Cartel using Burleys solicitors ? NOT ANY MORE :-D

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

helpmeclaim,

I don't think there's an issue with winning cases here, if the agreement doesn't have the prescribed terms, for example, then hands down they'll win the case. There are lots of examples of people who have done it themselves without lawyers and won like that. So if a good lawyer accepts an agreement has all the elements for challenging enforceability there's a high likelihood the case will succeed.

And they seem to be employing the best barristers - according to someone on CAG who went to a Claims Management conference at Chester County Court called by Judge Halbert. The judge kept deferring to the QCs on points of law who were barristers for CMCs. So on the face of it if you get a good law firm they will assess your case well, and get a good barrister, the chances of success are very good. The problem is to find which are the good law firms!!

As I see it the real issue with CMCs is if they can be inefficient and greedy. They take money off people whose agreements have no basis for challenge, but be reluctant to give it back. They take money off you for a good case of enforceability which you could do it yourself for free. They can use a bad system where the faults in the agreement are not spotted and tell you you don't have a claim.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
By the way, I am now contacting Reynards Solicitors - anyone heard of them?? I spoke to them on the phone and they sound big.

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Does anyone have any numbers as to successful case's and lost case's.

I see all these company’s taking money but you don't seem to hear about successful claims.

Are any stats in regards to this available?
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Okay thank you that makes much more sense.


Quote:
They can charge a success fee to the other side if the case is successful based on the risk involved in running the case. but the Solicitor can not take any of the clients money. The SRA would demolish them if they did.


except that bit ? the solicitors charge the cmc a success fee which presumably comes from the clients up front payment ?



No what i mean by that is if a case is run on a CFA the Solicitor can charge the defendant a success fee ie. the lender this is because they are taking a risk running the case when they may get no money if the case fails. If successful the success fee will be 100% or what ever percentage is set of the costs recovered by the Solicitor so basically it will double the amount of money they will get per claim. The Solicitors charge on average £160 per hour dependant on experience and who runs the file they will keep note of all the time spent on the file and on conclusion of the claim put in a bill for their costs as well as all the disbursements. This is why they can’t charge the client a contingency fee as they have already recovered costs from the defendant.

So you can charge a success fee in most cases Solicitors will charge 100% except for Road Traffic Accident claims which have very little risk so no success fee. The percentage may go up or down as the case progresses as the Solicitor has to do risk assessments as the case goes along hence if new evidence comes along and the claim falls below 51% chance of success they have to close the file.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Okay thank you that makes much more sense.

They can charge a success fee to the other side if the case is successful based on the risk involved in running the case. but the Solicitor can not take any of the clients money. The SRA would demolish them if they did.

except that bit ? the solicitors charge the cmc a success fee which presumably comes from the clients up front payment ?

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

As an aside (before I read your post helpmeclaim) Matthew Porteus who set up Ratio Money now runs the Ratio recruitment company

Ratio Money Financial Claims (AR Network)

Ratio Money the market leading Financial is launching an AR (Appointed Rep) Network, historically we have only ever allowed Independent Moj Regulated companies to introduce now we can offer you the chance to be Ratio Representative!

Ratio Money offer financial claims management in the areas of Unfair Credit Agreement Claims, Mis-Sold PPI, Bank Charges etc and is renowned as the Market Leader in the field of UCA claims...

Our charges are the most transparent on the Market and our legal panel is the largest in the country, having a QC retained providing ongoing training and support...

If you work within the Finance Industry (IFA, Accountant, Mortgage etc) and wish to help your client base gain redress where detriment has occurred then please send your CV or company profile to Matthew@Ratiomoney.co.uk

This is a fantastic opportunity to help Consumer gain Justice!
This vacancy is being advertised by Ratio Search & Selection Limited. The services advertised by Ratio Search & Selection Limited are those of an Employment Business.


Job TypeContractLocationUK WideStart DateAsapDurationFull Time ARSalary£60-120KRef No:15362-RATIOARDate Advertised01 Jul 2009

Matthew Porteus

Owner at Ratio Search & Selection Ltd (SBC/IT Recruitment UK/Europe - Citrix VMware)

View full profile | Contact Matthew Porteus
Currently: Owner at Ratio Search & Selection Ltd (SBC/IT Recruitment UK/Europe - Citrix VMware); Managing Director at Debt Solution Services Ltd; Shareholder at Charges Recovered Ltd

Incorporation Document VVV

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

If the cases are run on a CFA you have to have After the Event Insurance and the Solicitor can not charge a percentage to the client. This was the whole point of "Access to Justice" and why contingency fees were wiped. They can charge a success fee to the other side if the case is successful based on the risk involved in running the case. but the Solicitor can not take any of the clients money. The SRA would demolish them if they did.

