Conflict of interest

Confilc of Interest

Following on from inconvenient truths, where we saw Julian Siddle brag about how Legal Beagles was instrumental in Carl Wright’s demise, we have to wonder about the ability for two potentially conflicting businesses, to co-exist side by side. The Legal Beagles consumer forum is full of posts against claims management companies, while LB Compare encourages them to sign up and promote themselves on the site. If you are running a site to help people quit smoking, would you also run a tobacco brand comparison site linked to it?

CMCs on Legal Beagles

It’s hard to see how the same people and company can run both a forum where people routinely ask for help against certain types of companies and a comparison site featuring the same types of companies. It’s plain for all to see that Legal Beagles have, over the years, dedicated a lot of time, effort and forum space, to fighting claims management companies: Claims Management Companies.

Which side are they on?

Even after the launch of LB Compare, the owners of Legal Beagles (and also of LB Compare), have posted up a thread about complaining about CMCs, to the Legal Ombudsman. The thread was updated by one of the owners just over an hour ago: CMC Complaints to the Legal Ombudsman.

 CMC Complaints to the Legal Ombudsman

National Conmen AssociationIt’s really good to see them provide that information to the public, but where does that leave the CMCs featured on LB Compare? It’s fair enough to say that LB Compare will only deal with reputable companies, etc. but you just never know, do you? After all, most conmen don’t have horns and tails, nor do they have this endorsement on their websites. What happens when someone starts posting on the Legal Beagles consumer forum, about an issue with one of the claims management companies featured on LB Compare?

  • Will the site owners help this poster fight them as they’ve done in the past? If they do, where does that leave the company as a participant in LB Compare?

  • Will they ignore the question and leave it unanswered or tell the poster to suck it? If they do, where does that leave Legal Beagles as a consumer forum?

Comparisons to be made

It would be interesting to see if any of the participant companies featured on LB Compare have also been mentioned on the Legal Beagles consumer forum as a result of posters having issues with them. That will be another day, another post.

If I was running a CMC, I’d be a bit weary of appearing on a comparison site run alongside a consumer forum which has done so much to discourage the use of such companies, and where any day, a poster can pop up, express their disappointment with my company on the forum, and potentially be guided against my company, by the same people who invited me to participate in their comparison site venture.

Side-by-side comparison

On the left hand side, we have all the Legal Beagles forum threads about CMCs, on the right hand side of the same page, we have the advert promoting LB Compare, where it clearly says you’ll find a CMC to help you with your PPI.

CMCs LB Compare side by side

18 Comments

  1. revenge says:

    Just amazing just how many views on those sticky posts have had and how they are now in a complete conflict of interest. No morals I would say greed over helping people on LB so they can make some cash on the back of it. UNBELIVEABLE

    • Legaleaglet says:

      Yes, and the stickies that were not posted by the owners themselves were posted by someone who was also pushed aside, no doubt because they would be questioning their decision to feature such companies on LB Compare. :(

  2. BillK says:

    Sadly, I now find it quite believable after the way that they have behaved toward us and others over the past couple of years, revenge. Like so many, I was gullible and I was conned into helping them – but their feigned concern over the many poor people needing help from US was jettisoned when we suddenly got banned by ‘PC Savage’ for no reason, leaving all those many poor people at the mercy of Enaid, Nem & Kati. Such was their altruism.

    I think the fact is that LB and LBCompare just CANNOT co-exist. Obviously, they will ‘caringly’ let LB slowly die on the vine while trying to build LBCompare up alongside it – because they will need it for this. But all the time that LB exists – even when PC Savage ‘caringly’ bans any member who dares start a thread about any of the LBC listed firms – it will present an existent and active conflict, and thus a deterrent to any firm (“reputable” by LB’s questionable standards, or otherwise) to sign up to LBC. Their dilemma is probably that they cannot simply ‘pull the plug’ on LB either – because that in itself would demonstrate just how uncaring and unprincipled they actually are, and jeopardise the building of LBC even more than their incumbent ‘communications expert’ and active liability PC Savage has managed to do so far.

