• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gazette

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gazette

    The growing scandal of organisations employing non-existent ‘law firms’ to pressure debtors has taken a new turn today, with the giant Lloyds Banking Group the latest to come under scrutiny.

    Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is preparing guidance for in-house lawyers, to ensure they do not give the impression that external law firms are involved in customer transactions where this is not the case.

    More...


    The Gazette has been alerted to Lloyds’ use of the name ‘SCM Solicitors’, formerly Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell, in letters demanding repayment of debts. The firm, registered at the SRA under number 62032, was dissolved on 30 June 2011.

    SCM Solicitors is now part of the group’s in-house litigation department. The bank maintains that letters issued by the department make it clear that SCM solicitors is part of Lloyds Banking Group.

    
Every letter bears the name of a solicitor within the department who takes responsibility for that letter, confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor’s registration number. 


    In a statement, Lloyds said: ‘Letters to our customers identify the qualified solicitor of record and make clear that SCM solicitors forms part of Lloyds Banking Group’s in-house litigation department.’

    The statement does however leave open the question of why Lloyds would use a different name unless its intention were to at least imply that it had involved an external firm in the debt recovery procedure.

    Responding to a request for comment on Lloyds and SCM, Richard Collins, executive director of the SRA, said: ‘We can confirm that we are currently looking into a number of complaints on this theme which have given us cause for concern. We will shortly be issuing guidance for in-house solicitors on our existing requirement that publicity must not be misleading.

    ‘This will make it clear that they cannot use forms of words that give the impression that they are an independent law firm and not employed solicitors.’

    The issue came to the fore last week when payday lender Wonga was found to have sent letters to customers to indebted customers appearing to come from law firms that do not exist.

    The affair has continued to gain political traction, after The Law Society asked the Metropolitan Police to consider whether any offences, such as blackmail or those under the Solicitors Act, have been committed by Wonga in sending fake legal letters to customers in arrears.

    Shadow attorney general Emily Thornberry today tweeted that she has written to City regulator the Financial Conduct Authority supporting Chancery Lane’s intervention.

    ‘Have written to FCA backing @TheLawSociety call for sight of Wonga investigation. Bogus solicitor letters could be fraud,’ she said.

    Yesterday the Student Loans Company suspended the use of letters headed with the name of a debt recovery firm that turned out to be its own trading name.

    Update 15.59: BBC Radio 4 Money Box presenter Paul Lewis has this afternoon retweeted the Gazette story to his 75,000 followers. He also reports that 'NatWest/RBS are phasing out use of Triton Services debt collectors and Green & Co solicitors - both part of RBS but appearing to be separate'.

    A spokesperson for RBS confirmed to the Gazette that Triton is being phased out, adding that Green & Co has not been used for new customer cases since 2012.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gaze

    [QUOTE=Legal Beagles;448282]

    >SCM Solicitors is now part of the group’s in-house litigation department. The bank maintains that letters issued by the department make it clear that SCM solicitors is part of Lloyds Banking Group.

    
Every letter bears the name of a solicitor within the department who takes responsibility for that letter, confirms the solicitor is authorised and regulated by the SRA, and gives that solicitor’s registration number. 


    In a statement, Lloyds said: ‘Letters to our customers identify the qualified solicitor of record and make clear that SCM solicitors forms part of Lloyds Banking Group’s in-house litigation department.’<

    IMO Lloyds are being economical with the truth.
    I've just started assisting a young couple (friends of one of my daughters) sort out their debts with Lloyds, and in front of me I have one of SCM's letters.
    It starts "we are instructed by Lloyds", refers to "our Client" six times and is designed to give the impression of an independent firm.
    At the very bottom of the letter, and not part of it, in tiny print it does say SCM is part of Lloyds in house litigation dept.

    Yes, the info is there, but it is not clear and the letter is so designed I doubt many ever notice it
    Last edited by des8; 3rd July 2014, 18:21:PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gaze

      SOooooo no mention of Sechari, Clark and Mitchell ?
      #staysafestayhome

      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gaze

        Nooo, their SCM legal team get very tetchy if you refer to them by Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell. Ive had to litigate against them multiple times and it isn't at all clear that they're in house tbh....so what's the average consumer going to make of things.

        Ohhh also Lloyds have the worst reputation for sending multiple DCAs after you WHILST simultaneously harassing you with SCM. (One client had 8-10) I have frequently referred to this conduct in set aside applications as causing an Unfair Relationship.
        "Although scalar fields are Lorentz scalars, they may transform nontrivially under other symmetries, such as flavour or isospin. For example, the pion is invariant under the restricted Lorentz group, but is an isospin triplet (meaning it transforms like a three component vector under the SU(2) isospin symmetry). Furthermore, it picks up a negative phase under parity inversion, so it transforms nontrivially under the full Lorentz group; such particles are called pseudoscalar rather than scalar. Most mesons are pseudoscalar particles." (finally explained to a captivated Celestine by Professor Brian Cox on Wednesday 27th June 2012 )

        I am proud to have co-founded LegalBeagles in 2007

        If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

        If you wish to book an appointment with me to discuss your credit agreement, please email kate@legalbeaglesgroup. com

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gaze

          lol, not suprised they get tetchy - long thread http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...k-Horse-Lloyds
          #staysafestayhome

          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

          Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Lloyds defends recovery letters naming ‘SCM Solicitors’ | News | Law Society Gaze

            Truth is, if you read the readers comments at the bottom of the law gazette article you realise what people are up against. They will all argue that no real fraud took place it was just a way to persuade the client to pay up. Nobody mentions one of the main motivators these people are sending out these letters, it is so they can charge for them without having to give the charge away people will not complain so much if they were paying an outside firm to collect the money and the regulators wouldn't question it if they thought it was an outside company. you will also notice from the readers comments the overriding impression that people are just unwilling to pay not unable.

            Comment

            View our Terms and Conditions

            LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

            If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


            If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
            Working...
            X