NB, you need to go to court and get an exparte injunction. See thread on this. It's easy and you will get more time..

Is there anything I should know about Wismayers JC??

Actually, the OFT asked for a copy of their defence to my claim because they found it interesting that Lbl solicitors would make such a statement...

Wismayers, surrey.

He, the underwriter, was not an officer of the Company held by the OFT. They use a group of about 40 underwriters. The OFT currently have the defence from Lbl to my claim, in which they "DENY that any findings of unfairness have resulted or that the OFT is capable of making such findings".

First, one would have to define the person who signed it, I suppose. He called himself an "underwriter", but the company refers to him in their defence as an "employee". He was empowered to make contracts. So one could argue he was a party. Have you been able to access lexis? Frustrated

Hi Tomterm8, I can get lexis and westlaw but can't find anything recent.. What does your second para mean? Frustrated

Ok, don't want to be a COMPLETE bore, but case law says: following Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 516, it was held that attestation must be independent of the bill of sale. This follows Freshfield v. Reed in that the party to an instrument cannot “attest” it. This statutory requirement to attestation is differentiated from and does not have the same meaning as to "testify". The term “attest” manifestly implies that a witness shall be present, to testify that the party who is to execute the deed has done the act required by the power; the object of which was, that some person should verify that the deed was signed voluntarily. So an employee cannot "attest" a BoS, as they can witness, say, other contracts. If lbl are going to use an antiquated draconian instrument, they have to get it exactly right. The attestation is also a statutory requirement, so the courts can't overlook this.. I will have to add this back to my claim

I've had a look around at case law on this and, without some express statutory provision there is no general requirement for witnesses to be independent of the person to whose signature they are attesting. But in this case there is statutory provision..

They took my car, so I got an exparte injunction to stop them selling it. The claim is for the return of my car and costs.

However, I DID put this in my original claim: "The Bill of Sale is signed by the agent, Mr XXX, as a witness. I understand that under the Bills of Sale Act that the document should not be signed by a beneficiary of the document they attest to or its consequences. I therefore believe the Bill of Sale is unenforceable." In their first defence Lbl replied: "While attestation of the bill by a party is not permitted (by s10 of the said 1882 act) this requirement is not infringed in the event of attestation by an employee" So, what does this mean?? Frustrated

V Happy to be wrong, because the underwriter signed my bill of sale, ...so I guess I should add that to my claim. Frustrated

Just to add to this discussion, I am not sure the BoS is invalid if signed by the underwriter. The act says: s10 Attestation The execution of every bill of sale by the grantor shall be attested by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto . . . . . . F1 Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1898 (c. 22) So I think that bit was repealed and therefore the underwriter can sign... please tell me if you think I am wrong. Frustrated

My reply above was to sequenci. Saintcouple, I will look at that.

Exactly! I think the purpose of "incidently" using a Cash Converter with almost every customer is a tenuous attempt to use a "premises" as per s67 and thereby deny customers cancellation rights. Because, frankly, had I had cancellation rights I would have used them. As there would appear to be no purpose in using a CConverters premises, I am hoping that the court would see that this is an attempt by lbl to bypass giving consumers their statutory rights. And if the purpose of using CConverters is just that, them the court should conclude that is unfair and a manipulative use of s67 to the detriment of the customer. I hope. Frustrated

I will check with Companies House to see if there is a connection between the companies, but I did look before and there doesn't appear to be one.

log book loans, from the internet advertisement, to a phone call to them, I talked to an employee, who said another employee would call me, then the underwriter called and asked me to meet him in a car park to discuss how it worked. When I got to the car park, without prior warning, he said, let's talk down the road, and he produced documents in the Cash Converters. He said it was because he needed somewhere I could sign the documents, and it was convenient. As far as I was aware CConverters was incidental. No document contains CConverters name, and they literally had nothing to do with it.

