SRA closes Manchester firm over "suspected dishonesty"
Share
Manchester-based firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors (CCLS) has been shut down by the SRA because of “suspected dishonesty”.
The firm was a legal adviser to financial claims management company Cartel Client Review.
Until mid-February CLLS employed almost 100 people who handled claims for Cartel Client Review, a company that is separately regulated by the Ministry of Justice but shares the same postal address in Manchester and continues to operate.
Cartel Client Review, which specialises in consumer financial mis-selling claims, is under investigation by the MoJ.
The claims company asks clients for a deposit of £495 which it promises to refund if their claims are successful.
CLLS has a separate office that trades as Burleys Solicitors, which has also been closed down.
The solicitors watchdog said it had serious concerns about how the firm was conducting business it acquired from the claims company.
“The intervention protects the immediate position and safeguards documents and clients’ money held by this firm,” the watchdog said.
The SRA began visits to the firm on 10 February and closed it on Wednesday (10 March).
Gordons partner Victoria Davey has been appointed as the SRA agent for CCLS.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (13)
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2010 11:39 am
I first complained to the Ministry of Justice in March 2009 about Cartel Client Review and Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors as my claims were already over a year old and didn't seem to be progressing.
I have repeated my complaints several times in the last year but was consistently fobbed off by the MOJ as they were 'busy' etc.
They recently contacted me to explain that they can not help me with my complaints but that I needed to complain to the Legal Complaints Service (who refer to the SRA). The LCS told me that while they can investigate my complaint, they can not help me to get a refund of my fee and that to pursue that I need to contact the MOJ.
The MOJ have said that as my claim had been passed from CCR on to CCLS they can not help me at all with my complaint or refund of my fee.
I have no faith in any of them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Con | 12-Mar-2010 2:02 pm
My view of CCA firms is that the slogan “we can clear you debt” is tantamount to fraud. Hardly any cases involve “irredeemably unenforceable” agreements and even if an agreement is unenforceable, the courts have basically allowed lenders to cobble together the “original” agreement from various sources and will, in most cases, comply with the Act.
Schemes involving clients making repayments to law firms as opposed to the lender are fishy beyond belief. It’s no surprise that firms are being shut down and I expect many more to follow.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2010 2:19 pm
I think to say 'CCA firms' are fraudulent muddys the waters. The credit card companies and banks could also be accused of fraud. My credit card company never gave me the promotional rate of interest I was told I was getting when I took the card out, doubled my interest rates, sold me Payment Protection Insurance even though I was clearly marked on the application as Self-Employed, so therefore shouldn't have been sold it and despite winning my own Court case against them they have still left a Default on my credit file and failed to pay the costs I have been awarded. They have far more to answer for than the Claims Management Companies.
The MOJ should have acted in this case months ago but the establishment wants the claims industry to be tarnished and fail... even the Office of Fair Trading couldn't beat the banks in Court in the end.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2010 3:48 pm
Th SRA riding to the rescue of the credit industry!
How will intervention help this firm's clients!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anon | 12-Mar-2010 4:39 pm
Anonymous @ 3:48 - I think the obvious point you're missing is the SRA's belief that this firm wasn't helping this firm's clients!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Con | 13-Mar-2010 10:57 am
Re Anon 12-Mar-2010 @ 2:19pm
Miss-selling of PPI is a separate issue and I'm not saying that lenders are squeaky clean in all of this.
However, instances of a law firm being able to successfully clear a debt in its entirety are few and far between. The courts have recognised that in most cases, credit has been drawn down and repaid over a period of time so it is acknowledged that there is a valid contract - it is only when the agreement was improperly executed at the outset that the debt is totally wiped out and these cases are rare.
Law firms should have approached these matters with extreme caution, warning clients that as with all "too good to be true" scenarios their expectations should have been at a minimum with any positive result treated as a bonus. Camelot don't tell the public "play the lottery and we can win you £1 million" for good reason. This would be a con.
For law firms to have taken clients' debt repayments, boosting their coffers whilst said clients credit rating went down the pan, on the whimsical promise that their debt would be cleared is, to my mind, tantamount to fradulent exploitation of vulnerable individuals in an often desperate situation.
If I was in the unfortunate position of any of the above clients I would try and sue the introducers and the law firm involved sharpish. However, I would probably be unable to afford this action in light of my bankruptcy and said company/firm being insolvent or facing closure.
I think this situation is possibly worse than the coal miners scandal.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 14-Mar-2010 5:13 pm
Re CCLS:
Late Sept 2009 I put in a claim for missold PPI via Cartel Client Review, who "reviewed" accepted and passed on to CCLS for action. For these you do not pay a fee up front, just £10 to the finance company (against which you're claiming) for release of relevant files.
Several steps later, throughout which I was kept promptly informed and advised, a call from the Litigation Exec followed by: .
Feb 1 written confirmation of an offer from bank in question re missold PPI (I also was self employed) and that it had been accepted by CCLS on my behalf as I'd instructed, also detailing the fee to be deducted.
Tuesday, March 9 call from the same exec to confirm they had received the money, he'd drafted a letter and I would receive a cheque net of the CCLS fee (which was actually small and reasonable) AND net of Cartel CR fee (which is a hefty 30% for doing s** all except quick scan and forward to CCLS). By this weekend I should have had £900 roughly of an offer of £1670.
Guess what? next day (March 10) CCLS closed by SRA and ...
No cheque has arrived (though previous experience of CCLS is that they were very prompt ) and judging by the research I've done over this weekend there are agents in Bradford, the SRA and heaven knows who else involved and it's very unclear whether I'll ever now get my money or to whom to apply - not funny for a post-retirement-age-and-have-to-work sole trader whose business has been decimated thanks to the credit crunch.
I am probably one of the few who doesn't have a complaint about CCLS handling of my claim but, unfortunate timing re SRA action means I've been stuffed!!
.
Thatcher and Reagan believed Milton Friedman and deregulated in the 80s, Blair and Brown carried right on along the same track - and who pays the price for the mess? ordinary folk as usual.
Sorry but I think the whole financial regulation mechanism needs massive tightening as do banks, financiers, hedge funds, insurance companies and the like so there is some clarity, responsibility to and protection for the wretched consumer! These are supposed to be service industries for heaven's sake!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
m landells | 15-Mar-2010 3:28 pm
we have been waiting 2years for our claim but never got anywhere. we just want our money back but wont hold our breath.about getting it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Mar-2010 12:55 pm
Inevitable. If it looks too good to be true it probably is...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Mar-2010 3:17 pm
I think the point that is being missed is that this Soliciotrs firm is deducting a large percentage of the damages recovered and paying it to Cartel. this is definitely not in clients interests. Well done to the SRA for shutting them down
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment