Solicitor firm working with Cartel closed down

12 March 2010 | By Natalie Thomas

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has closed down Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, the solicitors working with claims firm Cartel Client Review.

The ruling does not relate to Cartel Client Review as the SRA does not regulate claims management companies.

A spokesman for the SRA says the reason the firm has been closed is because of “suspected dishonesty” and a need to protect consumers.

The Manchester based solicitors are listed on Cartel Client Review’s website as being the solicitors it works with.

Cartel Client Review is currently being investigated by The Ministry of Justice.

Documents and clients’ money held by the firm have been protected by agents acting on behalf of the SRA.

The SRA is now advising clients who worked with the law firm to contact Cartel Client Review to see if they can find them new representation or take legal advice from the local Citizens Advice Bureau or Law Centre.

The SRA says it will not be able to direct CCLS to compensate for any money they have paid to the claims management company.

CCLS also traded as Burleys Solicitors of 64 Balderton Gate, Newark, Nottinghamshire. Burleys Solicitors this has also been closed down.

Carl Wright, CEO of Cartel Client Review, says: “It is with regret that I can confirm that Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors have effectively been closed down by the SRA. It is not clear what reasons the SRA had for this course of action. However, it is important to ensure that all Client Claims are dealt with in the most appropriate manner from this point on.

“We will do everything within our power to ensure that the action taken against CCLS does not adversely affect the claims being pursued by our clients.”

Readers' comments (12)

Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 11:12 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
Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 11:58 am
I always thought it was too good to be true. If you borrow a sum of money, you know how much you are paying back, over a said term. Whats the problem!!! I refused to get my clients involved in it and I have been proved right.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 12:53 pm
What's too good to be true?

In my case my credit card company never gave me the promotional rate of interest I was told I was getting when I took the card out. They doubled my interest rates (which I hadn't realised as these changes were always in the small print). They 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
John Reid | 12 Mar 2010 1:57 pm
Having done research on this subject myself, this is NOT too good to be true. This is a fact and the lenders are getting away with yet another incident of conning the general public. Its a disgrace and must not be allowed to continue. The lenders are the ones dragging their heels and slowing up the process, the Lenders can hold out while consumers and Claims Companies cannot hold out. Its yet another way in which the banks stich us all up on a dily basis.

Another Victory for the large financial institutions who have been conning consumers for years. If they have broken the law then they have to take the consequences the exact same as every other company and person in this country must do. If we didnt it would be anarchy. Banks are far too powerfull and must not be alllowed to do whatever they want. Laws are laid down for a reason. Its an absolute joke.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 2:18 pm
Have no problem with these companies but if they had a just a winnable cause then why ask for anything upfront?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 3:02 pm
If you borrow money you should expect to pay it back - if you lent / borrowed money to / from a friend you would expect it to be repaid even without a written agreement.

How anybody in the financial services industry can support people borrowing money and then not repaying it is beyond me.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jez | 12 Mar 2010 4:02 pm
In response to anonymous, if you lent money to a friend, you wouldn't charge him interest and penalty charges.
It's not the same think, the banks use the rules to screw the borrows ... it's fair that the rules can be used against the lenders when they step out of line.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12 Mar 2010 4:26 pm
The Banks are just too big to win against. Even when told by the courts to speed up and pay up they just ignore them. They slowed the process down so much that they never stood a chance
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
fedupofcrapregulators | 12 Mar 2010 5:04 pm
The MOJ are like a bunch of clowns. they are solely to blame for all this. despite over 5,000 complaints over 2 years, they still sat back and let clients get ripped off.
They should now be brought to task for their incompetent behaviour. Consumers, they are there to protect you, do you think they have done that?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15 Mar 2010 12:53 pm
Has Cartel now stopped taking new business?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment