|
This is one of a few examples of Business Opportunity
Watch Reviews which are available for the public to view on the public section of the website. The
reason for making a small sample of the reviews freely available is to help potential customers decide
if they want to subscribe, and also to communicate some matters of general interest arising in the case
of some of the reviews. All the other reviews are available only to
subscribers.
A zero score or a low score means that in our opinion the business model or the investment model has
flaws and/or that we have found inadequate evidence to back up claims about earnings, sales, profits etc.
It doesn't mean this evidence does not exist and it doesn't mean that the opportunity is a scam and it
doesn't mean that the promoters are unprofessional or dishonest. Questions arising are normally contained
within the body of the review, and readers who are interested should contact the company with these questions
and/or questions of their own.
|
Review from Business Opportunity Watch Reviews
Issue 15 May 2008
CARTEL CLIENT REVIEW
Cartel Client Review Ltd
Building 7
Exchange Quay
Manchester
M5 3EP
www.cartelclientreview.co.uk
Tel: 0845 0711 500
- Extract from sales copy
- Review
- Your feedback
Extract from sales copy:
Recruitment:
Cartel Client Review Sales Representatives
A fantastic opportunity has arisen to join a company whose level of experience and service in the financial
industry ensures your clients are in safe hands.
We are looking for confident, self-motivated, sales driven individuals to join the expanding sales
force.
Experience in sales is not essential, as full training and ongoing support will be provided.
Working from home your role involves visits to clients' homes. A full driving licence and own transport
is essential, as is the ability to work flexible hours.
For your dedication and commitment you will also receive:
- Initial training and one-to-one management support
This is a fantastic opportunity for an ambitious, entrepreneurial and sales driven
individual who is dedicated to offering a totally unique service to their clients, which can produce seriously
high levels of income.
To apply for this fantastic opportunity please contact:
Business Development Manager -Tel: 07828 079626
Please note that, due to the high volume of response for this vacancy, only candidates who show evidence
of meeting the strict criteria set will be contacted
Rating Review:
Cartel Client Review have been recruiting heavily for sales representatives and - judging from the number
of individual websites which show up on Google if you key in the search terms "Cartel Client Review
Representatives" - they have been having quite a bit of success.
As a sales representative of Cartel Client Review, you would obtain for your clients "
financial
compensation as a result of invalid, unenforceable or fundamentally flawed consumer credit agreements.
These include mortgage, secured loan and motor finance contracts. Working closely with solicitors, auditors
and other professionals, Cartel Client Review provides a service designed to assist our Clients claiming
a settlement within 6 to 12 months of their claim being accepted by our panel."
Your job would be to forward details of your clients' loans to Cartel Client Review to see if they qualified
for compensation. Normally within 24 hours, your client would receive a report from Cartel Client Review's
internal underwriting (vetting) department stating which products qualify for a claim, and your client
would then decide which claims to proceed with.
The client then has to pay Cartel Client Review £495 in advance as a Review Fee to take the case
forward, although this fee is discounted to £175 for a credit card or personal unsecured loan if
you are proceeding with a claim for another £495 product, and there is no Review Fee for repossession
prevention.
Review Fees are fully refundable if the case cannot be pursued for any reason, and Cartel tells us that
they have refunded hundreds of clients where claims have been assessed as having less than reasonable
prospects of success. We previously stated incorrectly that these fees were not refundable, and we apologise
for this error and any damage it may have caused.
The standard advice is that it is risky to pay a fee for a service in advance - particularly where the
results of this service could take up to a year to be achieved. This risk is, of course, reduced where
the fees are refundable but it's still not entirely eliminated unless they are backed by an insurance
bond or they're kept in a separate client account from which they cannot be released for expenditure by
the company until the service has been performed.
What about the terms for people wanting to join the business opportunity offered by Cartel Client Review?
These sound very fair since there is no cost to join as such, apart from the cost of an "Induction
Training Day" at £29.30, Business Cards costing £35.25, and a monthly fee for the software
of £17.57 including VAT.
As an agent, you receive a commission of £125 for each product you sell where a £495 fee applies.
The main financial reward for agents, however, is the 30% commission they hope to receive on their clients'
Success Fees.
For successful claims, 30% of any monies recovered are paid to Cartel Client Review as a Success Fee,
except for motor finance and repossession mortgage claims where no Success Fee is payable and for repossession
compensation claims where a reduced success fee of 5% applies.
Cartel Client Review Ltd is quite correctly registered with the Ministry of Justice as a company offering
a Claims Management service.
According to the Cartel Client Review website (see the "history" page) Carl Wright has been
a spokesman for "mis-selling" scandals" in the press as follows:
- in Mortgage Strategy October 2005 Carl Wright predicted that "The sub-prime market
is in crisis and runs the risk of becoming the next big mis-selling scandal".
-
in Financial Adviser 27 October 2005 Carl Wright said, "I have been told
by directors of sub-prime lenders that at least half of customers that have gone to mid-to-heavy adverse
products could have been sold near prime or prime products".
-
in The Sunday Express 30 October 2005 Carl Wright said that, "Brokers are
knowingly recommending the wrong mortgage to secure higher commissions".
-
Financial Adviser 3 November 2005 reported that, in respect of Carl Wright, "Leading
sub-prime advisers have blasted a top IFA for claiming the non-confirming sector was at risk of mis-selling
mortgages".
-
Financial Adviser 17 November 2005, under the title "FSA looks into Wright's
claims", reported that Carl Wright was "a board member of the Association of Mortgage
Intermediaries and industry commentator" and that the "FSA is investigating allegations
of sub-prime mortgage mis-selling" following "a complaint from an IFA".