If the case falls under 51% chance of success then they have to inform the Insurer and close the file as the insurer will not pay out if they continue with the claim.

If the Solicitor try’s to get the agreement wiped by just sending letters and gets a no as a final response they will then have no option but to issue proceedings then a CFA has to come into place and ATE needs to be taken out to cover the client if the case goes to trial and the client losses. I am not sure if the Ombudsman takes these cases on this would be the only other option.

Just to explain how a case is run on a CFA (conditional Fee agreement)

ATE Insurance has to be obtained to cover the client if the case is unsuccessful no if's or but's.

Regarding the funding how this works is Solicitors will get say £2,000 per claim to draw down disbursement’s ie: pay for the policy, referral fees, councils opinion, any other fees that come into place. If the case is successful the funder gets all his money back plus the interest for lending the money to the Solicitor and the insurer gets his premium. If the case fails the insurance pays the loan and all disbursements.

So you can see why funders and insurer's are very skeptical about having to much of this work on their books. If to many cases fail the insurers will audit the Solicitors file's and a lot of the time find reason why not to pay out as with most insurance.

First National
HBOS
NIG

All pulled out of the market because they were left to foot the bill after The Accident Group & Claims Direct went pop. All funders and insurers now are very very careful about what they fund and insurer.

I expect the funding you mention is private funding and not from a bank. The funding is only so the Solicitor doesn't have to pay the disbursements themselves. Solicitors with deep pockets obviously don't need the funding

So funding and insurance has no bearing on taking a percentage of the clients money the Solicitors can only charge a percentage if the case is NOT run on a CFA. If ATE insurance is in place then the case is being run on a CFA.

[Pouring Rain]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Just wanted to update on some information I got so far trying to pursue CMCs. I tried to go with Callen Jones, as they have a no win no fee arrangement, and don't charge anything to the consumer. But then I found out that if you lose you might have to pay the other sides' costs, which could be huge, no? The person I spoke to was very vague about all that so it didn't help.

Even though they say they deal with unenforceable agreements, they are not taking unenforceable cases until a 'test case' goes through - something on the lines that if the agreement is declared unenforceable whether that means the debt does not have to be paid. All they do do is take a court injunction against the lender harassing you. HOWEVER, after lots of probing, I found out that they don't defend you if the lender takes you to court!! What use is that! The lawyer tried to say the lender won't take you to court blah blah, I said actually I know a lot of cases where the lender takes a consumer to court, and sometimes even with a clearly unenforceable agreement, unless you have a good barrister, the judge pronounces in the lender's favour ... she then wanted to get out of the conversation very quickly because she didn't know anything at all about this.

So if this solicitors is anything like the CMCs - it's definitely worth people asking the question - will they defend if the lender takes you to court - if not then is it really the service you want!

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

I think Ratio are on a par with Cartel. However whereas Cartel have their own reps and own claimants, Ratio get their stuff from other middley size outfits like TCW and LegalRedress etc (just two in my head at the mo) who in turn get their claims from the littler peeps/introducers like Cento (another one just happens to be in my head theres lots of them) so they are more spread out and many more levels.

Also I know sod all about these different insurances so if you can see issues here then please feel free to explain as if to an idiot lol.

Also I read yesterday one of these firms and I cant for the life of me recall which, saying they have just received a large whack of litigation funding which enables them to not charge back end fees to their 'clients'. I'll try find more but could be instead of insurance?

[righty]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Your missing one point that many of these claims are NOT cost bearing in that the claimant is on a contingency agreement which surrenders upto a 1/3 of any settlement to the lawyers. It's also worth mentioning that in the case of external funding if at anytime the solicitor finds that they have little or no chance of success or the client refuses to accept advice then the solicitor does have a duty to notify the funder who will in turn refuse further cover

As it's a money claim & with the courts consent its perfectly agreeable for even claims over £5K to not be cost bearing

So I submit that ATE funding would be dependent on the trust that needs to exist between the insurer AND the lawyers

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Doesn't ring true to me either why are they so special??

Only a handful of insurer's are based the UK (policy written in UK) IGI is the main one i would have to check but don't think they are dealing in this market. All the others are very little fish.

If they say that other claims companys would have trouble getting LEI cover then i expect it would be the same for them as well.

I think Ratio have been going under the radar a little bit as they are a smaller outfit.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

I read somewhere that Ratio Money were saying they had 75% of the ATE insurance in this country and any other claims companies would have trouble getting ATE insurance cover.

Doesnt scan true to me but you might be better informed.

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

I work for a Legal Expense Insurance company so i deal and speak with many Solicitors all the time and have an understanding of the Industry.

