lbl and cancellation rights

[frustrated46]

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

[actionblusox]

hi frustrated

we know this outfit changes its tune and excuses to suit whatever it thinks fit.

but with yours and everyones help this company will eventually trip up and run out of excuses to try to justify conning people.

you are either one (agent) or the other (employee)

 

(1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer— (a)

conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

 

(b)

conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

 

©

conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or ©,

 

 

and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2) Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or © shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement— (a)

to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

 

(b)

to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

 

 

(4) For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

Action.

[IS IT ME?]

well what is it then?

Edited December 9, 2009 by IS IT ME?

[actionblusox]

so that would be called an employee then?

which is certainly unfair and where the Act is there to stop this, which is in other words a massive conflict of interest, where their sole aim is to get you to sign up at any cost, anywhere, (concealing APR,s) and not telling you the truth about what you sign away, cos they firstly want your car for cheap and then more money (shortfall from auction sale) along with defaults and letters and call charges. in a nutshell OFT!!

[sequenci]

Where was the agreement SIGNED?

[IS IT ME?]

some ones watching again

Edited December 8, 2009 by IS IT ME?

[actionblusox]

my first one was signed in a hotel reception area the other at cash generator. i recorded him because we met just off a motorway and he was always saying that the car would always be owned by me and would always be mine.

[frustrated46]

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.

[sequenci]

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.

 

I think it needs to be clear that if an agreement is concluded after face-to-face contact is cancellable where it was signed off the business premises.

 

If you signed on the premises it wouldn't be cancellable at all (s67 CCA 1974)

[frustrated46]

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

[sequenci]

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

 

That is an interesting point!

 

Let me see what I can dig up

[sequenci]

I just had a chat with one of the CCA gurus in my day job. He seems to think that the cash converters shop is likely to be regarded as 'premises' as far as s67 is concerned.

[IS IT ME?]

eh, I think your find they are ' just agents ' and not part of lbl.

Its like a lot of the people company's doing LBL work for them.

If you look at some of there accounts you will see why lol.

 

Its alldown to and the money of LBL.

[sequenci]

Well s67 is clear that people working on behalf as 'negotiators' would be treated in the same way. I'm just sure this argument will work.

[frustrated46]

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

[frustrated46]

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.

[sequenci]

NO, CASH CONVERTERS WAS NOT A NEGOTIATOR IN THE AGREEMENT[/font]

 

who offered you the loan?

[frustrated46]

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.

[frustrated46]

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.

[sequenci]

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.

 

Well this certainly does shed different light on things.

 

Interesting!

[dampriser]

Don't know if this helps, but LBL is advertised on the Cash Converters website Logbook Loans, unlock the money in your car and still drive it?

It certainly reads that Cash Converters are offering LBL as one of their services, and if you go in to one of their stores they will have LBL posters plastered everywhere, and staff wearing LBL teeshirts.

 

Sorry, just the found the agent locator tool on the LBL website which would indicate that Cash Converters are indeed agents of LBL.

http://www.logbookloans.co.uk/agent-locator/index.php

Edited July 16, 2009 by saintscouple

[frustrated46]

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

[frustrated46]

My reply above was to sequenci.

 

Saintcouple, I will look at that.

[sequenci]

My reply above was to sequenci.

 

Saintcouple, I will look at that.

 

It's an interesting argument and certainly open to interpretation.

 

We have some very good CCA gurus where I work so I'm going to see what they make of it.