As you would expect for a "top IFA", Carl Wright is recorded on the
FSA Register. Curiously, though, his status is categorised as inactive.
Unfortunately, following this publicity in late 2005, Carl Wright was soon to have problems of his own.
On 17th September 2007 his company Cartel Marketing Ltd was compulsorily wound up in the High Court under
the Insolvency Act. It was soon followed by another Cartel company, Cartel International Limited which
was likewise compulsorily wound up in the High Court on 14th October 2007 under the Insolvency Act, having
changed its name to Quay Communications and Services Ltd.
Carl Wright had resigned as a director of Cartel International Ltd on 18th January 2006.
Carl Wright remains the sole director of Cartel Marketing Ltd, all of the other directors having resigned.
One of the last directors of Cartel Marketing Ltd to resign was Sharon Yvette Sherratt, on 2nd August
2007. On the same day, Carl Wright resigned as the sole director of Cartel Client Review Ltd and Sharon
Yvette Sherratt became the sole director in his place.
Cartel Client Review Ltd has share capital of just £10. Although it was set up over 10 years ago
in 1998 it never traded until late 2007. It's unusual that, having carefully complied with all the statutory
requirements for a dormant company for nearly 10 years, as soon as the company sprang into action Carl
Wright resigned his directorship.
I'm mindful to give this company a low rating, not just because of the failure of a couple of Cartel companies
in the past - anyone can run into trading problems - but also because of Carl Wright's unusual choice
not to accept statutory responsibility for Cartel Client Review Ltd by not being a director and because
of the company's terms of trade whereby they ask members of the public to pay a high fee per case in advance.
Questions on Cartel Client Review
I had a couple of questions about Cartel Client Review to which I was unable to find the answers, so I
wrote to the company on 5th May 2008 as follows:
Dear Sirs
Cartel Client Review - Sales Agency Opportunities
I publish an online magazine which researches business opportunities, and a subscriber has asked me for
an assessment of the agency opportunity offered by your company, for subsequent publication in my magazine.
To assist me with this, I should be most grateful if you could reply to the following questions:
- I came across a posting on a forum from a lady who states that she was told by a representative of
your company that the fee for dealing with a claim for compensation for mis-selling in respect of her
credit card would incur an initial fee of £125 and also, if any of the balance on her card was written
off or charges were refunded, Cartel Client Review would take a further fee of 30% of any monies recovered.
I should be grateful if you would confirm that this lady was mistaken about the further fee, since the
“Terms of Business” letter displayed on your website makes no mention of any fees apart from
the initial fee.
- I understand that there are two possible self-employed sales positions with your company.
a) Firstly, to become a Representative involves costs of £29.30 for the Induction Training Day,
plus £35.25 for business cards and £17.57 per month for software. Commissions receivable on
sales made by the Representative amount to £125 for each case of a mortgage, secured loan or car
finance review plus a bonus for each completed case payable on 20th December of £150.
b) Secondly, a Master Agency is available, for which the cost is £5,000 + VAT. The Master Agent
receives commissions not only on his own sales, but also on the sales of people he has recruited to his
team. Could you please confirm that this is correct, and also forward a copy of the Agreement for the
Master Agency. Could you please also confirm that this Agreement complies with the UK Trading Schemes
Regulations as required.
With thanks in advance for your assistance,
Yours faithfully
Marian Owen
A failure to comply with the UK Trading Schemes Regulations would be a criminal offence.
No doubt Cartel Client Review does comply, but why isn't there any indication on their website, such as
the Statutory Warning?
Here's the link to useful explanatory from the DTI (now the BERR) about the Trading Schemes Regulations:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file24757.pdf
Despite sending a follow-up reminder, I had no reply from Cartel Client Review to this May 2008 letter.
However, as Cartel pointed out to me on 3rd November 2009, for credit card contracts their website did
state that a fee was payable to Cartel of 30% of the total of interest repaid, payments returned and balance
cleared. I apologise to Cartel Client Review for any damage that may have been caused by this error ...
although it's a pity they did not reply when I questioned them about this in May 2008.
As regards the second question above, Cartel told me that they "can
confirm that the Cartel Rolling Sales Agreements are fully compliant with Trading Schemes Regulations
having been compiled and maintained with assistance and advice from solicitors specialising in this area".
Oddly, two Master Agents have both told me that they have two contracts each - one of which does not comply
with the Trading Schemes Regulations and one which does. In addition, I have two Rolling Sales Agreements
for "The Representative", neither of which comply. Mistakes, obviously.
Rating:
●○○○○○○○○○
BOW Notice: A zero score or a low score means that in our opinion the business model or the investment
model has flaws and/or that we have found inadequate evidence to back up claims about earnings, sales,
profits etc. It doesn't mean this evidence does not exist and it doesn't mean that the promoters are unprofessional
or dishonest. Questions arising are normally contained within the body of the review, and readers who
are interested should contact the company with these questions and/or questions of their own.
_________________________________
BECAUSE OF FRUSTRATION WITH THE NATIONAL PRESS CONTINUING TO QUOTE CARL WRIGHT AS IF HE AND HIS COMPANY
WERE LEADING FIGURES OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES ESTABLISHMENT, I PUBLISHED THE ABOVE NEGATIVE REVIEW ON
THE PUBLIC SECTION OF THE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY WATCH WEBSITE ON 18TH OCTOBER 2009.
Update 18th October 2009
Cartel Client Review
Carl Wright
Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors aka Burleys, Richard J. Burley, Karl A. Berry
Cartel Client Review says on their website that they had ten thousand Client Reviews in progress in July
2008 and for which the company has been paid.
How many of these claims have been successfully completed is unknown, although an unhappy Master Agent
who contacted me said that he had not had a single one of his "many hundreds of cases"
completed and he had been involved as a Master Agent for over two years, and another Agent who contacted
me had over 200 claims with no completions.
Certainly, if Cartel Client Review had had a good proportion of their credit card claims completed by
January of this year, then it is surprising that they did not forward these details to the Advertising
Standards Authority in defence of a complaint by a member of the public over a radio ad for Cartel's credit
card review service. The 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. The Advertising
Standards Authority ruled that the ad was misleading and that it must not be broadcast again in its current
form because they considered that they 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.
Cartel Client Review, however, contacted me on 3rd November 2009 to say that they "strongly refute"
any suggestion that only a few claims have been concluded to date.
There certainly seems to be no doubt that Cartel achieves successes every few days with the loan and credit
card agreements it challenges on behalf of its clients. According to the blog on the company's website
at www.cartelclientreview.co.uk, in the two-week period from 14th October to 27th October 2009 it had
six successes as follows:
-
On 27th October 2009 Mr D received nearly £4,000 in compensation in respect of
a bank loan.
-
On 24th October 2009 Miss B received nearly £3,000 in compensation in respect
of a bank loan.
-
On 21st October 2009 Mr G received around £1,500 in compensation in respect of
a bank loan.
-
On 19th October 2009 Mr and Mrs F received repayment of mis-sold PPI premiums in respect
of a bank loan.
-
On 17th October 2009 Mr. C received nearly £3,000 compensation in respect of
a bank loan.
-
On 14th October 2009 a Cartel Client had his credit card balance of £10,000 with
a leading high street bank "written off in full and all adverse credit references were removed
from the client's file".
Presumably, these cases are only a small sample of the cases which Cartel is completing
each day because, with ten thousand claims in progress as at July 2008, that would imply that 27 claims
would be needed to be completed each day to clear them ... unless a large proportion of the ten thousand
claims were rejected.
Writing off credit card balances and other unsecured loans
I find it worrying that a lot of members of the public have paid Cartel Client Review audit fees of £495
in the expectation that their loans will be written off when this cannot be said with any certainty until
various cases have been heard by the courts.
However, Cartel Client Review says as follows:
"a. There are clear legal arguments, backed up by successful cases for all types
of claims currently managed by Cartel, irrespective of various cases ongoing. Certain cases may resolve
any uncertainty in relation to specific, less ‘mainstream’, legal arguments.
b. Cartel operates a continuously evolving underwriting system to minimise the chance
of accepting a claim where a refund will be required, as is clear on our website
c. In specific reference to ‘unenforcable’ claims the law applied in the
vast majority of Cartel’s cases is a matter of fact, as is the legal remedy"
Cartel Client Review's solicitors, Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors, have a website
at www.consumercreditlitigationsolicitors.co.uk. I could not find the name of the firm of solicitors on
the website, which I found odd because solicitors these days are normally keen on publicity. However,
I was able to identify the firm from the Law Society registration number at the foot of each page on the
site. This registration number corresponds to a firm called Burleys Solicitors, whose head office is in
Manchester and which has another branch in Newark, Nottinghamshire. Two Burleys partners' names are also
given on the contact page of the website - Richard J. Burley, who is the senior partner, and Karl A. Berry,
another partner. Burleys is a reasonable size, with 19 solicitors and lawyers at the Manchester office
and 3 at the Newark office.
Burleys' website at www.consumercreditlitigationsolicitors.co.uk is an odd one because, despite having
been live since July 2008, most of the pages on the site simply say "Coming Soon ...".
Unusually for a firm of solicitors, even the Terms and Conditions and the Legal Disclaimer are "Coming
Soon ...", in addition to most of the other pages on Burleys' website, i.e. those headed Form
of Authority, Claimant Identification Sheet, Alternative Funding Questionnaire, Conditional Fee Arrangement
Verbal Explanation, Solicitor's Introduction and Explanation Letter and Conditional Fee Arrangement.
Burleys' Recruitment page, however, does contain an enlightening few lines. It says:
"Due to rapid expansion we are recruiting for the following positions:
Solicitors
Fee Earners
Administrative Staff
Please contact us to find out more."
Clients of Cartel Client Review whose credit card debt or loan
debt is written off might find that it's not such an advantage as they had hoped. Firstly, there is the
30% fee payable to Cartel, and secondly there is the question of the effect on their credit record.
Regarding the 30% fee, it's true that some cases might result in the claimant (i.e. you)
receiving a compensation payment in cash in addition to your loan or debt being written off, but that's
not normally the case. Normally, you would receive no cash payment. So you could end up having jumped
from the frying pan into the fire, having exchanged a credit card debt or a loan of, say, £10,000
that you can repay in instalments over years for a debt of £3,000 which you are required to repay
immediately. And if your credit record is poor, then you probably couldn't borrow this fee from elsewhere.
Cartel Client Review points out that you have 70% less debt than previously and they also say that they
will work, and have worked, with clients in cases where there is genuine difficulty to meet any conditional
fee arrangement.
Regarding the effect on your credit record, the recent High Court decision
in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland v McGuffick confirmed that you are still liable for the debt even
if it is declared unenforceable. Mr. Justice Flaux ruled: "although the [Consumer Credit Act]
may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights
and obligations under it continue to exist". Mr. Justice Flaux also ruled on what "enforcement"
means. He said that it does not mean reporting the debtor to credit reference agencies or demanding payment
from the debtor or bringing proceedings.