Ratio Money will be talking rubish. All these claims need LEI cover as they are run on a CFA our insurance and many others are not doing that many policys for Solicitors (also all are very wary of these types of claims) and i know not that many firms deal with them maybe 50 or so but most generate work themselves or only run a little bit. 90% of the Sols that have run these case's are now full to capacity and are not taking any more cases on.

A few more sols have started doing similar things to CCR recently.

But i bet the insurance Consumer Litigation Solicitors are using is an offshore company. If all the case's go tits up the Insurer will be left with a huge bill. I wouldn't be suprised if they have set up a captive insurance offshore for themselves. i dont think any insurer would put 100,000's of these claims on their books its to much risk. But with a captive they would be in control of the policy and could write as many as they want.

I bet they don't have any funding for the claims agian most funders wouldn't take that much risk.

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Okay we have an idea on that score which I won't post.


A guy from Ratio on the 'other site' has said Ratio have 100's of firms as panel solicitors. So scans Cartel would too.

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

Yes,

Most defiantly. The Solicitor should not be saying you have to go through CCR he is not acting in the best interest of the client he is acting in HIS best interests. He should not inform the client he can not act for them he is breaking SRA rules on 1 hand he says i can't act for you and on the other hand he says i can if you go through CCR.

So it is clear he can act for the client.

If a client goes to CCR first no rules broken (well thats prob not correct)
But if the client goes direct to the Solicitor and they deal with UCA's how can he say we can't act for you?? he can't as they do deal with UCA's SRA rules broken!!

As far as i am aware Consumer Litigation Solicitors work on the same floor as CCR i know a Solicitor who went for an interview several months ago at CCR office's but she didn't take the Job.

The directors of CCR and Burley set this firm up and will be on a 50/50 split of profits Burley obviously just wanted to keep it separate from his own firm for when and if it goes pop.

On Burleys website http://www.burleyslaw.co.uk/consumer-credit.php

ExpertConsumer Credit Solicitors in Nottingham

Reclaim Mis-sold PPI with our specialist Solicitor team offering “No Win, No Fee” in Nottingham and across the UK.

We do not charge any fees for reviewing your agreements. We will tell you for free if you have a claim and proceed with any claim on a “No Win, No Fee” basis.

It would be interesting to obtain information from company’s house as to who is named as owners/directors

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/10062fbd1d0722a3db654526dc9cb8ce/compdetails

To report them to the SRA i think it would be better if you had telephone recordings you would need to inform them you are recording the message and then ask if they deal with UCA's. I think they would deny saying what they said to the SRA but they may do some mystery shopping calls on them.

My opinion is they set this firm up as a front!!

They deal with 1,000's of cases a month so they need a home for them. THEY COULD NOT pass this many cases onto panel firms most firms would take a max of around 25-50 a month so they would need 100's of firms on their panel and not that many firms deal with UCA case's.

So set up a firm of Sols with a Solicitor and bingo they can generate 1,000's of case's a month take the money from the clients pass them through to the Sols and look like they are doing something. This gives them a lot bigger window to take as much money as they can if it all goes wrong wind down the company and the Sols.

Without the Sols after a few months they would struggle still taking money as all the cases would be sat in the office not going anywhere clients calling to see why nothing is happening giving them a short period to make what they can.

In my eyes i think its a front they sat down and worked all this out first it has given them the chance to generate 100's of thousands of claims and look like they are doing something. Without Consumer Litigation Solicitors i don't think they could have done what they have done.

The SRA may hopefully do something about it as i think the MOJ just care about taking the £400 license fee if you look at the companys they have suspended its around 10 not to good for the governing body who is supposed to be regulating CMC's
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']
[/FONT]

[Amethyst]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

helpmeclaim - did you read Legal Beagles - View Single Post - Cartel using Burleys solicitors ? and Legal Beagles - View Single Post - Cartel using Burleys solicitors ? I am wondering if there are grounds now for a complaint rather than waiting and seeing ? What do you think ?

[helpmeclaim]

Re: Cartel using Burleys solicitors ?

CONSUMER CREDIT LITIGATION SOLICITORS
Floor 5, Building 5,
Universal Square,
Devonshire Street,
Manchester,
M12 6JH
Tel: 0845 026 2599
Fax: 0845 675 2605
Partners: Richard J. Burley and Karl A. Berry.
483311


as you are aware the above Solicitors are basicly Client Cartel and Burleys they have set this firm up together as you do not need to be a Solicitor to part own a Solicitors firm now but you do need a Solicitor as a partner.

Big scam as you all know and i bet Burleys will get a hidding if they both go bust. Also as far as i am aware there may be conflicts of interest as they are basicaly passing cases over to the next desk and then charging a fee for it they should be closed down and burley struck off as he is not acting in the best interest of the client which he is bound by under the SRA's rules

Will be interested to see what happens