In addition, I know that the courts would consider an agreement signed in a pub, for example, would have cancellation rights, because the pub is not part of the negotiations. Well no one at cash converters was part of the negotiations on my agreement. I mean, that is what I would argue. Frustrated.

Hi, I was working on the basis that under s67 the agreement is cancellable unless (b) the unexecuted agreement is signed by the debtor or hirer at premises at which any of the following is carrying on any business (whether on a permanent or temporary basis)— (i) the creditor or owner; NO NOT LBL'S PREMISES (ii) any party to a linked transaction (other than the debtor or hirer or a relative of his); THERE WAS NO LINKED TRANSACTION (iii) the negotiator in any antecedent negotiations. NO, CASH CONVERTERS WAS NOT A NEGOTIATOR IN THE AGREEMENT Therefore the agreement should be cancellable. Please let me know if I am wrong. Frustrated

Hi sequenci, I understand what you are saying. But I think the trade premises in question have to be that of the lender or the agent. Cash Converters is neither, but simply someone elses trade premises. Is this not correct? Frustrated

Hi, just an update. I have had two emails from the OFT, the first wanting a copy of the Bill of Sale I signed last year with the Unfair Terms still in it, and the second wanting a copy of the lbl defence to my court action. They would like to see this because I let them know that lbl seem to be saying to the court that the OFT had NO RIGHT to find their terms unfair... They say in the defence: 9. With respect to sub-paragraph 6(i) is admitted that the defendant has corresponded with the Office of Fair Trading ("the OFT") concerning the provisions of its bils of sale. It is denied that any findings of unfairness have resulted or that the OFT is capable of making such findings. 10. As to paragraph 6(ii) the defendant denies that any of the said terms has been found to be unfair whether under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations or otherwise and/or tht any of them is unfair. It is further denied that terms 7 and 8 of the bill of sale are unfair in light of the provisions of paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 of the said regulations. Isn't this, well, a lie?? Frustrated

Sequenci, to answer your question, at a Cash Converters. However, lbl have not used the "linked transaction", ie signing at a Cash Converters, as a defence to not puting cancellation rights in the agreement. As they have not used it in the defence, it cannot be used in court. The definition of a "linked transaction" is one that is part of the same deal. Their defence is only that no antecedent negotiations took place. My reading says that "The common feature of cases of this type is that the agreements are signed away from trade premises and, before signing it, the customer had face to face discussions with the lender (or his representative or agent) which included oral representations in relation to the agreement.

Hi, I've been looking into the loan agreement with log book loans and I think it is wrong that the agreement specifically says that the customer has no cancellation rights. In their defence lbl said that "The agreement is not cancellable because it was not preceded by antecedent negotiations including oral representations made when in the presence of the Claimant, as required by s.67 of the CCA 1974" This is quite relevant, because if customers DO have cancellation rights and these are not included in the agreement, the contract is unenforceable without a court order. My argument is that the agreement was preceded by antecedent negotiations because I met, face to face, lbl's underwriter, who they call in their defence "an employee". What does anyone else think? Frustrated

Tricky question, because only a judge can decide that. I would argue, however, that it does because the purpose of the unfair terms was to unfairly prejudice the rights of the consumer.

The trading standards officer at Wandsworth told me that if they lose their licence, the loans currently on the books would probably be transferred to a new company set up by lbl to facilitate the collection of monies, etc, until the loans are finished. They would simply not be allowed to create new loans. In order to invalidate existing loans, I guess one would have to convince a judge that the licence removal evidenced unfair practices (indeed, the OFT guidance makes clear that licence removal is about just that) "Where the OFT has evidence of any of the following acts by licensees they act to revoke a licence: (a) Committed offences involving fraud, or other dishonesty or violence (b) Failed to comply with the requirements of credit or other consumer legislation © Practised discrimination in connection with their business (d) Engaged in business practices appearing to the OFT to be deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (whether unlawful or not) If lbl lost their licence, the OFT report would evidence which of the above they consider lbl guilty of, and this could be used in court. Frustrated.