Here's a link to the judgement in Royal Bank of Scotland v McGuffick:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mcguffick-v-rbs.pdf
and here's a link to the Case Report from Stone Chambers, where Andrew Moran QC who acted
for Mr. McGuffick is an Associate Member:
http://www.stonechambers.com/cases/phillip-mcguffick-v-the-royal-bank-of-scotland-plc--2009--ewhc-2386---consumer-credit.asp
and here's a link to a Times article headed "High Court decision on debt loophole dashes write-off
hopes for thousands":
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/
banking_and_finance/article6868968.ece
This decision means that the only way to protect your credit rating is to keep making repayments.
If your agreement is held to be unenforceable, then it seems that the only thing that the lender can't
do is to send in the bailiffs, but there is nothing to stop them reporting you to credit reference agencies,
demanding payment from you and even bringing proceedings.
Overall, then, the conclusion is that if you don't repay a loan - whether enforceable or unenforceable
- then you are likely to damage your credit record and - due to the requirement to pay 30% of any amount
written off as a fee to Cartel which is payable immediately - could still be in financial difficulties
and reliant on Cartel's generosity and understanding to give them time to pay.
Cartel points out that they have never advised their clients to cease making payments on debts until they
are confirmed as being unenforceable, and to the best of their knowledge no Cartel client who has had
their debt "written off" has been left with a black mark on their credit rating as the result
of this process. Cartel's interpretation of the McGuffick v RBS case is as follows:
"In RBS v McGuffick the agreement was found to be enforceable, the defence put
forward by McGuffick’s representation was (in highly simplified form) that, by registering adverse
credit against Mr McGriffick’s credit file, RBS had enforced an agreement that they were not entitled
to (at the point of adverse credit information being registered RBS had failed to produce the agreement
– RBS subsequently produced the agreement and the agreement was found to be enforceable). In no way
can it be supposed that this case means that lenders will be able to register adverse credit against irredeemably
unenforceable agreements."
The DIY alternative
We named five companies in the previous version of this report as giving a low-cost service for consumers
wanting to find out if their loans could be written off. We don't know what the reasons were in the individual
cases, but three of these companies do not currently hold authorisation with the Ministry of Justice and
so they are not now offering these services. Normally, as regular readers of our reviews will know, we
try to provide details of alternative sources of the same or similar offers. But in view of the decimation
of our previous list of alternative providers of financial claims services, we're not going to attempt
that again. Instead, as an alternative, we suggest that if you want to find out if your credit card debt
or your unsecured loan debt can be written off, why not do it yourself?
- You can find template letters at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/
(you have to register on the site, but this is free)
- Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert is working on a step-by-step guide at
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/write-off-your-debts
Claiming repayment of payment protection insurance
Cartel Client Review has received wonderful publicity recently in the form of a case they took to
South Shields county court in respect of Mrs. Lynne Thorius. This resulted in the write off of her credit
card debt of approximately £8,000 and the return of ppi contributions of around £2,500. You
can read all the details here:
http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/10/01/landmark-legal-battle-on-credit-card-insurance-won-by-south-shields-mother-61634-24826470/
Mrs. Thorius had a very strong case because:
- she was a cleaning supervisor on a low income who said that she never asked for the
ppi insurance and she ticked the box to say that she did not want ppi on the application form, but the
policy was initiated anyway with a charge of £20 a month. The credit card company was unable to
provide documentation to prove that she had requested ppi.
- there was an "unfair relationship" within the meaning of section 140 of the Consumer Credit
Act 1974 because the credit card company could not prove that they had disclosed to Mrs. Thorius that
they would receive commission from the sale of ppi.
If you are currently paying for ppi insurance in connection with a credit card or loan
and you believe that either you never requested it and/or it was not disclosed to you that the credit
card company or loan company would receive commission on the ppi insurance then you too, like Mrs. Thorius,
might be able to get a refund of the ppi insurance premiums you have paid.
If you don't feel that you can handle this yourself, then you can get a firm like Cartel Client Review
to do it for you, but this will cost you 30% of the refund. Otherwise, get ready to write some letters
and have a look at the following websites which show you how to do it for yourself:
-
-
-
Update on Cartel Client Review's statutory position
Cartel Client Review's statutory position, as shown on records at Companies House, reveals some interesting
new twists and surprises.
Firstly, after having been dormant from 1998 when it was incorporated until 31st July 2007, Cartel Client
Review filed its first accounts for the period from 1st August 2007 to 30th September 2008. Surprisingly,
since the company's website says "Cartel Client Review is probably the UK’s largest and fastest
growing financial claims management company", these accounts recorded a substantial loss of £563,003.
Secondly, there have been some musical chairs with the directorships. Carl Wright was appointed as
the sole director of Cartel Client Review when the company was incorporated in 1998 and then, after nine
years during which the company was dormant, he resigned as a director on 2nd August 2007 two days after
it sprang into action. He was replaced as the company's sole director by Sharon Yvette Sherratt. Carl
Wright was re-appointed as a director on 16th June 2008 and on 1st September 2009 Sharon Yvette Sherratt
resigned as director, leaving Carl Wright once more as the sole director of Cartel Client Review Ltd.
There have been some other changes, too. Cartel Client Review has just ten issued shares of £1 each.
Previously, all of these were held by Carl Wright's wife Olivia. However, she disposed of them all to
Carl Wright on 2nd October 2008.
More recently, on 21st August 2009 two unusual charges were registered against Cartel Client Review Ltd
at Companies House. The first charge is a debenture in favour of Carl Wright personally covering all present
and future obligations and liabilities of the company towards him. Under this debenture, there are fixed
charges over the company's freehold and leasehold property, all of its plant and machinery etc, all its
investments, all proceeds of insurances and "all its rights, title, interest and benefit in and
to the Collections Accounts". Under this debenture there is also a floating charge over "all
its assets and undertaking whatsoever and wheresoever situated both present and future".
It's very odd that someone who is the sole director and sole shareholder of a company for which only six
months previously he had provided the company's auditors with "prepared forecasts which indicate
the company will trade profitably in the ensuing year and will continue to generate positive cash flows"
would feel the need for such an unusual step as taking out a debenture against his own company in favour
of himself.
This debenture has a number of implications, including the fact that Cartel Client Review will not now
find it easy to raise finance, if required, because it has no assets to offer to a lender as reasonable
security.
And that's not the end of it. A second charge was also drawn up and registered on the same date, this
time in favour of Carl Wright and MJF SSAS Trustees Ltd together as trustees of Cartel Pension Scheme
One, in connection with a loan of £300,000 from the pension scheme to Cartel Client Review Ltd.
This time, Cartel Client Review assigned to the trustees of the pension scheme as security a long list
of about 600 claims being dealt with by Burleys, each identified by a reference number, together with
the payment of Referral Fees and any monies that may become payable to the company in connection with
the Claims.
600 claims given as security for a loan of £300,000 means that on average each claim is valued at
only £500 for the purposes of the security. This seems very low, because of course the value of
these claims is the 30% fee which would be earned from their successful conclusion. For the purposes of
the security, then, either the view was taken that a fair proportion of these claims would not succeed
or the average amount expected to be written off (in the case of credit card or loan debts) or recovered
(in the case of ppi insurance refunds) is only £1,667 (i.e. £500 divided by 30%). Perhaps
the answer is that this list of claims mainly consists of ppi claims where the claimants have only been
paying £25 or £30 a month for 5 or 6 years, which would mean that they had paid out only approx.
£1,500/£2,000.
Still interested in joining Cartel Client Review as a representative?
In addition to reading the above review from the May 2008 edition of Business Opportunity Watch (and,
if you are interested in a Master Agency, verifying for yourself that the agreement is compliant with
the UK Trading Schemes Regulations), I advise anyone interested in joining Cartel Client Review to talk
to as many people already in it as possible (you can find contact details by doing a search on the Internet).
I have heard some representatives of claims management firms saying that it is easy to make a few sales
initially to people who know and trust you, but after that it gets more difficult because of the upfront
fee. Clearly, therefore, it is important to have good sales skills, in addition to being committed and
persistent in marketing your business.
In my view, however, it is risky to market the credit card/loan write off service at this stage before
the various cases currently going through the courts have reached their conclusion, because you could
find yourself saddled with some unhappy customers. You would also, of course, need to market it transparently
to your potential customers as regards their need for funding for the success fee and as regards the potential
damage to their credit rating if they don't repay the loan.
_________________________________
Update 28th November 2009
Cartel Client Review
Carl Wright
Agents' agreements and the Trading Scheme Regulations
Clawback of commissions
I recently had an email from someone who had just attended one of Cartel's training courses. He wanted
to flag to me that any commission paid in respect of
unenforceable credit commitments may be reclaimed from Cartel agents at any time in the future if the
case does not proceed to a successful conclusion. He felt that this alone made the whole earnings process
with Cartel very risky as an agent might find that he suffers a claw-back of most or even all the commission
he has earned.
The author of the email confirmed to me, as have people who have attended Cartel's training courses in
the past, that the prospect of receiving commission from building a team was a major part of the training
and incentive presentation. In my view, however, the fact that in the wording of the contract Cartel may
have given themselves the right to reclaim commission paid to agents is irrelevant. As mentioned above
-
link - legally, it seems to me that Cartel would not have an unrestricted
right to do so because their whole scheme - both for agents and master agents - falls under the Trading
Schemes Regulations because, in the words of the Trading Schemes Act 1996, it "
applies to any
trading scheme if ... the prospect is held out to participants of receiving payments or other benefits
in respect of ... the introduction by any person of other persons who become partipants in a trading scheme
... the supply of goods or services by any person to or for other persons" etc.
Under the Trading Scheme Regulations, agents are legally entitled to certain protections and benefits
and these ought to be reflected in their contracts. However, they are entitled to them by law regardless
of what the contract says. These benefits are set out in the DTI booklet The Trading Schemes Guide at
the following link:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file24757.pdf
Agents' benefits include the fact that commissions can only be clawed back on
termination of their contract, and even then they can only be clawed back
for the previous 90 days.
I have contacted Cartel to ask them to respond on this point.
_________________________________
Your feedback:
Have you tried this opportunity?
If you would like to comment on it please
send
us an email. Your feedback will then be posted here anonymously unless you tell us that you want
your contact details included.
Feedback 19 January 2010 from Exagent:
Hi Marian,
In brief, I was a Cartel agent but only put though my case and the in-law's case because Carl Wright,
to me, did not come across as a responsible person on the training/sales day. It seemed to me that his
main focus was to get his audience excited about how much they can earn rather than what is best for the
clients. One of the things he was suggesting is that if people didn’t have the up-front money for
their cases they should put the Cartel fees on their credit card and then put that card though for claim
– How irresponsible it that?
Between the 2 of us we put through 5 claims and all have been rejected despite being told of a 99+%
of success. And some 19 months on we are still awaiting our refunds despite many attempts to recover it!!
On the basis of my own experience, I am worried that a lot of people may lose out with Cartel, apart
from Carl Wright who seems to have his arse covered.
Regards
Exagent
Editorial reply to Exagent:
In fact, it was good advice to tell people to pay their Cartel fees by credit card because they are covered
by section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, the bank issuing
the credit card is jointly liable with Cartel. This means that anyone who can show that there has been
breach of contract (failure to make refunds despite the claims being rejected) can require the credit
card company to refund them if the Cartel has not refunded them. All you need to do is to write to your
credit card company as follows:
- Refer to the credit card company's joint liability for the payment to Cartel Client Review under
section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act.
- Give your credit card number and state the amount and date of the transaction.
- Enclose some evidence of the refund requests you have made to Cartel.
- Enclose the following two pieces of documentation from the Cartel Client Review website:
a. Frequently Asked Questions
Print off page one of:
http://www.cartelclientreview.co.uk/faqs.aspx
and highlight the text under question 2 which says:
"The review fee is refunded should a claim be unsuccessful (subject to Terms and Conditions)."
b. Terms and Conditions
Print off a copy of the Terms and Conditions here:
http://www.cartelclientreview.co.uk/remote/files/
cartel_client_review_terms_and_conditions.pdf
and highlight paragraph 4(a) which says:
"(a) If during the provision of the Services You have an Unsuccessful Claim, You will be given
the option to transfer the Review Fee (but not a deferred Review Fee) to another Product. If You confirm
that You do not wish to transfer the Review Fee that You have paid We will refund it to You within a reasonable
period of time, which will not exceed thirty (30) days."
- Send the letter by Recorded Delivery.
Note that you can still make this claim even if your credit card has been cancelled, and you have six
years to make a claim under section 75.
Do not be surprised or discouraged if the first letter you receive from the credit card company reads
like a standard rebuffal letter. Sadly, we have heard that some banks routinely send out a refusal letter
as their first reply, apparently regardless of the merit of the claim. If this happens, then write back
to the credit card company saying that they do not seem to have looked at your claim properly and ask
them to now look at it properly and refund you within 14 days so that you do not have to make a complaint
to the Financial Ombudsman.
If you still do not receive satisfaction, then complain to the Financial Ombudsman here:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm
Hope this helps.
Marian
Feedback 20th January 2010 from InterestOnly:
Hi
I had an interest only mortgage for approximately 6 years (2000 to 2006) before transferring to another
lender.
About a year ago I submitted details of the initial loan to Cartel/Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors
for their consideration for a possible refund but have heard nothing since I submitted further details
in October to the above mentioned solicitors.
Thus I paid my loan in full for 6 years before moving on to another lender. In the event (it seems slight
now) of getting anything back from that loan agreement, or not as the case may more likely be, where does
that leave me in respect of Cartel and any charges? I recall paying a modest fee at the outset to them
by way of a cheque, and was told 'no refund no further fee' but do you have any thoughts on that?
Regards
InterestOnly
Editorial Reply to InterestOnly:
The terms of service for Cartel Client review to deal with a claim for a mortgage seem to be at this link:
http://www.cartelclientreview.co.uk/remote/files/
cartel_client_review_terms_and_conditions.pdf
This suggests that the fee you paid was £495. Is this right? Also, according to
the Terms and Conditions, it seems that you are entitled to a refund within 30 days if your claim is unsuccessful.
If my understanding is correct, then you could try sending a Recorded Delivery letter
to the solicitors saying that since you have not heard from them for four months you assume that your
claim is unsuccessful and therefore you would like a full refund within 30 days, failing which you will
complain to the Law Society.
I am not sure what grounds you (or they) had for believing that you might be able to get
money back from your loan agreement. Certainly a lot of new companies have jumped on the bandwagon and
opened for business, asking customers to pay them a fee in advance, and a lot of them seem to have little
experience.
If you did still want to pursue the possibility of getting money back on your loan, it
is difficult to know which company to approach. However, I have found a couple which - by pure coincidence
- are local to me. The reason why I have chosen to give you the contact details of these companies is
because they are run by people with good experience and credentials - and people whose opinions are quoted
from time to time in the press (but then so is Carl Wright of Cartel!!). Obviously, you should satisfy
yourself that you are happy with these firm's credentials and the service they offer before you pay them.
The websites of the two firms are:
www.financialclaimsservice.co.uk
www.ultimatelawltd.com
Best wishes
Marian
Feedback 8th February 2010 from Eagle:
Hi,
I've been reading through your website with regard your review of Cartel Client Review and wanted
to send you my experiences.
I have been an agent for Cartel Client Review since August 2008 and still am registered with them.
I submitted 82 claims between August 2008 and June 2009 and have yet to have a single claim conclude.
Based on my own experience, there are many things that concern me with the way Cartel Client Review operate
- in no particular order:
- They have failed to make commission payments to agents twice in the last three months - November
& January.
- Their communication with clients once a claim is submitted is non-existent. emails and phone messages
do not get returned. Even emails sent with read receipts don't seem to be opened.
- Obtaining a refund for failed cases is a nightmare. I've had two such cases where it took between
four and six months to get a refund.
- In my view, the sales tactics which they encouraged at regional meetings were extremely dubious.
I can't prove this but we were repeatedly told that ALL credit cards taken out prior to April 2007 were
flawed and would have the balances written off, with the potential to have interest and charges refunded.
This has since been proven not to be the case.
- Carl Wright claimed at my induction meeting that the reason Egg had cancelled many thousands of
their clients' cards in 2008 was because of the claims Cartel was making against them. I have since been
advised that two pre 04/07 Egg card claims I've submitted are NOT flawed and the only possible outcome
is a refund of interest and charges.
