GPB Solicitors bites the dust

[twix]

GPB Solicitors got a CCJ against me almost three years ago and I've been paying them on a monthly basis.
On Thursday I checked Twitter and there was a link regarding this ' law firm' stating it had been closed down (9th October) by the SRA (solicitors regulatory authority).
I phoned the SRA to double check and it was all true and was given the contact details of the intervening agent.
I phoned them and was told they won't deal with any payments and that I would be contacted by whoever take over the debt.
So, if any of you are paying GPB, STOP!!

[Tools]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Good point about stopping paying, i presume payments made to GPB would be classed as client money and be redirected to the pot held by the SRA. Worth checking out what to do if you have payments set up direct to GPB or via a debt managment plan etc.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...e-to-suspected

[pt2537]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Ok well heres a thought, there was mention of dishonesty if i recall correctly in the report so if we can find the exact dishonesty that took place it may be that it tainted the actual court proceedings too. Ergo grounds to challenge the judgment possibly.

[MIKE770]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Ok well heres a thought, there was mention of dishonesty if i recall correctly in the report so if we can find the exact dishonesty that took place it may be that it tainted the actual court proceedings too. Ergo grounds to challenge the judgment possibly.

As if they would do such a thing??? a few more around as well.

[charitynjw]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

As if they would do such a thing??? a few more around as well.

Present company accepted*, of course!

(*Is that the right spelling? - I'm 84, you know!)

[MIKE770]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Present company accepted*, of course!

(*Is that the right spelling? - I'm 84, you know!)

of course.

[pt2537]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

As if they would do such a thing??? a few more around as well.

no doubt there are.

I am fortunate that i have only ever had one complaint against me, and that was dismissed as being totally without merit, especially when there was an allegation that the judge criticised me in his judgment and when we got the judgment it showed clearly the direct opposite, the judge had been very complimentry. Plus of course it doesnt help when clients dont tell you the whole truth and keep things hidden from you.

[MIKE770]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

And the so called barraster/solicitor knows the legislation and sits there twisting the ineterpretation of it and the DJ goes alongwith it, also when the DJ states a non fact and an impossibility the so called barraster keeps quiet, = failure to accept 3rd party observations and bring to the notice of the DJ that the DJ is out of order on subject. also the barraster who tries to get 3rd party partner ejected from the room because he has knowledge they do not like it.

[Inca]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Present company accepted*, of course!

(*Is that the right spelling? - I'm 84, you know!)

..........."excepted"

[Nibbler]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Ok well heres a thought, there was mention of dishonesty if i recall correctly in the report so if we can find the exact dishonesty that took place it may be that it tainted the actual court proceedings too. Ergo grounds to challenge the judgment possibly.

Or if related to the bringing of proceedings in general, be grounds to cast doubt on the grounds they seeks to rely on? Or at the very least have things re-examined?

[pt2537]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Or if related to the bringing of proceedings in general, be grounds to cast doubt on the grounds they seeks to rely on? Or at the very least have things re-examined?

Well consideration ought to be given to the facts and evidence put forward by the party yes, i defeated a major bank in a £250,000 summary judgment application on Friday, now there wasnt dishonesty in that case per se, but there was a person at a solicitors giving evidence on a case where he simply wasnt in a position to give the right evidence to win the case. AS a consequence he lost and i still have a 100% record with that barrister i used to defend the hearing.

[MIKE770]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

Nasty bank?

[EXC]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

SRA Closure Decision 9 October http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/soli...560888.article

[twix]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

That's what I've been thinking of. It seems they didn't have to provide much proof to get a CCJ against debtors. I have checked the papers they submitted to Northampton and there's just a mention about the amount owed. Seems to be too easy to get a judgement against people.

[PlanB]

Re: GPB Solicitors bites the dust

there was mention of dishonesty if i recall correctly in the report so if we can find the exact dishonesty that took place

What would be the situation if the OP's payments to the solicitor had *gone astray* and not been forwarded to the creditor to reduce the debt owing on the CCJ? Would the OP still have to pay the creditor the *missing* funds :confused2:

I'm talking hypothetically of course