illegal repossesion by logbook laons and anglia

[trooper68]

its hard to keep a clear head when you are dealing with this kind of company, i have contacted the courts today and again tried the insurance company, they ins company clearly stated that the onus is on lbl to pay for the new keys to be activated, as it is thier fault they dont work anymore, so i have now been without my car for 2 months.

 

 

Of course buddy, you been through the wringer, the court may be your path for this, the insurance will not really do anything. The thing you could do is make a statement to the court on these issues, explaining that they have acted on the injunction (even if it states that cannot continue with the sale of the car) they have changed the locks-regardless of before or after the injunction, they had every intention of carrying out the sale.

 

That act alone is "pre-emptive" in the Judges eyes, they should have put it right before they returned the car. Full stop. The damage to the car should be put right, again, get quotes for the repair and submit at least three to the court, submit them. With the fact that you found out that the Data Mark has not been removed, push for that aswell.

 

It sounds a lot and it is just to get your car back to the same condition you had it, but you have not done anything wrong...

 

With the costs, unable to use the car for two months, the locks and the HPI marker is a pain, don't forget you cannot sell the car with the marker until its removed...

 

trooper68

[ims]

hi, phoned LBL today and explained, they have agreed to send me their key to my car, at least i can take it the garage then and start getting the quotes to fix.

 

oh well no one ever said this was going be a sprint race, but it is going to have hurdles in it lol

[ims]

ok car been looked over by dealer they rekon: alloy is 225 plus vat exhaust is 64.99 plus vat handbrake cable is 16.49 plus vat they recomend full offside to be painted, but just to do door and quarter is 485 plus vat key recode is 65.00 and for the code its 25 plus vat plus labour .nice

Edited July 25, 2010 by ims

[ims]

Just a quick question guys, whith my statement of account, do i just add 8% interest to the total, or can i add thier contractual rate of interest of 437.5%????

[trooper68]

Hi IMS

 

It would be cool to add the 2500%, i would go with the current rate. But add everything including the total hours you have worked on it, at £9 an hour, ( a percentage of the sol, hourly rate), add your postage and go for Damages...that would be down to the Judge, make sure he knows how much you rely on the car...

 

trooper68

[ims]

oh dont worry trooper i will, its nice to know up to now i have been having to pay £15 a day for alternative vehicle, and i still cant use my car due to the damage, what course of action should i take in regard to having the car fixed before the next hearing?

[cctv engineer]

oh dont worry trooper i will, its nice to know up to now i have been having to pay £15 a day for alternative vehicle, and i still cant use my car due to the damage, what course of action should i take in regard to having the car fixed before the next hearing?

 

 

Hi. ims. remember you have to go after the repo company for the damage to your car.

your insurance company can sort that out. send your quote to your insurance with the company name and reg no of the repo company.

 

also you need to now get a incident number from the police. remember they are now a witness to the removal of your car. also they need to give you the police log of the day they came to your house,

 

if you try to claim from lb they will just say we use contractors.

[ims]

cctv can you call me, i have pm you my number.

 

i have now submitted my defence to counter claim, however some very interesting new evidence has come up, which i need help on please pm for more info thanks guys and gals

[ims]

http://www.probonogroup.org.uk/lawworks/docs/training/spring08/Bills%20of%20Sale%20aide%20memoir%2016.04.08.pdf

 

take a look for help on bil of sales

[ims]

Hi guys sorry i havent been around for ages, but here is a little update, at our last court date nine regions requested a 30 day stay in order to try settle out of court, that is nearly run out now and all i recived from them is a final account statement??!! mmmm. Any how had to fix the car, still looks crappy but atleast its safe to drive, i heard on the grapevine that lbl and nine regions are in court on the 6th november for thier appeal, now my case wont hit court agian by then, so does this mean that if they fall fail to the appeal anf loose thier licence, do i win by default??

any help would be appreciated guys

[Hip_Hop]

Hi IMS,

 

Hope you are well?

 

If LBL/Nine Regions lose their Consumer Credit Licence on appeal. I believe it only affects agreements going forward. I don't believe it has an affect of making pre-existing agreements void, unfortunately.

 

If anyone knows differently, I would be happy to hear differently. But I think I am right, which is why they have been allowed to trade whilst under appeal. It doesn't seem fair, I know, but that's the law for you.

 

Hi guys sorry i havent been around for ages, but here is a little update, at our last court date nine regions requested a 30 day stay in order to try settle out of court, that is nearly run out now and all i recived from them is a final account statement??!! mmmm. Any how had to fix the car, still looks crappy but atleast its safe to drive, i heard on the grapevine that lbl and nine regions are in court on the 6th november for thier appeal, now my case wont hit court agian by then, so does this mean that if they fall fail to the appeal anf loose thier licence, do i win by default??

any help would be appreciated guys

[ST220]

Hi IMS,

 

Hope you are well?

 

If LBL/Nine Regions lose their Consumer Credit Licence on appeal. I believe it only affects agreements going forward. I don't believe it has an affect of making pre-existing agreements void, unfortunately.

 

If anyone knows differently, I would be happy to hear differently. But I think I am right, which is why they have been allowed to trade whilst under appeal. It doesn't seem fair, I know, but that's the law for you.

 

Does that mean they would still be able to seize cars for default (The bills of sale would still stand) or that just the CCA's would be actioned upon?

[Hip_Hop]

Does that mean they would still be able to seize cars for default (The bills of sale would still stand) or that just the CCA's would be actioned upon?

 

My understanding ST220 is that all pre-existing Consumer Credit Agreements would stand irrespective of the potential loss on appeal for them to hold on to their licence. All Bill of Sales would similarly stand subject to the Bills fulfilling the usual format requirements etc. Nothing changes to the best of my knowledge, the legal relationship pre-existing between the Lender and Borrower as a consequence of any ruling on this matter. I wish it did, as that would make mine and many others deliriously happy. The thought that LBL/Nine Regions could lose their livlihoods, oh what joy!