- However, on the back of this claim re the dates and the blanket unenforceability, one of the sales
tactics encouraged was to submit claims for all a client's cards, then put them into a debt management
plan to reduce their outgoings while the claims were underway. As and when the claims succeeded, each
card would be withdrawn from the debt management plan. We were advised that a successful claim would also
result in the removal of any adverse information from a client's credit file.
(Editorial comment: This was subsequently held not to be the case - see above
re the case of Phillip McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc 6th October 2009 in which Mr Justice
Flaux concluded, in the words of Eversheds
Solicitors that:
" ... unenforceability does not mean that the rights of the parties under a credit agreement were
never acquired or are extinguished. Rights under an agreement continue but cannot be enforced." In
fact, I stated exactly the same thing in my review of another totally unconnected claims management company
called The Claims Warehouse in January 2009.
Because Mr. Justice Flaux also held that bringing legal proceeding is only a step taken with a view
to enforcement and not actually enforcement the lender can still use the following methods to try to collect
the debt from you even if it is an unenforceable debt:
•reporting or threatening to report information about the conduct of a credit agreement to a credit
reference agency
•passing on, or threatening to pass on, personal data in respect of a credit agreement
•demanding payment from a debtor
•issuing a default notice
•threatening legal action
•bringing legal proceedings.
In December 2009 another case (Emma Carey v HSBC Bank plc) claimed by Carl Wright of Cartel Client Review
to be "a major victory for consumers" which will "open the floodgates"
was viewed rather differently by Money Saving Expert in their article
headed "High Court 'closes debt write-off loophole'". and by the BBC in their article "Banks
win partial High Court victory on credit cards".
In the Carey case, Judge Waksman concluded that banks can still enforce debts even if the original agreement
has been lost or destroyed. He held that card companies need only provide a "reconstituted version
of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself"
provided that this is an "honest and accurate copy". The Carey judgement means that
there is now little hope for the many cases where credit card and loan customers have tried to avoid repaying
their debts simply on the basis that their lender cannot provide a valid copy of the actual original executed
agreement. Such cases will now succeed only if the lender is unable to provide an "honest and
accurate reconstituted copy". And even if the lender can't do that, they can still report you
to credit reference agencies, demand payment, issue a default notice etc.)
- I've also heard presenters at the regional meetings suggesting that agents encourage clients to
take out car finance as it would be written off
Most of my clients are either existing clients or friends/relatives, or clients of colleagues who
refer my other business. Sadly, I now feel that encouraging them to use Cartel Clent Review has damaged
my relationships with many of my clients and has certainly lost me one introducer.
I work alongside two master agents and am friends with three other normal agents, none of whom have experienced
a single concluded case other than for PPI.
I have heard of agents earning £6000 plus per month in commissions, but also expending that in admin
costs to deal with processing that volume of cases - obviously on the assumption of the 30% payouts which
initially we were told would be around 6-8 months after submission of a case.
On the basis of my own experience, basically my advice to anyone considering this company would be to
avoid. I am still registered with Cartel Client Review though so if you want to clarify anything or have
any other questions, feel free to contact me.
Kind regards
Eagle
Feedback 24th February 2010 from Harrison:
In my opinion, Cartel Client Review is an absolute disgrace in the way it advertises to claw in vulnerable
clients to pay inflated up front fees & then do very little to action any potential claims, leaving
people with high debt on their cards, with high interest payments each month & little chance of receiving
any refunds when customers complain about their so-called “SERVICE”.
I put in various claims at the end of Dec 2008 & paid £3,845.00 fees – for ex-mortgage,
credit card & ex-car finance claims.
I was told to go & spend money on the cards & use all the credit – as they will be
paid off ( luckily I put all the money in a savings account).
We had initial responses for 3 claims to say that there could be a potential claim – the last
correspondence being in May 2009 & nothing since.
I have tried to contact Cartel by phone – but with no success at all , just an answer phone,
with a message to say that they will call you back – NO SUCH LUCK.
I have also wrote to them to ask for a full refund & received a letter back to say basically
no.
I feel so foolish for being taken in by this “Great Deal” (very misleading selling tactics)
but then there are hundreds of clients in the same situation & no one in authority, such as the Ministry
of Justice, seems to give a monkeys about companies like Cartel putting hard-working people under severe
financial pressure.
In view of my own experience, I can only advise anyone not to use this company – as you may/could
end up in a lot more financial trouble & potentially suicidal.
Regards
Harrison
Feedback 24th February 2010 from Nobby:
I am a current customer of Cartel Client Review and I wish to corroborate some of the other comments on
this topic.
In November 2008 I paid for ten cases to be dealt with by Cartel Client Review at £495 each. I took
the advice of the rep and transferred money from what was termed a flexible loan account, which he said
would be paid off, to my bank account and wrote a cheque for the fees. I had submitted more than ten agreements
for underwriting however the ten put forward were more likely to be successful. I was informed the the
whole process will take from 9 months to a year to complete. I am currently at 16 months.
Since that date not one of the claims has been successful. Two are deemed as complete by Consumer Credit
Litigation Solicitors who have informed me that they cannot pursue the cases any further on the information
provided. Therefore I am entitled to a refund. This refund is not forthcoming to the point where I have
now complained to the Ministry of Justice.
Seven others are ongoing. One other is here on my desk as it has taken Cartel Client Review from Nov 2008
until now to establish that one of the agreements is in my wife's name. Something which I informed the
representative about in February 2009.
You receive no communication from Cartel Client Review whatsoever. If you call the helpdesk for updates
you are given a pre prepared statement stating they have had 'landmark cases recently'. You will get your
refund letter soon etc etc. The most concerning from my point of view is that Cartel Client Review have
resorted to claiming they cannot find the files for the refund cases.
The ' we cannot find the file' excuse has been well used by the credit companies to delay claims. Now
it appears to have been adopted by Cartel Client Review in order to delay the refund of fees.
The business model is flawed. It can only be sustainable if the Solicitors win a considerable amount of
cases. If they don't then most of the fees will have to be returned including the commission paid to the
reps which I understand to be £150. The reps incidentally are not likely to fight your cause because
they know they will have to refund commission money they have already spent.
So all in all this business is doomed to failure as legislation is tightened resulting in less and less
success for Cartel Client Review despite their proclamations. The fees money will disappear and I like
thousands of others will be left high and dry.
I seriously recommend that anyone who is thinking of embarking on this process to reconsider.
Regards,
Nobby
Feedback 2nd March 2010 from BeeJ:
After my business was unable to continue ( due to the lack of investment caused by the credit crunch)
I was left with a few financial problems. I mentioned my business nightmare to a neighbour (very nice,
solvent guy) and he told me about a very good friend of his getting some great results with the mistakes
these banks and C/C co's had made. I was introduced to said guy, got the pitch; i.e. 'clear it six - nine
months' , 'you can even put the arrangement fees on your creditcard',... 'and the best thing? If you're
unsuccessful, Cartel pay you your money back!' I made some checks on the company.No bad reports
- back then at least - a fairly large set-up who had defended itself on Watchdog. It all seemed credible.
N.B. Another main reason for eventually signing up was being told my claim was initially to be put
through Cartel admin to validate its chances of success and if you scored badly, you are rejected
there and then. In all, seven claims were under consideration. And within two weeks, four of the claims
were confirmed viable. So i enthusiastically signed up (even after receiving a sketchy reply to one of
my 'experienced businessman' questions'.)
Three months later - 'Administrative issues' resulted in me backing out of the last three
claims as nothing had been done. By then alarm bells were ringing...It was clear, that this company was
hoovering up as many people's deposits as possible without even having the admin structure to deal with
things adequately - and all while employing more commission salesmen!
Six months after signing up I'm not getting any tangible info on my claims progression. I start
making noises to my Cartel salesman.
Nine months later an outsourced firm of solicitors contact me to state they need certain
info on my claims to judge whether they are viable or not...er, didn't Cartel admin do this nine months
ago??!!
Suddenly you realise this operation has been using desperate, stupid, greedy or just lied to people (take
your pick) as cash cows. So without further ado, you WILL get a total communication run- around with up
to 5 people stalling/ fobbing you off (including their solicitors) and they will do this as LONG AS HUMANLY
POSSIBLE in an attempt to exhaust you! I estimate only 10% of people will get any money back at this stage
as they simply do not want to pay you back.
15 months later - I've just received £175 back (one of my claims) and that took three
months (almost on the nose) of rottweiler tenacity to get that back. We now know that courts have ruled
banks are no longer paying back on charges so the card companies won't be anytime soon. And that means
the arse has fallen out of Cartel's M.O.
So yes, it's ended up a sophisticated money-harvesting scheme and by the time I twigged I was already
in their clutches. I understand there will be varying levels of sympathy for many who went with this -
but remember, only 18 months the papers were full of reports of banks paying out for excessive charges
so you can see why this company was able to gain ground.
BeeJ
Editorial reply to BeeJ:
I'm very sorry to hear about your experiences with Cartel.
I'll print this with a few editorial amendments to the last para e.g. I have to remove the word "scam"
because I don't have any evidence that it was operated with the knowledge that most people would not get
their money back and/or most claims would fail. According to all his press statements, Carl Wright believes
(or, at least, believed) that the legal case was very strong.
It's a shame that my May 2008 review was only previously listed under its title on the Public Section
of the site, to indicate that it was available for purchase (price £3) on the Members Only section
of the site, and it was not published in full on the public section of the site until October 2009.
The May 2008 review rated Cartel Client Review very poorly at only one out of ten, and pointed out the
following concerns:
1. Carl Wright seemed to have deliberately avoided taking statutory responsibility for the company
since as soon as the company became active in late 2007 (it had been dormant for the previous ten years)
he resigned as director. In fact, he became a director again in June 2008, shortly after I sent him my
letter with questions about the company (which the company says they never received).
2. Two companies in Carl Wright's previous group of financial services companies (also called Cartel)
ended in compulsory liquidation.
3. The review makes the point that there is always a risk if you pay fees in advance. Even if you are
told that your fees are refunded, there is no complete guarantee of this unless the refunds are either
backed by insurance or the fees are kept in a separate client account so that the company cannot access
them for operating expenses etc.
4. There were concerns that the company might be operating an illegal recruitment scheme for its agents.
Although the legal position for the recruitment scheme for its Master Agents was subsequently regularised,
it appears that the contracts for the recruitment of its agents still don't comply. (See above.)
It's a fact of life that the only way that the Business Opportunity Watch site can meet the two requirements
of being a business (so it has to earn money somehow) and being unbiased (which means that there can't
be any advertising or any commission links) is to ask people to pay for the reviews.
Unfortunately, it's human nature that many people aren't willing to pay for advice, even for an investment
of a substantial sum. So, for example, the reason why so many people were caught out into paying tens
of thousands of pounds for agricultural land plots on which they hoped to gain planning permission is
because they weren't willing to pay a few hundred pounds to an independent surveyor to give them an unbiased
valuation.
Best wishes
Marian
_________________________________
Want to find out about some good home businesses and franchises and avoid the scams?
Members Only Area - Free Trial
