Proposed Directors of Tirupati Graphite explain why they have requisitioned an GM. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Am pretty new here and have been trying to discover a little more about the legal action Vanquis are pursuing against the CMC. Apologies to LTH if what follows is “old news”
The CMC is TMS Legal. They’ve already been sanctioned last year following a complaint by Vanq for posting misleading “testimonials” on TikTok featuring actors not customers, and by the SRA for other failings
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/claimant-firms-tiktok-ads-ruled-to-be-misleading/5117899.article
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/645041/#:~:text=1.1%20TMS%20Legal%20Limited%20(',the%20investigation%20of%20%C2%A31%2C350.
On 11 March Vanquis launched a High Court claim against TMS Legal.
https://caseboard.io/cases/dad1ae6a-c513-48df-bece-9beb799635d0
I can’t access the Particulars of Claim - an article by Law 360 from 30/4 best describes it but you have to register to get it and it’s long, so I’ll post separately in different Parts.
PART 1
Law360, London (April 30, 2024, 4:13 PM BST) -- Vanquis Bank Ltd. is seeking an estimated £4.5 million ($5.6 million) from a law firm it says has sent it thousands of meritless complaints, accusing it of irresponsible lending in a "reckless and indiscriminate" approach to earn commission if a claim happens to succeed.
The lender alleged in a High Court claim on March 11, which has recently been made public, that it had been "deluged" by generic complaints submitted by claims manager TMS Legal Ltd. that it provided unaffordable credit to its cardholders. TMS Legal carries out business as "The Money Solicitor."
TMS sent almost 16,850 complaints to Vanquis on behalf of the lender's clients between October 2022 and the end of 2023, the claim said. Complaints are first sent to Vanquis itself, and clients can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to look at the case afresh if they are not satisfied with the decision, according to the filing.
Vanquis alleges that TMS, which specializes in claims for financial products that have sold wrongly, failed to make "reasonable enquiries" to determine whether there was sufficient information to support the complaint or if it was properly arguable. This breached the duties TMS owed its clients and was intended to cause the bank loss, Vanquis claims.
The lender claimed that it has suffered "considerable loss" both in the "time and cost of investigating (unmeritorious and unparticularized) claims which should never have been brought" and fees owed to the ombudsman.
PART 2
More than 1,000 claims from TMS were withdrawn after they were submitted, Vanquis alleges. Only 8.8% of the more than 10,000 claims that Vanquis has considered so far were partially or fully upheld, and the rest were rejected.
TMS operates on a "no win, no fee" basis, but charges a commission of 45% of the total compensation received if a claim is successful, Vanquis said. This is why the claim manager submitted complaints "without any proper regard" for their merit or lack of merit, the bank added.
A questionnaire was provided by TMS to its clients before bringing a claim, the lender alleged. But it did not provide the claim manager with a proper basis for making an allegation of irresponsible lending, because it only asked minimal and basic information on their financial position, Vanquis says.
TMS did not make any reasonable inquiries to find out the nature of Vanquis' affordability checks and whether these were "fair, reasonable and proportionate," the bank said. TMS knew, or ought to have known, that the questionnaire did not provide enough information to make an allegation, it added
Complaints submitted to the FOS are time-barred from six years after the event, under the sourcebook on dispute resolution of the Financial Conduct Authority or three years from the date the complainant became aware they had cause to claim, according to the filing.
TMS provided its customers with a "limitation confirmation" to state the complainant had "only recently understood" they had cause to complain. Vanquis alleged this did not mean complaints were necessarily brought in time and that TMS needed to carry out further enquiries to determine they were.
Vanquis declined to comment on Tuesday. TMS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
PART 3
Vanquis Bank is represented by Edward Levey KC of Fountain Court Chambers, instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
TMS Legal is represented by Kingsley Napley LLP. Full counsel information was unavailable on Tuesday.
The case is Vanquis Banking Group PLC v. TMS Legal Ltd., case number KB-2024-000744, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.
Would love it if we can put this to bed once and for all.
I loathe these parasite ambulance chasing type organisations. No better than agent provocateur's for low level criminal behaviour, in many cases. They make the world a worse place. And ultimately a more expensive place, for those who it hurts the most.
Couldn’t agree more LWHL.
It's clear that TMS have not learnt anything since their £45000 fine from the SRA for their scattergun approach https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/dorset-firm-slapped-with-45000-fine-for-claims-failings/5117394.article . Clearly their modus operandi is quantity, not quality, presumably because it has worked for them in the past.
The £45000 fine 6 months ago was supposed to serve as a "credible deterrent to both the firm and the wide [sic] profession, including other firms working in this sector" but when it hasn't even worked on TMS themselves, what chance is there that such a pitiful fine will work in the rest of sector? There is definitely a mismatch of teeth between the FCA and the SRA.
Let's hope that the high court sees it for what it is and slaps them with the full £4.5 million plus costs.
Clearly past penalties were no deterrent.
Presumably potential receipts are judged to exceed potential penalties and the penalties are just a business cost.
45k obviously pennies for TMS legal. Rewards outweighing risks of getting small penalty. Seems they are a group of "lawyers" or crooks with a grasps of the risks and benefits. Obviously not scared and a lucrative business to take on Vanquis for good money £££.
Your Honour- twas the YTS kid.