Unfortunately, I also let myself be influenced by the advertising of the law firm Gansel for the revocation of car financing by the so-called revocation joker and contacted this law firm. According to the initial assessment of June 2021, a "successful revocation in my case was promising". I then provided the law firm with all the requested documents. In August 2021, after a "thorough review" of the documents, I was sent a mandate agreement, which was essentially aimed at agreeing a settlement with the lender in which he would make a payment and take back the financed vehicle. The costs for the first step of enforcing the claims etc. were to be borne by a legal cost financer in return for a contingency fee of 35% of the amount recovered. Furthermore, the mandate agreement states: "Should no agreement be reached with your bank, the legal cost financer will prepare an individual legal cost financing offer for the claim after a renewed examination and existing chances of success". I accepted this offer of mandate, which seemed very fair to me, and concluded the mandate agreement.
I was then informed by the law firm about the "client cockpit", in which one is to be informed at any time about the state of affairs and can view all documents. In October 2021, I then viewed the client cockpit and discovered that the documents I had sent were only very incomplete and that nothing had been done by the law firm even about 10 weeks after the conclusion of the mandate agreement. I then sent all the documents again, complained about the inactivity of the law firm and set a deadline of 01.11.21 to send a claim letter to the bank. This was then also done exactly on 01.11.21 and answered with the same date rejecting from the bank. Thereupon, another claim letter was sent to the bank on 11/16/21. The last sentence of this letter states: "Before we take legal action, we request feedback within 14 days of receipt of this letter, i.e. by 30 November 21, as to whether a settlement agreement is possible. It should also be noted that I have repeatedly pointed out to the law firm, both verbally and in writing, that the bank had violated the statutory creditworthiness check. These references were not addressed in any way, nor were they mentioned in the claim letters to the bank.
When then also after 30 November 21 nothing more happened, I have inquired in January 22 after the state of affairs and received on it only general and putting off answers from the Kanzlei. Thereupon my collar burst and I complained to Dr. Timo Gansel personally. Of course, this also remained without response. In March 22, I then received the following message from the "expert team" of this law firm:
"We have tried to reach an out-of-court settlement with the other side. This was not successful. The only way to enforce your claims with the arguments you have presented would be to take legal action. However, taking legal action without legal protection involves a considerable cost risk, so we cannot recommend it. Since we proceeded out of court with a financier of legal costs, you will not incur any costs for our action. Unfortunately, we do not have a financier for legal proceedings". These are my rough experiences with the working methods of the Gansel law firm. Documents are filed incompletely, client notices are ignored, and work is only done when client complaints are received. The firm's promotional videos promise a lot, but hardly any promises are kept. I can't help feeling that client acquisition is the highest priority for this firm, as evidenced by the extensive advertising activities. However, I wonder how this law firm earns its money? I did not pay anything for their activities, but I wonder why I was offered legal representation in the first place after preliminary examination and thorough review of the documents submitted? I assumed that such successful and experienced lawyers only accept mandates that they are convinced will be successful. Why would such a supposedly successful law firm accept mandates whose outcome is highly uncertain from the outset after reviewing the documents? Why would the legal cost funder agree to fund such uncertain mandates? Did the employees of the law firm fail in the preliminary examination of my case because they completely misjudged the legal situation? To answer these questions, only one explanation seems logical to me, which of course I cannot prove: I do not think it is impossible that law firms, legal cost financiers and banks are working together in some way here. As I said, this is not an assertion on my part, but merely a suspicion that I cannot prove. For the reasons outlined above, I can only strongly advise against being represented by this law firm. If you take a closer look at the evaluations on the Internet, you will see that I am by far not the only client who is absolutely not in agreement with the "services" of this law firm. Have decisive mistakes also been made in these cases during the preliminary examination and/or has the "expert team" failed?
In any case, I am completely satisfied and hope very much that this law firm will be prevented as soon as possible from doing its (legal) mischief with people seeking help.
Show original
Translation
thank you very much for sharing your experience with our law firm! We are pleased that you are very satisfied with our service and advice. Close cooperation with our clients is very important to us, and we are happy to pass on your praise to our colleagues.
With kind regards
Your law firm Gansel Rechtsanwälte