Edited October 27, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[ims]

Hi guys just to update.

 

Folowing a reciept today of a letter by nine regions solicitors (please bear in mind that in court they represented themselves as did i) Im a little dumbfounded by thier response.

 

My case is i can prove

1) Nine regions have unlawfully repo and damaged my car in the process as the bill of sale was VOID,

2) As the bill of sale embodies the consumer credit agreement therfore this is VOID also as it makes reference to the Bill of sale

3) As well as the above they did not comply with the consumer credit act 1974 nor did they comply with the bill of sale act 1882

4) with the above has given rise to me having relief under sections 90 and 92 of the consumer credit act 1974.

 

AS I BELIEVE

 

Now with this in mind after our little visit to the judges chambers, nine regions defence was the bill of sale and credit agreement are all cool, and that as it was not a hire purchase or conditional sale i was not entitle to the above relief, judge awarded my car and requested to return with monitary values at a later date, both parties agreed a months stay in order to try settle out of court.

 

Nine regions then went to a solicitor who subsequently replied to me with:

 

in short, we are the solicitors you now talk to and after talking with the client we will except £1200 and we will remove all interest blah blah blah.

if not we will continue counterclaim and you will owe blah blah blah.

 

Included was my service copy of thier ammended defence and counter claim

 

in this they had removed any defence to the bill of sale and credit agreement being void, and now rely on a statement i made to the judge as thier primary defence (which was later explained in full so would not be a defence) they have also in thier defence admitted that thier actions in repossessing my car was UNLAWFUL and therefore in thier kindness refunded to my account all associated costs connected to the repo, I.e the recovery etc.

 

Please correct me if im wrong but in that statement did they not just admit my entire case!!!!

[Hip_Hop]

 

 

in short, we are the solicitors you now talk to and after talking with the client we will except £1200 and we will remove all interest blah blah blah.

if not we will continue counterclaim and you will owe blah blah blah.

 

Included was my service copy of thier ammended defence and counter claim

 

in this they had removed any defence to the bill of sale and credit agreement being void, and now rely on a statement i made to the judge as thier primary defence (which was later explained in full so would not be a defence) they have also in thier defence admitted that thier actions in repossessing my car was UNLAWFUL and therefore in thier kindness refunded to my account all associated costs connected to the repo, I.e the recovery etc.

 

Please correct me if im wrong but in that statement did they not just admit my entire case!!!!

 

 

Hi IMS,

 

Hope you are well?

 

Can I make some clarifying points below as I so want to focus on what I believe is the true strategic way that Nine regions and Log Book Loans Ltd operate, that make your case a fairly standard one in the way that they are operating their legal strategy.

 

Read the whole post and let me have your opinions.

 

I am posing it this way as I believe that we are all being subjected to the same process, no matter what the underlying reasons given for our cars originally being seized unlawfully.

 

By way of background in the case. My general loose recollection are, that IMS was awarded the return of his vehicle under order of the judge from LBL/NR. The vehicle was damaged as a consequence of it being seized (unlawfully as was the contention and is the same for all of us who dispute the seizure of our cars).

 

He had previously had arrangements made for credit to be made to bring the account up to date.

 

The outstanding amount that was paid, was unknowingly credited to Log Book Loans limited instead of Nine Regions Ltd, the limited company in whose name the BOS and CCA is party to.

 

Nine Regions Ltd subsequently claim that they have never received payment, aren't Log Book Loans Ltd, and no credit to the loan account are noted, irrespective of the credits being accepted by Log Book Loans Ltd. Irrespective that they were made in good faith for the account in IMS's name?

 

This triggered car being seized and subsequently the order made to return car after 2nd hearing.

 

Nine Regions Ltd subsequently repay repossesssion agent fees back. Effectively returns the status quo to where the case was before, in that the claim that Log Book Loans Ltd had accepted the outstanding loan amount and their assertion that Nine Regions Ltd is a separate legal entity and was still owed the outstanding balance.

 

The only anomoly that I see that was still in dispute was, who pays for the damage that happened as a consequence of the seizure by LBL and what, if any compensation and additional losses as a consequence of the actions taken, have on any total compensation package if any at all is due?

 

The reason why I say if compensation if any at all is due is because , I wonder if they are relying on IMS to prove that He was the possessor of the car under an executed Bill of Sale, when the damage occured?

 

If it is their contention that it is up to IMS to prove that Nine Regions Ltd were not the posessorbecause if they are, as is their claim?, then can they be found liable to compensate for damage to their own property? If that is the state of legal play, where does that then leave the claim?

 

And before anyone accuses me of challenging IMS's claim being valid or not, or any other Cagger in a similar position, I am not. Iam simply strategising so that others who are in a similar situation, can focus their attentions on what I believe is an all too familiar situation. i.e they (Nine regions) are doing this on a regular basis.

 

I believe their strategy is:-

 

They chance their arm and unlawfully seize vehicle, sell it before the unwitting borrower has time to cough let alone get an injunction lodged in court. If the borrower is able to collect their thoughts quickly enough & get an order for the car, it is returned.

If Nine Regions Ltd are found to be the subject of a claim for damages, they quickly repay repossession costs, thereby resetting part of the claim back to its original state.

 

The BOS and CCA remain intact as neither one of them or both, is ever made void in these circumstances, or if either is, no one can find a legal precedent, because Nine Regions Ltd would always settle before any judgment is made that would open the floodgates for others to travel through.

 

For the rest of us, legal costs start to mount for the claimant as fight to get compensation for damages and losses has to be fought on getting judgment on BOS being made void......Which, as I have asserted, I have yet to see a judgment being granted on previously.

