customers are aware they can do this for free.

[meagain]

Put it this way - the guy paid £2600 for services (make no mistake about it - he paid from his rightful winnings, not the bank). If he had instead hired a solicitor, he would have paid £45 for each of three letters (four if a DSAR was necessary), and probably another £50-100 for dealing with the claim. Whichever way you look at it, it would be cheaper to get professional, qualified help, than to hire cowboys that are extolling the virtues of their operations here.

 

As I said, since you are not a qualified and insured solicitor, you have warned your clients about countersuits, yes?

[podgydad]

Put it this way - the guy paid £2600 for services (make no mistake about it - he paid from his rightful winnings, not the bank). If he had instead hired a solicitor, he would have paid £45 for each of three letters (four if a DSAR was necessary), and probably another £50-100 for dealing with the claim. Whichever way you look at it, it would be cheaper to get professional, qualified help, than to hire cowboys that are extolling the virtues of their operations here.

 

As I said, since you are not a qualified and insured solicitor, you have warned your clients about countersuits, yes?

 

Meagain, I've read your long winded arguments on other threads, I'm not about to get in to a protracted debate with you. You have strong opinions on the issue, I disagree with you. End of discussion.

[meagain]

So, from your reply, I assume that you haven't advised your victims that it would be cheaper and less risky to get a solicitor, you haven't advised them that should they be in any doubt they should see a solicitor anyway, and you haven't alerted them to the fact that the bank would be entitled to countersue for the entire amount of the claim, including whatever they paid you (leaving them out of pocket by that amount), and you haven't told them that it leaves both you and them open to prosecution for extortion.

 

I think that says it all. You're a common cowboy, nothing more, nothing less. Who's got Matt Allwright's number?

[podgydad]

No Meagain, it doesn't mean any of those things. It simply means I'm not going to debate the issue with you

 

Stop being silly, you are scare mongering and talking out of your backside.

[meagain]

No Meagain, it doesn't mean any of those things.

 

To be honest, I can't see any other possible meaning, since if indeed you had pointed out any of those things to your victims, you would have no difficulty in saying so, as it would reflect positively upon you. You're waving your hands, and I'm only drawing inferences from it as are appropriate. No scaremongering involved. I just hope that you understand the risks you're taking, and the very least you could do is point out to people the risk at which you are placing them.

[barracad]

Stop being silly, you are scare mongering and talking out of your backside.

 

Do you understand what champerty means? And the possible ramifications of what you are doing?

[Mindzai]

Stop being silly, you are scare mongering and talking out of your backside.

 

Yet you are remarkably reluctant to put him (her?) straight with any kind of fact. Your response is the written equivelant of putting your fingers in your ears and running away shouting "lalalalala"