    They are stuck with this albatross that they dare not kill, but which will not leave them – and all they can do is let it die slowly at the hands of Enaid & co. – eventually leaving them to take the blame very publicly, of course. Like us – they will not see it coming until it hits them. PC Savage will continue to stifle any cries or squawks as the creature dies. Until LB dies its slow death, LBC will be like yet another ancient mariner Xaphod Beeblebrox, lurching around with an unwanted extra head that they cannot hide. And when it does die, the albatross will still be there around the necks of LBC’s twin heads with the stench of it keeping everyone away. LB’s past will always be a part of LBC’s past, and will continue to haunt their present – no matter how hard their ‘Ministry of truth’ tries to delete it.

    LB was once the shining gem in the world of self-help forums, but like the Star of India it was stolen by a gang of inept and unprincipled criminals because its monetary value was considered to be worth the crime. To Celestine and the gang – “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” [George Santayana]

    Sic semper tyrannis.

  3. Legaleaglet says:

    Sadly, I now find it quite believable after the way that they have behaved toward us and others over the past couple of years, revenge. Like so many, I was gullible and I was conned into helping them – but their feigned concern over the many poor people needing help from US was jettisoned when we suddenly got banned by ‘PC Savage’ for no reason, leaving all those many poor people at the mercy of Enaid, Nem & Kati. Such was their altruism.

    Nem and Kati were not around at the time of the Mass Cull. They are being used just like the rest of us, and, like the rest of us, they will eventually be discarded when they are no longer useful. It’s clear that Nem has a big ego and hasn’t got a life, so he’s found his perfect little niche on LB where he can be “somebody”.

    Their dilemma is probably that they cannot simply ‘pull the plug’ on LB either – because that in itself would demonstrate just how uncaring and unprincipled they actually are, and jeopardise the building of LBC even more than their incumbent ‘communications expert’ and active liability PC Savage has managed to do so far.

    They can’t pull the plug on LB because it feeds LB Compare, which is a fledgling site no-one’s heard of, meant to feed off Legal Beagles. Without LB, who will use the services of LB Compare?

    Indeed LB was *THE* UK consumer forum, it could have been the best but its owners obviously had their own agenda and we were all pawns.

  4. John says:

    I really would not worry; Legal Beagles has been dead in the water for years since those idiots have not got a clue want they are doing. LBCompare will follow swiftly before anyone has ever heard of it.

    • Fair Play says:

      It could have been the UK’s top consumer resource if they didn’t let personalities and personal issues get in the way. Banning people just because they don’t like the company they keep, or because the bullies they choose to protect don’t like them being around, is hardly the way to build up a forum. The whole operation is very childish, based mostly on the feelings and personal preferences of those who run it, who encourage those people they like at the time to stay on and post, and ban those who fall out of favour for their own reasons. What’s best for the posters or the consumer in general doesn’t even enter into it.

  5. revenge says:

    There was a time when the CMC threads was the number one of the ten top views over the whole forum. You can see that by the amount of views those thread stickies show.

    Maybe that is why they chose to go the compare route on CMC’s as it would gain a lot of clicks and what do clicks make £££££££££££££ssss.

    It will probably come back to bite them on the bum when it goes wrong I just hope they have taken out a good insurance policy to cover for negligence,

    • Legaleaglet says:

      It would be the individual companies who would need PI to cover themselves rather than LB Compare. The problem would be if someone went and posted that they used the services of one of the companies featured on LB Compare and had problems with them. Even worse if they had decided to use their services after seeing them featured on there. Even if Legal Beagles don’t endorse them as such and keep both sides separate, it could still be seen as an endorsement if you see them mentioned on a site run by a consumer forum. It’s a bit like going into a “health food” shop, you’d assume everything in there must be organic, healthy, good for you, etc. even when products are made by manufacturers who are totally independent from the shop, you’d expect the shop to stock only wholesome products. You’d also expect LB Compare to feature only “wholesome” companies.

    • BillK says:

      Hear, hear to Fair Play.

  6. BillK says:

    Sssssh Pike – don’t tell them !!!

    You’ve probably just given them an idea for their next scam after LBC sinks.