 

So the whole saga becomes a vicious circle with Nine Regions tying up the unsuspecting borrower with a smoke & mirrors/spot the lady trick. Or as I call it the Nine Regions illusion.

 

Whilst IMS and others are desperately looking to stop their cars being auctioned, getting the BOS and CCA individually made void is left in abeyance. If the car isn't auctioned and the proceeds pocketed by Nine Region, they simply reimburse the repo fees and come after you for the outstanding loan, even though borrowers like IMS had settled it indirectly as it happens.

 

Like all magic tricks this only works if you are being distracted enough to focus on another thing while you are being duped. And having your car potentially auctioned is normally a large enough distraction.

 

It is my humble opinion IMS that unless you can make the case, as a valid credible victim of fraud, that Nine Regions Ltd knowingly, allowed Log Book Loans Ltd to accept the outstanding loan amounts due on your Nine Regions Ltd account, you are still potentially legally liable for that debt unless your claim is stronger. However unfair that may sound and I wish that wasn't the case.

 

Alternatively, you could try and get a judgment that the BOS is void on the basis of what you have already stated as fact in your previous post.

 

I understand but don't know how valid the claim is, that CCTV Engineer states he has a judgment from Jeff the solicitor, of 27 years Bills of Sales experience fame, that enables BOS's to be made void. And that he is an expert witness with Juliet of the OFT case, which I still don't understand what that really means but I will allow CCTV or Jeff the Bill of Sale expert Solicitor to explain it directly to you, if that is indeed the route you are looking to go down.

 

PLEASE NOTE:-

 

The above comment is now made with the following caveat of the following cautionary comment from Nicky Bodmin previously posted. I can not substantiate it but post it for reference puposes only. Obviously Caggers need to make their own assessment of which claims of knowledge and information from other caggers are bonafide or not.

 

 

CCTV seems to be all talk on this subject but when it comes down to showing what he has got then where is he.

 

I have spoken to Julietta about his so called case and she is as blind to his case as we are. Who US he has anyone been given supported evidence of what he has said.

 

 

 

You couldn't make this **** up.

 

I hope Caggers will read that it is solely my intention in this post, to open up for discussion the strategies that I believe is a common theme for most Caggers, who are faced with the return or not of their vehicles, and how the play may unfold.

 

These are purely my personal thoughts and come with the normal disclaimers etc. Just my penny's worth as the saying goes

 

 

 

Hip_Hop

Edited October 30, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[cctv engineer]

Hi IMS,

 

Hope you are well?

 

Can I make some clarifying points below as I so want to focus on what I believe is the true strategic way that Nine regions and Log Book Loans Ltd operate, that make your case a fairly standard one in the way that they are operating their legal strategy.

 

Read the whole post and let me have your opinions.

 

I am posing it this way as I believe that we are all being subjected to the same process, no matter what the underlying reasons given for our cars originally being seized unlawfully.

 

By way of background in the case. My general loose recollection are, that IMS was awarded the return of his vehicle under order of the judge from LBL/NR. The vehicle was damaged as a consequence of it being seized (unlawfully as was the contention and is the same for all of us who dispute the seizure of our cars).

 

He had previously had arrangements made for credit to be made to bring the account up to date.

 

The outstanding amount that was paid, was unknowingly credited to Log Book Loans limited instead of Nine Regions Ltd, the limited company in whose name the BOS and CCA is party to.

 

Nine Regions Ltd subsequently claim that they have never received payment, aren't Log Book Loans Ltd, and no credit to the loan account are noted, irrespective of the credits being accepted by Log Book Loans Ltd. Irrespective that they were made in good faith for the account in IMS's name?

 

This triggered car being seized and subsequently the order made to return car after 2nd hearing.

 

Nine Regions Ltd subsequently repay repossesssion agent fees back. Effectively returns the status quo to where the case was before, in that the claim that Log Book Loans Ltd had accepted the outstanding loan amount and their assertion that Nine Regions Ltd is a separate legal entity and was still owed the outstanding balance.

 

The only anomoly that I see that was still in dispute was, who pays for the damage that happened as a consequence of the seizure by LBL and what, if any compensation and additional losses as a consequence of the actions taken, have on any total compensation package if any at all is due?

 

The reason why I say if compensation if any at all is due is because , I wonder if they are relying on IMS to prove that He was the possessor of the car under an executed Bill of Sale, when the damage occured?

 

If it is their contention that it is up to IMS to prove that Nine Regions Ltd were not the posessorbecause if they are, as is their claim?, then can they be found liable to compensate for damage to their own property? If that is the state of legal play, where does that then leave the claim?

 

And before anyone accuses me of challenging IMS's claim being valid or not, or any other Cagger in a similar position, I am not. Iam simply strategising so that others who are in a similar situation, can focus their attentions on what I believe is an all too familiar situation. i.e they (Nine regions) are doing this on a regular basis.

 

I believe their strategy is:-

 

They chance their arm and unlawfully seize vehicle, sell it before the unwitting borrower has time to cough let alone get an injunction lodged in court. If the borrower is able to collect their thoughts quickly enough & get an order for the car, it is returned.

If Nine Regions Ltd are found to be the subject of a claim for damages, they quickly repay repossession costs, thereby resetting part of the claim back to its original state.

 

The BOS and CCA remain intact as neither one of them or both, is ever made void in these circumstances, or if either is, no one can find a legal precedent, because Nine Regions Ltd would always settle before any judgment is made that would open the floodgates for others to travel through.

 

For the rest of us, legal costs start to mount for the claimant as fight to get compensation for damages and losses has to be fought on getting judgment on BOS being made void......Which, as I have asserted, I have yet to see a judgment being granted on previously.

 

So the whole saga becomes a vicious circle with Nine Regions tying up the unsuspecting borrower with a smoke & mirrors/spot the lady trick. Or as I call it the Nine Regions illusion.

 

Whilst IMS and others are desperately looking to stop their cars being auctioned, getting the BOS and CCA individually made void is left in abeyance. If the car isn't auctioned and the proceeds pocketed by Nine Region, they simply reimburse the repo fees and come after you for the outstanding loan, even though borrowers like IMS had settled it indirectly as it happens.

 

Like all magic tricks this only works if you are being distracted enough to focus on another thing while you are being duped. And having your car potentially auctioned is normally a large enough distraction.

 

It is my humble opinion IMS that unless you can make the case, as a valid credible victim of fraud, that Nine Regions Ltd knowingly, allowed Log Book Loans Ltd to accept the outstanding loan amounts due on your Nine Regions Ltd account, you are still potentially legally liable for that debt unless your claim is stronger. However unfair that may sound and I wish that wasn't the case.

 

Alternatively, you could try and get a judgment that the BOS is void on the basis of what you have already stated as fact in your previous post.

 

I understand but don't know how valid the claim is, that CCTV Engineer states he has a judgment from Jeff the solicitor, of 27 years Bills of Sales experience fame, that enables BOS's to be made void. And that he is an expert witness with Juliet of the OFT case, which I still don't understand what that really means but I will allow CCTV or Jeff the Bill of Sale expert Solicitor to explain it directly to you, if that is indeed the route you are looking to go down.

 

PLEASE NOTE:-

 

The above comment is now made with the following caveat of the following cautionary comment from Nicky Bodmin previously posted. I can not substantiate it but post it for reference puposes only. Obviously Caggers need to make their own assessment of which claims of knowledge and information from other caggers are bonafide or not.

 

 

 

I hope Caggers will read that it is solely my intention in this post, to open up for discussion the strategies that I believe is a common theme for most Caggers, who are faced with the return or not of their vehicles, and how the play may unfold.

 

These are purely my personal thoughts and come with the normal disclaimers etc. Just my penny's worth as the saying goes

 

 

 

Hip_Hop

 

Hip-Hop ims knows who we are to well ok. as i am shure he will tell you. ims has a bill of sale with nine regions ltd ...... he has been paying logbook loans ltd. same directors but two differant companies. by law a bill of sale is none transferable. so logbook loans ltd must have been given the loan by nine regions ltd ....... which ims and i know they did. ims i think we need to go back to court with them ...

 

 

Hip-hop.

 

Originally Posted by Nicky Bodmin

 

CCTV seems to be all talk on this subject but when it comes down to showing what he has got then where is he.

 

I have spoken to Julietta about his so called case and she is as blind to his case as we are. Who US he has anyone been given supported evidence of what he has said.

 

 

 

You couldn't make this **** up.

we have given details out as IMS will tell you. Julietta will not give out any information or court cases without our written consent as IMS will back us up on.

[Hip_Hop]

Hip-Hop ims knows who we are to well ok. as i am shure he will tell you. ims has a bill of sale with nine regions ltd ...... he has been paying logbook loans ltd. same directors but two differant companies. by law a bill of sale is none transferable. so logbook loans ltd must have been given the loan by nine regions ltd ....... which ims and i know they did. ims i think we need to go back to court with them ...

 

 

 

 

CCTV seems to be all talk on this subject but when it comes down to showing what he has got then where is he.

 

I have spoken to Julietta about his so called case and she is as blind to his case as we are. Who US he has anyone been given supported evidence of what he has said.

 

 

 

You couldn't make this **** up.

 

 

we have given details out as IMS will tell you. Julietta will not give out any information or court cases without our written consent as IMS will back us up on.

 

I'm sure that IMS will tell us CCTV .....How he was able to use the judgment, that you and Jeff the invisible Bill of Sales Solicitor state that is in your possession, to make void and overturn his Bill of Sale and Consumer Credit Agreement?........

 

Hold on...........IMS still has the Bill of Sale and CCA in situ? What about your miraculous cure all judgment?

 

What does Jeff the magician say? Nothing?........

 

No worries.... as CCTV states:- "ims i think we need to go back to court with them"

 

So that's a relief then, IMS doesn't have to do anything as their Counter Claim if IMS doesn't settle, will also be magically washed away too, once CCTV and the magician appear in court on IMS's behalf? ....

 

If it wasn't for the fact that this is a serious situation where real people are involved, your attempts to validate your position and your alleged legal expertise would be comical.

At least IMS has an uncle who is a barrister who can offer clear unambiguated legal advice, as getting a seized vehicle back as IMS and the rest of us know, is only the start of the battle, not the end game. Your offer to provide BOS void solutions is void as is the reality of that solution. If not, others will post support that, that info has resulted in anyone's BOS being made void, right?

 

Equally, It is not Julietta's role at the OFT to give credence to Invisible Jeff the Bill of Sales Solicitor nor to any invisible role that you may or may not have in their legal fight against Nine Region Ltd.

 

What a pity you didn't want to add any constructive view to the strategies employed by Nine Regions/LBL , that were detailed in the post regarding seizing vehicles to maximise their return.

 

In concluding CCTV, Harvey my Invisible rabbit, wants to know if he could have a relationship with Jeff your invisble Solicitor, so that they can produce small invisible non existing judgments that he can refer to like you do whenever challenged?

Edited November 1, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity edit

[ims]

Hi Hip Hop, CCTV and indeed all,

 

As much as i would like to divulge more info regarding the legalities of my case, i am somewhat un easy with the identity of some caggers, so i will without prejudice write the following

 

IN REGARDS TO CCTV:

 

I have personally spoken with CCTV, and the help and advice this person offered gave a great insight as to what i should do next, my opinion on his case is genuine and that everything that this person has said has been validated by OFT, who i also have spoken with in great detail. I have no wrong word for this person.

 

Hip Hop, Although i do not know you, i feel you have mistaken the reason for this website, in my OPINION, caggers only visit this site if they have a real problem and are seeking advice without the need for cost involvement, i dont see why any cagger should falseify, adapt or not tell the truth, as this would not help any situation and would result in the wrong advice being given, therefor with that in mind, i also think that no cagger should be put to strict proof as to anything that is said in thier posts. This does not make any cagger untruthful, just cautious.

 

My case i believe is much stronger than that is put in black and white, the problem or beit my solution is simple THE LAW IS THE LAW, if you break that, then the judge will make the decision as to how it is rectified.

 

The post in which hip hop has placed puts an insiders insight as to how the lender may see thier way out of paying for thier ignorance, However an admission of guilt, or agreement of the unlawful possession can not simply be put right by the lender saying sorry, we have creditted your account with associated costs, as this AGAIN is trying to forsee what the judge will make of the case, and taking AGAIN the law into thier own hands, I have in my dealing with nine regions kept my personal feelings to my own posts, i have not on any other post bad mouthed this company or even attempted to try get other caggers not to pay thier debts, I can assure all who read my posts, i am honest, fair and only speak of details i know to be true.

 

I think it somewhat ignorant, of nine regions to assume that thier actions are legal, right or just, MY CASE is one of many i know, however, the key factors of my case are possibly one off. My view of which is under the consumer credit act 1974, i am entitled to a full reimbursement of all monies paid, plus compensation/damages plus the 8% interest, this is because i can prove that nine regions ltd incorporate their bill of sales into thier credit agreement, both of which are regulated by law, and as such NO MISTAKES can be made, my bill of sale is incorrect, and as such so is the credit agreement, given the WRITTEN LAW, the above applies without question!!!!!!!

 

As the security is not correctly assertained within both documents, thier is no security listed, therefore they had no legal right to enter upon my premises and remove my legal property, and in doing so, have tresspassed, and damaged mine and a third parties property, there goes, they need to pay to rectify costs.

 

The fact that the legal documents they relied upon to commit such actions, are unenforceable, and void, along with the incorrect defaults, terminations etc they allegedly sent again break the consumer credit act 1974.

 

Looking at a third persons perspective:

 

1) company fails to have LEGAL DOCUMENTS correctly executed

2) company fails to adhire to consumer credit act 1974 enforcement procedure

3) company enforces illegal documents

4) company admits unlawful repossession

5) company damages property in repossession

6) company does not have legal title to vehicle

7) company has no legal right of entry

8) company fails to adhire to court order

9) company again fails to adhere to another time order

 

me!

 

1) paid in full

2) had car damaged

3) had property damaged

4) lost car use for 2 months

5) had to hire car for 2 months

6) had to pay all associated court cost to date

7) had life in upheivel due to company actions

 

Im guessing this:

 

Judge see's a big company has taken liberties, illegally removed a persons vehicle, added more costs to an already settled account, caused disruption and damage to a persons life and property, then attempt to take the law into thier own hands to negotiate more money!!

 

in note:

 

Think what you will of my case, it is what it is, im no super human legal freak that attempts for his own gain to jupe, dishonor or take that which is not thiers, I am a young proffessional, self employed person, who everyday does what most people do, get up and tries to earn enough money for their family (daughters 12 and 10 month) and (son 4) to survive, those who know me know that i only speak of what i can prove, and i stand up for what i believe.

 

I have in my opinion been the victim, i have had wrong done to me, and now, after visiting this site, have the knowledge, ability and confidence to speak out about what the circumstance are, and I REQUEST A JUDGE IN LEGAL STANDING to look over and decide what he/she feels is the correct course of action to be taken. I WILL NOT do as i have found nine regions to do, think for themselves of the best option for them to make the most money, double that thought and then act on it.

 

To all genuine caggers out there, i wish you all the best in your cases, not just against nine regions or log book loans, 90% of the people i have met on this site are genuine and do want to help, as such i will try help any one within the knowledge i have, have gained or about to gain.

[Hip_Hop]

Hi Hip Hop, CCTV and indeed all,

 

As much as I would like to divulge more info regarding the legalities of my case, I am somewhat un easy with the identity of some caggers, so I will without prejudice write the following

 

Without prejudice? What elements of this posting as an anonymous contributor are you concerned may be tendered as evidence in court?

 

What identity of some Caggers are you uneasy with? Personally, I’m not sure of Wookey Wookey whom I believe is a secret cross dresser with a consumer credit licence operating out of a small hamlet in the north of England. (Moderators, I am not referring to any real Cagger, so no need to unapprove, just making a point).

 

 

IN REGARDS TO CCTV:

 

I have personally spoken with CCTV, and the help and advice this person offered gave a great insight as to what i should do next, my opinion on his case is genuine and that everything that this person has said has been validated by OFT, who i also have spoken with in great detail. I have no wrong word for this person.

 

At last! I was beginning to lose hope that anyone would substantiate that not everything that CCTV writes is befuddled and confusing under scrutiny.

Personally, I would place more stock in the advice that your uncle, the barrister has to offer but hey, that the joy of a public forum, you take your choice as to what information you choose to accept as gospel, no matter how much that information may unravel upon deeper inspection or/and under challenge, as has repeatedly been the case with CCTV's info.

 

There are plenty of other posters who have questioned his confusing claims and statements of fact, mine isn't a unique view. Remember IMS, I like CCTV-He makes me smile and Harvey the Invisible Rabbit likes him too.

 

Hip Hop, Although i do not know you, i feel you have mistaken the reason for this website, in my OPINION, caggers only visit this site if they have a real problem and are seeking advice without the need for cost involvement, i dont see why any cagger should falseify, adapt or not tell the truth, as this would not help any situation and would result in the wrong advice being given, therefor with that in mind, i also think that no cagger should be put to strict proof as to anything that is said in thier posts. This does not make any cagger untruthful, just cautious.

 

That's what I really appreciate about public forums, it allows anonymous members of the public like you to offer misguided OPINION which conflicts with the very OPINION that you are offering.

 

You don't trust some of the true identities of some of the Caggers on this forum but trust that all Caggers have the same motives when posting? Surely a contradiction there?

 

 

So no touts on your part of the forum?

No misguided advice that serves just to confuse and befuddle?

 

I want your glasses; they appear to offer an ideal CAG forum content view?

 

Be under no illusion IMS, I have no misconception on what the reasons for this website are. I just don't share your view that all posters, are knowledgeable, nor do I concur that some don't have a secret agenda when they post. Altruism is a noble trait but it doesn't appear in all postings, just because we desire it.

Hence the reason I check a wide range of opinions from a wide range of posters on this forum and pick from a small selection of contributors. Normally those who repeatedly show consistently sound advice that stands up to scrutiny.

Where it doesn't, it is even more fitting if they either withdraw or retract that advice, information.

Some Caggers don't and repeat the same misinformation time after time. And they rightly should be challenged where that advice falls short no matter who they are. Wrong advice is wrong advice.

 

 

 

The post in which hip hop has placed puts an insiders insight as to how the lender may see thier way out of paying for thier ignorance,

 

I do hope you have evidence to back up that outrageous claim? How dare you insinuate that I have any connection with Nine Regions or Log Book Loans by having an insider’s insight? What possesses you to make such a stupid unwarranted accusation, when it is abundantly clear from my postings that I was a victim of unlawful seizure of my Jag!

 

Why you think you can hide behind an anonymous name and make such an unsubstantiated claim is beyond me. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself IMS! Being a sycophantic for CCTV is your prerogative but don't get off making accusations that you can not back up. Totally unwarranted IMS!

 

90% of the people i have met on this site are genuine and do want to help, as such i will try help any one within the knowledge i have, have gained or about to gain.

 

That makes 10% non genuine???

You've just completely undermined a large part of your argument that all Caggers are genuine and there is no need to put any suspected Cagger to strict proof on the advice they proffer as you insinuate that all Caggers and the advice they offer, is genuine???

 

I wish you good luck with your case IMS. But I will continue to question and seek clarity from those that peddle confusion.

[ims]

As far as my postings go, it is either fact based on personal events, that have or about to happen, Or opinion, i try to distinguish between the two when i post, for instance i write IN my opinion, I didnt come on to cag to justify, or explain my opinions, duly because they are just that, my opinions, however, when it comes to giving people advice, i tend to rely upon personal experience, i.e in my case this happened. I do rely mostly on the opinion of my uncle, as i have previously stated, he can not legally defend my case, and as you may expect his time is costly to him, and therefore i try not to bother him as much as i would like, that bieng said that is why he has recommended a collegue with whom i will be speaking to tomorrow.

 

Hip Hop, my feeling i have for other caggers, is that, MOST will visit cag in order to seek advice, help and a place to voice thier OPINIONS, not all people are honest, and in some part i agree with your taking of some small advice from caggers who repeatedly offer good advice, and in some i agree that those who are not knowledgable should remove crap advice or advice that will not help someones case, However if you are implying that any advice i give is not true, then you are mistaken, as the only advice in which i try to offer is that of my personal situation, and that of what i know has already happened, so im a little bewildered how you find any advice i have given to be false?!

 

Im no fool, i understand that if i was a lender that had numerouse complaints, im sure i would search forums to find out what is being said about my company, and if needed, possibly attempt in some way to damage control my company, and in this case, i am alsmost certain that some cag members are employed by such company, at no time have i emplied you as such a person.

My thoughts are what makes you want to insult fellow caggers for offering any advice?? why would you want to be so forceful in your dealing with other caggers? why would you want to disprove or cross examine anyones opinion?

 

Surely, it is more benefitial to fellow caggers, that should you find any information posted by a cagger to be false, a simple post stating such, and then the real info added would surfice and be of greater help to others, it seems to me that you dont want to disprove any one on cag for giving misguided advice you want to add in humiliation, which is unfair, as everyone is entitled to thier own opinions.

 

I apologise in advance if my postings made you feel that i was attacking you in any way, as that was not the intention, however i will not appologise for my opinion, as that is mine.

 

You say that your partner is a solicitor?! If my partner was a solicitor, then if i found someones postings without justice i would explain, not attempt to belittle.

 

In summary, i started this thread in order to gain advice, experience from fellow caggers and a help, and in return i offer personal experience to which i gain in my own case against this lender, as i believe that is what cag is for.

 

You may either take what i say to be true, or believe it all to be a fairy story, should it be the latter, then please, if you have nothing constructive to say, then please refrain from posting.

[Hip_Hop]

Please don't proffer an apology in advance as you have above, and then retract apology in the same sentence IMS as it just comes across as insincere. Better to apologise sincerely post making a faux pas, as you did when making the claim that I had any insider's insight knowledge of Nine Regions Ltd/Log Book Loans Ltd and by implication therefore, that I was connected to either, and leaving it at that.

 

Additionally, you refer that in my previous response, I implied or suggested that any advice in any way you give, is not true, or is false which is totally bogus. I defy you to highlight any example that you can find in context, that substantiates that false claim.You will not find any. So please, spare me the claims of a little bewilderment and have a long cool drink instead.Accept that I really don't take what you say, nor make judgment of any kind as to whether it is true, or believe it to be a fairy story, I haven't cast any such opinion, nor am I inclined too, as you write mainly about your experiences and in turn, your interpretation of your story.

 

In my posts, I simply ask questions that substantiate a point made by Caggers to ascertain its credibilty and to qualify its correctness to advance my understanding. If that unsettles people. Not my problem.

 

My issue with CCTV and his information/advice is I find it dangerous and it gives rise to false hopes and by virtue of that , misinforms. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Please note I never attempt to belittle I always succeed.

 

In any event, CCTV can defend himself against claims of poor advice and info, especially when that Cagger wastes my time by stating facts/acts/judgments etc that turn out to be totally bogus in reality.

I only found this out to my cost, after wasting many hours searching the web as was the case with CCTV's advice. I therefore feel totally justified in stripping him down for wasting my precious time. If he then repeat the exercise, then I feel even more justified in doing so again. And if CCTV than repeats the exercise without concern for the affect that advice/information has on the recipeint, than I will respond accordingly. If that eliminates others having to go through the same wasted journey that I went through than, I have achieved a small justice for the little man who is looking through a mire of misinformation.

 

Maybe IMS if you had wasted hour upon hour trying to esablish and validate CCTV's posted advice and then found large chunks to be totally bogus, you too might feel as aggrieved as I when you see same info posted again and again, no matter how many time other senior Caggers had revealed the errors of that advice.

 

Searching such delights as his " 8 year rule" on BOS's being void if they are applied to cars over that age - False. But look at the amount of Caggers that were desperate to find CCTV's Holy 8 year grail!

 

What about his references to a "Bill of Sales Act 1925" that turned out to be non existent

 

CCTV's adamant advice of seven clear days for registering the affidavit at the High Court which he repeated was not from the date of signing the BOS but started at the date the BOS is sworn in front of a commissioner of Oaths. This turned out to be bogus too and led to many Caggers being bewildered by the confusing advice that was being repeated over and over by him as fact?.

 

You too IMS might feel totally justified in undermining the credibilty of CCTV's advice and Info when you see the same individual state that he has judgment on file showing 3 ways to make a BOS void and he posts that he has personally achieved that status for many Caggers and by implication that he has the key to unlock all BOS's and make them void. To find that not one Cagger can confirm such a judgment has been seen or exists, offers Caggers false hope and is ethically unsustainable to make such claims on repeated occasions.

 

Your sterling efforts to support his misinformation and to state that everything he says is supported by the OFT is duly noted but is undermined by the facts.

 

I on the other hand feel a duty to other caggers to warn them of the dangers of accepting such nonsense as fact when it has been shown to be anything but.

 

I just wished someone would have had the courage to question his misinformation earlier as strongly, as I. It would have saved me and many others an inordinate amount of my time and resources whilst we clamber around to get our cars back before they are quickly auctioned.

 

Hopefully others will be spared through my actions. That's the reason IMS I feel so passionate about uncovering the truth and questioning suspect advice. I had a history with that misinformation and was affected directly! You may see it as belittling, I see it as holding to account and in due course others will substantiate that claim to be correct.

 

If your parner was a solicitor you might not feel the need to role play your entire case on the forum.But that is your choice though and has no damaging effects on other Caggers who read of your thoughts and interpretations of what you feel is fair and proper. I have no stock with your way of dealing with your issues with Nine Regions Ltd/LBL.

Others might , ask questions or clarify points made to ascertain facts to get a clearer idea of where they stand, so that they focus when they speak to their legal counsel but how we gather our knowledge is a personal matter for each of us.

 

Your case will not essentially be won or lost on this forum IMS, but at least you are not peddling advice that will send Caggers on a wild goose chase looking for solutions as above, that don't exist. Telling Caggers about your experiences is a take it or leave scenario. Touting advice as CCTV does as fact is very different.

No one could accuse you of misleading by telling us your story. CCTV doesn't do that-He pops up telling others they are doing it wrong than gives misinformation to those desperate for solutions in desperate times and is found wanting on many occasions.

 

Remember, you have got a judgment that got you your car back. Everything else is on hold at present whilst the matter is in dispute. You have yet to settle in any shape or form the main case against you or the case against them. Focus on the end game and hopefully you will get further judgment for you. Focusing on defending the indefensible as in CCTV's case is of no consequence to you winning your case. A good barrister's opinion will either tell you if you have a good chance of winning or failing to make your case against the common enemy regardless of other distractions.

 

The case against CCTV is made, our cases have still to unfold.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity

[ST220]

I'm sorry to say that I have to somewhat agree with hip_hop on this one. I recently took out out a log book loan on the spur of the moment due to a very urgent problem with one of my kids which I won't go into here. It was only after taking out the loan that I realised that I signed away ownership of my beloved car. Obviously I was very shocked and worried, specially after reading on here what lbl were like. Suffice to say that I haven't missed one payment so far and don't intend to, but I thought that if I got clued up on lbl's practices and what remedies were available I would at least have some hope of keeping my car, should a problem arise. Forwarned is forarmed as they say!!

 

Anyway in the thread "car purchased with logbook loan finance" (Sorry I cant post a link, but my post count is too low) CCTV states that if a car has a cat D status (which mine does) and it's not stated on the BOS, then the BOS is immediately void and the case is won!! Ah ah I thought a way to keep my car should I need it!! I asked CCTV in the above thread if he could elaborate on the CAT D thing and got no reply. I also asked him in a few other threads and PM'd him a few times about it, but got nothing back. I have since spent many hours googling that info, but have come up with nothing. Therefore I have concluded that the advice is nonsence and no such rule regarding Cat D status being listed on a BOS really exists.

 

I'm sure CCTV means well, and really does want to help people, but he can't do this by making up these outrageous statements and then not back them up once asked. So yea, I do agree with hip_hop on this!

 

So if I am wrong CCTV and such a rule does exist, then now would be the time to eleborate on it.

[Hip_Hop]

I'm sorry to say that I have to somewhat agree with hip_hop on this one......

