Question on data rights and loans

[Hiddentruth]

All lawyers out there, can you help?

Where a loan might be wanted to be taken out by one party for their divorce fees and that loan is going to be secured on jointly owned assets can you help explain with respect to the other joint owner or indeed owners of those assets, how their data gets handled in such a scenario?

Can you explain the rights of these other owners to be credit checked within any application, to comment, object or anything else. Or even to know about it?

Normally any loan has a cooling off period. How would that work too in respect of the non applicant but somebody who is affected by it?

It would be good to get some views on this. I know GDPR changes make us all more aware but we had DPA 1998 for a long time...what would be the situation with 1998 as opposed to the 2018 DPA do you think?

All comments would be welcomed...

On 17th Dec @MrsWobble3 wrote:

'You may well have had an extremely difficult divorce but I do think you are misguided to focus on the litigation loan. These are no different to any other type of loan except that the underwriting criteria are designed for people with little or no income but who will have assets once the divorce is finalised. I know you won't agree but the bank doesn't care about the results. Their return is purely based on the interest rate charged so who gets what is irrelevant to them.'

I wanted to draw attention to the terms and dynamics of these loans by asking how they operate in respect of overarching regulations..and data regs.

Anyone with first hand experience of recommending or operating them would be wise to read the appalling terms in them as they may well reconsider how conflicted they truly are and how at risk even their client is.

It is a shame this thread which may seem to have posed technical questions but which affects many people going through a divorce these days got off to a hostile start.

I think @Xenia is right because feelings certainly are running high when the objectives of the parties are so different. The lawyers don't really want an easy settlement..,that was misconception number one. It is not in their interest where a litigation loan readily provides access to the honeypot. The tragedy is that the cases where there are assets and a very bad split or abuse are wide open to exploitation because the parties need help to get a deal and that is where a professional should be honour bound by their code to do their job and not add fuel to the flames. It is not optional to make full disclosure...it is a requirement.

In my case there will be some casualties of the dishonesty. Each dishonest move was a choice. I know I was honest and have been financially abused by the professionals undertaking this process.

Yes I am angry and I am aware that questions are being avoided. It is not clever to rip off anyone going through divorce. It might pay your bills but what of the ethical code you signed up to? The ready contempt on here for Joe Public as seen by the first few answers to my post is a reflection of what has gone wrong with this sorry process.

Families are irrepairably damaged by this stuff. That is not good for society. These loans can ruin people. Read around Mumsnet and you will see that.

I don’t think there is any data protection issues here for reasons that have already been extensively explained. I think what is interesting is your focus on the crooked loan/lawyers, etc. but you don’t actually mention your ex overly negatively.

My thoughts are you are quite a controlling individual and are pretty enraged that your ex dared to finally stand up to you. Just a theory but you need therapy, not all this paranoia about loans.

There just isn't a cause of action under DPA 1998 or 2918 nor under GDPR.

You should go after your ex who gave the loan co your personal data.

You could ask the loan co to erase your personal data but be aware that they don't have to comply if they can show good reason for keeping your data (impossible to answer this part fully because of lack of details)

I would tell you more if you

A. Weren't so snoopy and rude
And
B. I had all the details.

Don't you understand - it's impossible to advise you because you haven't given all the relevant details that would be needed to answer the issues in any depth and detail.

2018. I can't time travel

And apologies I think I tagged the wrong person earlier.

I have not avoided questions.

I cannot answer in detail because I do not have enough information.

Do you understand the difference?

Hidden, that isn't actually true. Most good lawyers do want an early settlement. I have clients settle disputes once a week as quickly as possible. it just like your doctor - very few would deliberately mess up your knee when they operate because they want the chance to do more surgery on it later. It's like decent builders - they don't pretend your roof needs £10k of repairs when it doesn't. Most lawyers are not sitting there thinking how can we make this as expensive and high fee as possible and more than most decent plumbers don't make out your plumbing needs more work than it really does.

zsa, that is what most people would think. I know one person keen to sue everyone in sight and sued (as litigant in person and of course against my advice ) every board member of HMRC. It totally took over their life. i could have got very upset my hsuband got what felt like loads of our ,money - well over half, chooses not to see the children and never pays a penny but there's no point; just let it go and get on with life trying to look on the bright side. Past perceived or actual injustices can eat people up inside and that's very sad.

That doesn't mean however that if there are issues other than data protection and cooling off that need considering about litigaton loans that people cannot consider them but it would certainly be wrong to suggest all lawyers are awful. Most of just just plod on day after day mostly doing good, with clients who are delighted with our services.

This is utterly hopeless and disappointing. I do understand the difference @feelliketomhanks. However I gave plenty of detail and context unlike those who operate the harmful products.

I am engaging with people here who seem unable to have an intellectual debate without kicking off with actual personal abuse. I wonder why I have clung on by my fingernails to any respect for custodians of the law.

@zsazsajuju has repeatedly been offensive just now and on other posts and has assumed things and not read what was being discussed.

I have made my point. I have alerted you to potential and probable regulatory conflicts and invited debate. Quite how anyone on here can comment on an individual's mental health is quite beyond me. It is also very very wrong to do that and if you are a qualified professional then shame on you.

On to Christmas now as this is a waste of my time.

You didn't give enough detail.

In order to advise we would need to see all the documents relating to the loan and all the communications between the parties.

No one here is able to advise you for that reason.

You must ensure that in respect of any information you provide us with, which does not relate to you (for example, information about your representatives), you have obtained the necessary consent in order to disclose such information and provided the individual to whom the information relates with a copy of this notice (including any child/ren 13 years old or over)

I didn’t have a litigation loan and I’m not a lawyer - but I recall from reading these posts that @Hiddentruth went through emotional and financial abuse during her marriage.

If her proceedings were anything like mine then both sets of legals knew that the divorce proceedings were acrimonious!

If this is the case then her ex husbands lawyer would read the above statement and know that Hiddentruths consent to the completion of the litigation loan application form is required. TO get this consent Hiddentruth is going to become aware of the potential litigation loan and will refuse to “protect” the equity in the home- perfectly reasonable I would say - without this loan how does her x funds his legal fees - maybe he is unable to do so- his lawyer is suddenly a case down! - maybe x now becomes LIP but he will then be at a disadvantage to HIddentruth and no longer be able to use the system to continue the abuse - legals either do not see their guidance as abuse as it is acceptable practise or it is ignored/ encouraged maybe? - we all know the more conflict the more fees!

So in whose interest is this loan? And who benefits the most from not requesting consent from HIddentruth and what reason can there be for not getting it when the above statement is pefectly clear to me!

Proceedings in family law are required to be honest open and transparent - who’s responsibility is this?

I posted my previous post before i read the full thread and yet again I see the brush off from @Collaborate.

@Hiddentruth has asked you perfectly reasonable questions at 12.30 as a result of you showing your hand - up until now you have been pretty evasive with your information - but here’s a nance for you to actually give some guidance and help which you claim is the reason you come on here and it’s “can’t be bothered”

You know this is pretty abusive behaviour when you look at the threads as a whole - you say you are not going to help unless you are asked nicely - you get “asked nicely” but also an insight into what it feels like to be abused by a person you made vows to and then by a person of trust and how this fucks up your radar to tell whether someone is taking the piss or whether you are being overly sensitive.

You have had @HIddentruth justify herself to you and then you completely throw her off - is this just a game? An ego boost or what - because if you really wanted to help you would have just answered her questions! - but are they incriminating?

As for feellike - you don’t need more info you have it! It’s not about wanting info for free it’s about maybe getting help from people that have knowledge and are happy to share this knowledge - if your not and think it only comes at a price don’t bother coming on here

As I’ve said before @Hiddentruth has been to hell and back - she’s not
Deliberately rude but exasperated by a system that seems to revolve on its arse - as she says she’s not on here for an argument!

GIve her some goodwill - it’s CHristmas FFS! - you never know you may get some back in return!

@greenberet If you’ve actually read my posts you’ll see that I explained why OP’s spouse had lawful authority to disclose OP’s information to the lender.

I’m happy to help people who don’t behave like an offensive arse. That’s why I’m not helping as much as I can on this thread.

Zsazsa - true to form! I think you need to follow some of your own advic - you may not recognise your comments as abusive but passive aggressive behaviour is abusive and you are way below the belt!

@Hiddentruth - I hear you -

Answer the questions re your client!

No. And anyone else who wants to know can fuck right off as well.

These

how did the other party fare? Did they know about the loan? How was the loan revealed into court and to the other side? How did the Judge factor it in?

Was it secured on property as you have previously said these loans are not secured this way. Did that property have to be sold and who got to manage that process?

How was the equitable charge or equitable lien released? Was there a sale for value without notice or was any party left with a property in this deal which had been encumbered by the security taken on it and how have you ensured that is released for good?

Oh dear! I’m sorry I laughed when I read this

No. And anyone else who wants to know can fuck right off as well

Helpful? Defensive or offensive?

Sometimes you can give so much away when you think you are doing the complete opposite

At least your conscience has been pricked!

I looked up the meaning of your user name interestingly it says this

@Collaborate “cooperate traitorously with an enemy”

It appears to me questions have been asked and answered, but because the answers aren't the ones you want, you keep on, and on, and on . . .. I and the solicitors I know want the best outcome for their client under the circumstances. I worked as hard for a client paying £250 an hour, as I did for ones paying £60 an hour or less. You seem to be projecting the way you behave toward people onto professionals who actually just want to do as good a job as possible for their clients. But you don't actually seem to get it. That is very sad.

Ah, misleading interpretations now too. 'Collaborate' to work jointly on an activity or project.

Why on earth should collaborate, or anyone else for that matter, provide details of their client's business here? You are at liberty to provide your own details if you want advice and support-after all, that's what this forum is for- but you can't expect lawyers and solicitors to provide details of their clients except in the broadest terms!

Lol at me being abusive for suggesting you get therapy. Particularly given the diatribe both green beret and hidden truth have spewed out on this thread.

Why are you so focused on these litigation loans then if it’s not a need for control as I pointed out above? It has been explained to you many times that there are no data protection or professional misconduct issues. Why is it important to you that there is, such that you don’t want to listen?

I think it’s that you don’t like your ex standing up to you and, because you have don’t want to credit him with the strength, you want to blame
his lawyers and/or the litigation loan lenders.

Your ex is entitled to disagree with you on the divorce. It’s in his interests and the interests of the justice system generally that he is represented. Paying for his representation (whether by way of a litigation loan or otherwise) Will have an impact on the matrimonial assets and thus possibly your settlement but you can’t expect him not to disagree with you just because that’s what you want! He has a right to put his case forward properly and to spend HIS money (as well as yours) on representation.

I would genuinely look at a way of moving on rather than getting so fixated on litigation loans.

@xenia. Yes agree. It is sad when people get so fixated on some sort of perceived injustice. Even if it’s an actual injustice, when it’s over best to move on to the extent you can and focus on doing something constructive.

It would certainly have been annoyed me if my ex had been awarded more than half of the assets especially as I am the highest earner and do most of the childcare. But I didn’t marry him so was able to keep what I had earned.

@Jack65

We get it alright - why is it you - and I mean all of you - are prepared to answer some questions but not all - it’s not that we don’t like the answers - it’s that you haven’t answered the question that’s why we keep on and on and on.

Funny this because this is exactly how I came to be in the position of my solicitor terminating her waiver.

I asked for answers to questions that had been put to an expert - she gave me a summary of the answer - this didn’t answer my question - I asked for a copy of the experts answer - this still hadn’t answered my questions - I then asked for what my solicitor had asked - and found she had changed the wording of what I had asked her to ask which gave a slightly different meaning. When I asked her to reask using the wording i had specifically given her she tried to sayexpert wouldn’t answe and there would be more costs involved. When I pointed out that I had been asking her to ask this specific question for several weeks now and it was significant because it proved my x’s intentions right from the start - she refused and then said she could no longer work for me!

This appears to be exactly the situation going on here

ANd yes I saw the other meaning to collaborate.

I don’t deny that he gives some useful help - but when he himself has said that he could be more helpful but won’t because he finds some post offensive when he can be just as offensive - the this implies there is some other reason as to why he is choosing not to answer certain questions on here

@spanieleyes - I think you have missed the point - collaborate gave information willingly - but then refused mightily aggressively when asked to answer questions by the OP - that were pertinent to the whole point of this thread and her situation and would possibly confirm everything that she is saying but would also possibly put collaborate in the position of acknowledging that all lawyers are not as honest as has been stressed over and over again

Maybe the penny dropped but rather than admit this he told everyone to fuck off!

I don’t know about @Hiddentruth but these threads have actually reinforced to me everything I thought about to my legal represensation - excluding Xenia - who has tried to keep this thread “amicable” let’s say

THis is actually what is very sad -all anonymous - no financial incentive - no benefit other than just wanting to help - no repercussions as such and yet it still resorts to personal assumptions of the character of joe public when legal are being asked questions that they don’t like to answer and to trump this it then all gets turned round and everything is the fault of joe public and we get admonished probably because have half a brain!

Very very sad!

I have explained why it's impossible for me to answer the questions in detail and I'd expect that's the same for the solicitors on here.

Trying to do the moving on from this hopeless debate but it is proving hard...the hostility on here is astounding

@zsazsajuju

You say

Why are you so focused on these litigation loans then if it’s not a need for control as I pointed out above? It has been explained to you many times that there are no data protection or professional misconduct issues. Why is it important to you that there is, such that you don’t want to listen?

I think it’s that you don’t like your ex standing up to you and, because you have don’t want to credit him with the strength, you want to blame
his lawyers and/or the litigation loan lenders.

I say:

How can you say there are no offences here? Given that you do not have the full case facts? I can tell you now there are offences in abundance in my case. So much so the regulators are all listening to me with keen ears so I would take a rain check on sweeping statements.

Also I directed you on other posts to the November SRA news release on litigation Conduct and any lawhere on here should be studying that in detail before swearing and calling posters appalling names.

Thank you @greenberet for 'getting' this

Where do you think the money comes from for these loans? It can come from lending platforms with private investors matched to individual cases...nothing dodgy there!?

Also for anyone on here who thinks @Hiddentruth should just move on and get a life perhas they should reconsider when she is left without the property passed to her as per the court order and with possible hidden charges still secured against that one when nothing shows at the land registry but the evidence suggests all assets were charged. The loan terms mean the settlement property is not safe and so I asked lawyers on here who have operated these loans how they clear the title of any that have been retained but charged. Silence. .......

I am not convinced by any of the claims there are no data protection breaches because the loan should not be able to get off the ground without consent! So without it the loan company should not be able to process the application. So they are knowingly processing data without consent.

It is there in black and white as @greenberet says

If you are all sick of litigation loans please mark my words you will be a whole lot sicker of them in a year's time!

No win no fee is not allowed in family cases.

As for claims there are no offences..what happened to disclosure?