  7. Jon says:

    This is probably the wrong place to post this but who cares, it can be moved.
    The more i get to know about these characters the less I trust them . It appears that EXC thinks he is something special and above the law , this is probably because he has money. As for the LB compare, well it really is a crock of sh**e . I did a few searches on it, it was finding firms in Manchester and Nottingham I think, not one near me. I did another search and it came up with 4 results when I know for a fact there are many more solicitors that cover divorce as well as wills and probate in the area I was looking in.

    many of the threads now seem to be about employment law and i am afraid I can not trust either openlaw or teaboy who frequently get it wrong or attack it from a theoretical perspective, it is one thing to know the theory it is another to put it into practice .
    Rant for this evening over.
    isn’t it sad that i have started to look at the site again, well it keeps my blood pressure up if nothing else

    I thank you all

    • Legaleaglet says:

      The more i get to know about these characters the less I trust them . It appears that EXC thinks he is something special and above the law , this is probably because he has money. As for the LB compare, well it really is a crock of sh**e . I did a few searches on it, it was finding firms in Manchester and Nottingham I think, not one near me. I did another search and it came up with 4 results when I know for a fact there are many more solicitors that cover divorce as well as wills and probate in the area I was looking in.

      They need to get participants interested to run a decent comparison site. I could have a law firm database right here, categorised by practice area and location, but it would be unilateral. If you found a firm and used their services, I wouldn’t get a penny from the firm because they’d never entered into an agreement with me. LB Compare needs firms willing to enter into an agreement with them, and I guess it can be tricky when you have a forum attached to the site because people go to forums expecting free help. Furthermore, there is always the possibility that they may post something against one of the participant firms if they’re not happy. That would probably put me off if I was running my own practice.

      Many of the threads now seem to be about employment law and i am afraid I can not trust either openlaw or teaboy who frequently get it wrong or attack it from a theoretical perspective, it is one thing to know the theory it is another to put it into practice.

      Employment can be very tricky, especially when you are dealing with Tribunal claims. I recall Teaboy telling someone who had admitted to stealing from their employer, that they would still have a case on procedural grounds. I’ve not seen him mention the Polkey deduction, which means even if the Tribunal found the dismissal unfair on procedural grounds, it could deduct up to 100% of the award on the basis that the employee would have been dismissed anyway if their employer had followed proper procedure. I should think people should be entitled to know his before forking out £1,200 to issue a claim! They should also be aware of the potential for costs awarded against them, which, although unusual, does happen if their claims are regarded as having no merit.

      Not mentioning the Polkey deduction and potential costs in ET cases is almost as bad as Nemesis not mentioning the potential for costs against you should you lose in the fast track. It’s all well and good to play armchair lawyer, however, with amateurs in charge, vital information often gets missed out.

  8. revenge says:

    Consumers can just use the internet to find what they want, they can do their own searches and look at reviews why would the compare site give them anything else. I just do not get it really what is in it for the consumer?

    • Legaleaglet says:

      This post: Online reviews, who is telling the truth, does show the pitfalls of online reviews. Just WHO can you believe? One review was made by an insider rather than a user, hardly a legit review. We don’t know who the author of the other one is or in what capacity Rachel had dealings with Legal Beagles. The accusations are very serious and if someone came here to post something like that, I’d like to know a bit of background, however, a basic five star review wouldn’t be queried by most.

      I guess some people may think that, being officially associated with a consumer forum, LB Compare will put the consumer first and only allow reputable companies and firms to appear on there. Whether that’s the case or not remains to be seen, it’s not always easy to sort out the wheat from the chaff. There’s always the danger that people may see being featured on LB Compare as an endorsement by Legal Beagles.

  9. Interested Party says:

    I guess some people may think that, being officially associated with a consumer forum, LB Compare will put the consumer first and only allow reputable companies and firms to appear on there.

    No…. they would like everyone to believe that they are putting the consumer first, but sadly this latest venture has and is now proving that the owners/management are totally and utterly bereft of any morals at all when it comes to helping others.

  10. Agent 99 says:

    Looks like LB Compare no longer feature CMCs or fee charging DMCs, just legal services. They finally saw the light about including such outfits on their comparison site, maybe after reading what has been posted on here.

  11. revenge says:

    That is fantastic news Agent 99. At least they are not throwing the peeps into the minefield of the unscrupulous CMC’s.

  12. BillK says:

    It is good that they appear to have finally realised that they were ‘guilty by association’ with the very industry that they so loudly and proudly claimed to be instrumental in cleaning up. Let’s hope that further snippets of what passes for ‘intelligence’ appear courtesy of Agent99 ! I guess that all they now have to do is convince the legal services industry that they have thought this thing through, and that LBcompare is more than just a scam for some legal wannabees hiding behind the Devil’s Dyke.

    I’m regrettably reduced again to Ash – as quoth from ‘Alien’ – “I can’t lie to you about your chances, but… you have my sympathies.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *