Cartel using Burleys solicitors ? NOT ANY MORE :-D

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Cartel Client Review Consumer Credit Litigation SOlicitors

please email: davidjack@stokenorthlibdems.com

David Jack = The Association of Mortgage Victims Staffordshire

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

lol, they now say MAY a few times and bobs yer uncle. It was back in January this adjudication but for such a massive company with over 3000 representatives, you'd have thought they'd have been able to show more than two letters from banks wiping off debt (I could probably show more evidence than that!), one from a solicitor, a link to an article in the times and a link to panorama ! Not inferring anything mind.

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

I'll have to try and record the ad next time I hear it. It was on yesterday, and seemed awfully familiar in content.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Pasting because we don't seem to have it on here as yet

ASA Adjudications

Cartel Client Review Ltd Building 7 Exchange Quay Manchester M5 3EP

Number of complaints: 1 Date: 14 January 2009 Media: Radio Sector: Financial










Ad
A radio ad for a credit card compensation company stated "How much do you owe on your credit card? Is it still your flexible friend? Probably not. Did you know that if you took your credit card out before April 2007 your outstanding balance could be completely written off? Cartel Client Review can check your credit cards to see if you can claim to have your balance completely cleared. To find out more visit cartelclientreview.co.uk or call 0845 XXX XXXX, 0845 XXX XXXX. Terms and conditions apply".

Issue
One listener challenged whether the ad misleadingly implied that a person had a good chance of having their credit card debts written off if they had taken the credit card out before April 2007, because they believed the circumstances in which that was possible were limited.
BCAP Radio Advertising Code: 2 - 3 (old)
Response
Cartel Client Review Ltd (Cartel Client Review) submitted a document that explained how a credit card agreement becomes unenforceable. They submitted a link to a TV programme, which they said showed that lenders were being forced to wipe the balances off credit card agreements.

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) said they understood that, since April 2007, the courts were more willing to write off or reduce credit card debt. They said they were satisfied that there was a legal basis for the claim, and they pointed out that the ad carefully stated that listeners "could" have their credit card debts written off. The RACC said they were reviewing their policy on these types of claims in light of the current economic climate.

The RACC submitted a link to a radio programme about unenforceable loans and an article in The Times from February 2007 on the same subject. They also provided three letters, from a firm of solicitors and two banks, which they said showed that consumers had been successful in having their credit card debts written off.

Assessment
Upheld
The ASA noted the information provided by the advertiser and the RACC. We also noted that the radio programme and newspaper article referred to unsecured personal loans and not to credit card debt, and that only one of the three letters related to the writing off of a consumer's credit card debt. We acknowledged that one of the legal representatives interviewed in the TV programme stated that his firm had managed to have the credit card and loan debts of around 1000 clients written off, but we also noted that it was not clear what proportion of those debts were from credit cards and that consumers needed to be able to demonstrate that serious prejudice had occurred in drawing up their credit agreement. Notwithstanding that, we considered that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated the number of Cartel Client Review's clients that had successfully won their claim to have their credit card debts written off, or that showed what proportion of their total client base the successful clients represented.

We understood from the information provided by Cartel Client Review and the RACC that the advertised service for clearing an outstanding credit card debt involved legal proceedings, which we also understood could be a potentially lengthy and complex process. We considered that the ad implied that the key factor in determining whether a consumer's credit card balance could be cleared was the date of issue of the card. We also considered that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that that was the case, or that demonstrated that significant numbers of consumers had had their credit card debts written off in that way. We therefore concluded that the ad was misleading.

The ad breached CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code section 2-3 (Misleadingness).

Action
The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)

Cartel Group Holdings Plc and Cartel Holdings Plc

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Using the 30% calculation, if the amount of debt to be written off is £2500 or above (which most are), that would leave you owing them at least £750 in "fees".

This amount is the trigger for being able to issue a Statutory Demand (SD) if you are unable to pay them.

For anyone who isn't familiar with a SD here are some of the extreme consequences of having a SD enforced against you and a better explaination than I could give. Please read it in full and ask yourself, is it really worth paying someone to "write off your debt" ?

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/...ory_demand.php

To show this DOES happen with claims companies heres a quote from a concerned bank-smart custoer who's post i have taken from MsE. This is about a bogus £100 charge.

They have now contacted me by telephone and are threatening legal proceedings if i do not pay. I received an email yesterday stating that the amount had that day increased by £150 and would carry on increasing until it reached the £750 threshold for bankruptcy, whereupon said action would commence.

full thread Bank-smart now charging me! - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums and post is on the bank-smart thread in this forum.

[LuggerBugs]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

These feckers are advertising on my local radio station now!!!!

[righty]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Mark Bowden has left apparently:tinysmile_aha_t:
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
PS most 'consumer' advocates are sticking to handling mis selling of PPI & won't advise challenging the enforceability of the agreement overall because they fear such an argument will raise the stakes to at least fast track with all of the implications that has for costs

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Stephensons - I only know them through undertaking a CCA training course with them ( Andrew Leakey) and through the saynotoyes car credit people. They talked a lot about mistated amount of credit so I don't think your assessment from their website that they will only deal with missing prescribed terms is necessarily correct. Can only give them a call. Bradley Say recommended them to you and you've discounted Burleys due to their insistence you go through Cartel, so giving them a buzz seems the obvious next step.

Not heard of Callen Jones before at all - Callen Jones Solicitors LLP are a niche litigation law firm specializing in consumer credit rights.

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

9.03 Referrals to third parties

• <LI id=r9-03-1 tabIndex=-1>..............
• (2) You must not enter into any agreement or association which would restrict your freedom to recommend any particular firm, agency or business.

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/cod...ct/219.article read Guidance to rule 9 - Referrals of business
and possibly http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/206.article - ( www.sra.org.uk/rule19 ) Independence
[B]







Just wondering re the arrangement between CCLS and Cartel (ie CCLS saying that to go with them you must go through Cartel)

Amethyst I think you have something there.

When I mentioned to Simon Abbott that Burley's had told me I had to go through Cartel he was really shocked, so shocked he had to repeat it back to me to make sure that was what I had been told. He said something to the effect that how could they give a potential client advice that would be not in the client's interest - given that Cartel charges so much, and also that it would appear to breach the solicitor's independence of being able to accept clients directly ... that is what I understood from his expression of shock that Burley's would do that. He did then temper it by saying he doesn't know if Burley's has a reasonable explanation for how they choose to do that, but it's certainly something he would never do.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Amethyst, what did you think of Stephensons? You are the only person I know who has experience of them.


Also has anyone ever heard of Callen Jones? They say they look at your agreements for free and will do no win no fee - but I've done a search and can't really find anything about them.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

they couldn't take it on without me going through Cartel.

9.03 Referrals to third parties

• <LI id=r9-03-1 tabIndex=-1>..............
• (2) You must not enter into any agreement or association which would restrict your freedom to recommend any particular firm, agency or business.

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/cod...ct/219.article read Guidance to rule 9 - Referrals of business
and possibly http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/206.article - ( www.sra.org.uk/rule19 ) Independence

It also prevents you from entering into any restrictive arrangements in connection with regulated activities that could constrain the advice you give to clients or the referrals that you make. However, it would not prevent you from regularly introducing clients to a particular broker, provided that you have not entered into any arrangement which could constrain you to use that broker.

Just wondering re the arrangement between CCLS and Cartel (ie CCLS saying that to go with them you must go through Cartel)

[Tools]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Using the 30% calculation, if the amount of debt to be written off is £2500 or above (which most are), that would leave you owing them at least £750 in "fees".

This amount is the trigger for being able to issue a Statutory Demand (SD) if you are unable to pay them.

For anyone who isn't familiar with a SD here are some of the extreme consequences of having a SD enforced against you and a better explaination than I could give. Please read it in full and ask yourself, is it really worth paying someone to "write off your debt" ?

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/...ory_demand.php

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

And another update. I spoke to Simon Abbott today, a small law firm that Bradley Say's clerk recommended. Simon only seems to take cases where the consumer has been at a significant disadvantage because of the way the agreement was written up, that has to be the underlying thrust of the case. He doesn't think in general that's the case with most credit card agreements.

So now I'm contacting Stephensons to see what they think of our loan agreement. It seems the £5,000 bottom limit of the debt outstanding is important because anything under that will mostly only go to a small claims court where no substantial costs are awarded. At least Stephensons are interested in unenforceable agreements and will look at it for free and take it on free if they want to. Of course the problem is that if they don't think the prescribed terms are misstated they won't look further into it.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

The problem with these contingency agreements is what happens if there's no refund just either a reduction in the loan or even it's cancellation How then can the claimant pay they aren't usually flush with money are they..wot then???

Exactly Righty, my understanding is that the amount of the debt that is cancelled once an agreement is considered unenforceable is the amount they take their 30% from. Like others have said, it's like exchanging an unenforceable debt for an enforceable debt.