 

Anyway in the thread "car purchased with logbook loan finance" (Sorry I cant post a link, but my post count is too low) CCTV states that if a car has a cat D status (which mine does) and it's not stated on the BOS, then the BOS is immediately void and the case is won!! Ah ah I thought a way to keep my car should I need it!! I asked CCTV in the above thread if he could elaborate on the CAT D thing and got no reply. I also asked him in a few other threads and PM'd him a few times about it, but got nothing back. I have since spent many hours googling that info, but have come up with nothing. Therefore I have concluded that the advice is nonsence and no such rule regarding Cat D status being listed on a BOS really exists.

 

I'm sure CCTV means well, and really does want to help people, but he can't do this by making up these outrageous statements and then not back them up once asked. So yea, I do agree with hip_hop on this!

 

So if I am wrong CCTV and such a rule does exist, then now would be the time to eleborate on it.

 

HI ST220,

 

The link you refer to is,

 

"Car purchased with logbook loan finance":- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ce-outstanding

 

Interestingly as well as the CAT D (with respect) nonsense, that is posted, there are numerous mentions in that thread to his magical "8 year rule," that I have referred to previously, which CCTV gives the perception in the thread, is fact.

But, as we all now know, is as factual as Tartan Paint!

 

IMS, I have pasted below the "Bill of Sale 8 year Rule" link that OBWanBenoni initiated 3 months later.

 

Check out CCTV's comments IMS in that thread, to the query from another cagger, who challenged CCTV's 8 Year rule of fact.

 

Stevie 1:- (Post no 8-Eight) Made a challenge as he could not find reference to an 8 year legal rule anywhere- "I have also looked everywhere for 8 year age limit, can't find it",

 

CCTV's response:- (Post No 9-Nine) "Hi steve. it is hard to find .. i have it printed off here".

 

So obviously, other Caggers queued up to enquire whether they too, could have access to this non existing 8 year legal rule, that he had conveniently "printed off"? I know I did!

 

Any Cagger who had an 8 years or more date first registered aged car, that was either under threat or, already seized, anticipated the return or safe custody of their cars because of this this exclusive , why wouldn't they?

CCTV appeared to offer an automatic void solution, to any car that was over 8 years old when the BOS was originally attached!

 

Read the 8 years rule posting thread to its logical end, and everyone will understand why CCTV, no longer mentions anything further on that magical 8 year rule from that date onwards!

 

Still time to retract your statement IMS?

"that everything that this person has said has been validated by OFT",

 

If anyone else has any other corroborative post examples that would help other Caggers to sort fact from fiction, please add examples and/or links to the bottom of this thread. It may yet persuade IMS to personally retract the OFT statement, which is now looking decidedly unsafe.

 

Following on from ST220's contribution I have added others below to share for the Fiction pot with links too.

 

Examples with relevant Links

 

1. "Bill Of Sale 8 Year Rule":- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273442-Bill-of-Sale-8-year-old-rule&p=3095858&viewfull=1#post3095858

 

2."Laundering Certificate":-http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3173992

 

3. "Car purchased with logbook loan finance":- http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk...ce-outstanding.

The Winning entry by the way, gets a ride with Harvey the Invisible Rabbit, in his Invisible automobile!-Would you like to judge IMS? -If not, maybe CCTV can get involved and select his favourite?

Edited November 3, 2010 by Hip_Hop
Links added

[applecart]

Hi All

 

To be fair, there are times when anyone of us can get it wrong - I have to acknowledge 'some more than others'... (myself included; but not often, if at all)

 

On the rare occassion when I may have unwittingly got it wrong, I am happy for any cagger to set the record straight - so long as they do so on the open forum so that I can address any raised issue directly...... ( I expect a deluge of my errors now - which I would love the opportunity to put right/explain further, if need be)

 

The REAL BLIGHT on the forum is those that love to 'PM' - (not a bad thing when used for purpose) but it is when they send malicious gossip by 'PM' to deter caggers getting best advise...... so annoying .... .... this is when Caggers tend to lose their way - they simply don't know who to trust........

 

I always advacate that the best advise - should be advise that can be followed through from the references made to the relevant law or index etc., left by a cagger and should be available on the open forum - that way 'touts' would have a real problem trying to overturn or sway a cagger from the FACTS!!

 

Lets take a moment to remember that there are a number of us who have been affected by log book loans in one way or another - and certainly we are preyed upon on the forum by logbook loan 'touts' looking to mislead or misguide us ......

 

It behoves each and everyone of us to be vigilant and careful.......

 

I'm not comfortable to note that a cagger such as CCTV is being vilified so publicly (but then I'm a softie at heart) - But like Hip Hop and ST120 advise - now would be the time to address their concerns and be open about the information you have given or intend to give and post your references; so that you can gain credibility - because it would seem you are loosing it in droves right now - Thankfully, neither cagger has posted these concerns in a 'new thread' - over time CCTV; all these comments will be lost by 'new threads' and other comments.

 

Apple : )

[ST220]

Hi Apple,

 

I just want to make it clear to you and everyone else that it wasn't my intention to vilify CCTV or anyone else on this forum. I was merely confirming what other caggers were saying is is a problem, and that just happens to be CCTV's advice. Without going into too much detail, I just wanted (like other caggers) to point out that not all advice given on here is gospel, and one must do thier own research to confirm or dismiss such advice. Also I wanted to make the point that if caggers aren't willing to backup thier claims, then why post them in the first place?

 

As you know, I came to you for advice a while ago and found you to be very forthcoming with helpful advice. I also around the same time went to CCTV to ask him to clarify some points he had made in various posts, which I thought at the time would be like gold dust but indeed turned out to be, as far as I could tell nonsence. When I challenged CCTV with this he went quiet and for want of a better word, ignored me totally. Like hip_hop I too spent many hours googling some of the points CCTV had made and came up with nothing. As you can immagine Apple, this can be very frustrating and in certain cases damaging to ones case I should immagine.

 

If CCTV does indeed decide to back up the claims that have been highlited in this thread then I would gladly eat humble pie and appologise for any offence my comments may have caused.

 

Cheers

ST220