[righty]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

The problem with these contingency agreements is what happens if there's no refund just either a reduction in the loan or even it's cancellation How then can the claimant pay they aren't usually flush with money are they..wot then???

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Well an update on this. Got in touch with Burleys, spoke to someone who sounded like a solicitor, and yes Burleys are the same as Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors - CCLS is a Burleys 'trading style' to use his words. But he said they never take consumer credit clients on directly, we have to go through Cartel's vetting process - even though I discussed my agreement with him and he immediately knew that the Spurway judgement applied, he said his hands were tied, they couldn't take it on without me going through Cartel.

I looked up Cartel and they take 30% of the loan written off if they are successful!!! So that's a dead end!!

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

I think you have it pretty spot on re CCLS and the Lib Dem guy - doesnt sound like his issue is with the solicitors but the introducer company.

I did start a thread about the solicitors who actually take on and handle these cases properly and professionally, but its very difficult because we cant recommend any without direct experience, and the only people I have any knowledge or experience with is Stephensons.

Theres a number of the big boys specialising in cca cases. If you do decide to use any and can be impartial we would be very interested to hear back your experiences. "Publicised" cases such as the SPML and the recent BOS case are rather few and far between which doesnt meet the expectations raised from the dubious 95% claims made by the CMCs who want your £199 to £495 up front fee.

Across the forums we dont see people coming back from having used these CMCs with good experiences barring very obvious spammers (ie no evidence , very little detail and no undertsanding of the cca )and it would be nice to see more. if they exist which they must.

Hi Amethyst, you are right, it is a whole area, and hard to get good evidence from unbiased people who have used these services.

I am trying to contact Burleys, but I work nights and sleep days, and never seem to be able to get to the phone during office hours!! But I will persevere.

Richard, Bradley Say's clerk, also recommended a guy called Simon Abbott (because I said I lived in London, and this is a London solicitor he 'couldn't recommend highly enough' - to use his own words). But so far Simon Abbott has been reluctant about the idea of 'no win, no fee'. I need to speak to him on the phone though. At least he answers emails immediately and is a small law firm where he deals personally with you.

As for Stephensons, I looked at their website, and it seems they ONLY take cases where the agreement would be irredemably unenforceable because of mis-stated or missing prescribed terms, they are not interested in improperly executed - i.e. where there is an element of argument needed to persuade the judge. And even then only cases above £5,000 debt. So although they might look at our agreements for free, they will only be interested if the prescribed terms are faulty.

So my hope is that I can get through to CCLS via Burleys somehow. Though Richard did say that I could always get back to him and ask for more contacts (but he said these three (Simon Abbott, Stephensons and CCLS) were by far the largest clients for Bradley Say).

Amethyst, it would be interesting to read your thread on the solicitors, can you post up a link? Did you have lots to say about Stephensons?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Also, I picked up this little bit of insider story somewhere on the net:



"We keep hearing reports of this area of law ('get your loan written off'', 'cancel my loan if over £7,000 and under £25,000 and before 2007', 'reduce my debt', 'clear my debt for life' etc.. etc..), being the new potentially big money spinner for a lot of law firms, and have been keeping track of recent developments. A candidate has recently sent us the following feedback from working for one of the operators in this field..."I had been working for x Solicitors who are linked to a claims management firm. As I worked there it became increasingly obvious that there was a lack of independence for us to advise our clients as to the strengths and weaknesses of their claims. Many files did not have claims at all but we were actively discouraged from telling clients upfront that there was no defect in the agreement. Management asked us to advise clients whose files had weak or very poor legal arguments that their files were being sent for further investigation. This delayed refunding clients who had already waited for long periods of time for their files to be addressed.

One day in particular a couple of weeks ago I had a client on the phone screaming at me because I felt I could not tell her she was due for a refund as there was no real prospects of success. I told her it was being further reviewed. She screamed 'you're my solicitor why can't you update me'.? She was perfectly correct.

Many of the difficulties stem from the fact that the representatives tell customers that agreements can be written off or deemed unenforceable and build up false hopes. Many files come through with very poor legal basis for claims.

One argument apparently is being appealed at Court of Appeal later this year. However we were actively encouraged to pursue claims based on a case hopefully being overturned in CA.

This was a firm with poor working practices and sullies the image or profile of those firms who operate in a correct and professional way. There are genuine issues under the Consumer Credit Act but they need to be tackled professionally in order to maintain the public's trust."


Interesting insight into how some of these CMCs are working. It really doesn't make sense to part with money upfront unless you have a clear idea ALREADY that your agreement is unenforceable ... and even you may as well go with someone that doesn't charge an upfront fee.