illegal repossesion by logbook laons and anglia

[Hip_Hop]

Hi All

 

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.)

 

 

Spot on Apple. I didn't want to post these repeated concerns in a new thread to be pulled up like a case of reflux every time a repeat offence occurs I am sure we would rather read about CCTV's postings that explain in simple terms why the 8 year rule applies, or why a BOS void rule occurs,or that a Cat D rating makes the BOS void. That would be fantastic!

 

Nothing would give us greater pleasure than to welcome CCTV back in to the warm embrace of credible informed Caggers who educate rather than eradicate understanding of the processes involved with these archaic legal instruments, that are Bills of Sales.

 

We await any details that give credible support to his previously challenged but unanswered posts or at least to accept that he has contributed to the confusion, that his advice generated.

 

Hiding behind a non existing BOS Solicitor to justify his previous advice is no longer a workable ruse, he needs to back it up or just comment on his own personal experiences and leave it at that, if he is unwilling to justify his previous exclusive advice.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[Hip_Hop]

And in accordance with ST220 if CCTV is able to provide solid evidence that the 8 year rule that he states ,makes any vehicle with a BOS on it that was over 8 years in age when it was attached, void. I would equally eat humble pie too!

 

I am, no doubt, going to go hungry it would appear, as I doubt that any such solid evidence will be forthcoming from CCTV.

 

Which is why it is so disheartening, when other (well meaning) Caggers like IMS, give such advice credence when they quote that credible bodies like OFT appear to back such fiction, even though there is no such basis in fact to do so......

 

I do so hope that CCTV is able to take advantage of the wonderful opportunity that now presents itself for him, to both clear the air and make good the confusion that does surround so many of his previous threads.

 

To do so would begin to put right the wrongs initiated under his name.

I am sure many would welcome that 100%!

Edited November 3, 2010 by Hip_Hop
expanded point

[applecart]

Hi Hip Hop, ST220

 

I see all the points you both make - when it is spelt out in this way - I simply can't agree more.

 

ummm; I have to admit; I have also tried to ask CCTV to 'remark' - and nothing has ever been forthcoming - I note he tends to 'ignore' my posts and 'sweep' past them; strange, most strange

[THFC1960]

I can't believe what I am reading about CCTV. I am waiting for a judgement from this forum member, which I am still waiting on. Will this not now be forthcoming as promised?

[THFC1960]

I have PM'd him and emailed him but no response in over 5 days. He seems to have fallen off the face of the earth

[THFC1960]

Can Trooper or Stubs please confirm that I am not wasting my time here with waiting for CCTV to send me the judgment?

[THFC1960]

Well Hip_Hop, Nicky and ST220 I think you will be in for a shocking good read later as I have ultimate proof that Hip_Hop may have been on to something with his allegation that Jeff the Lawyer may not be totally all there?

Edited November 4, 2010 by THFC1960

[THFC1960]

I am putting the finishing touches to a post that I believe will put this to bed once and for all. Please bear with me just have to copy and paste some posts etc

Edited November 4, 2010 by THFC1960

[THFC1960]

It would appear that I have to post 20 postings in order to paste links etc so will do that and post the important one at the end.

Edited November 4, 2010 by THFC1960

[THFC1960]

I am nearly there. Please bear with me

Edited November 4, 2010 by THFC1960

[THFC1960]

Hi Hip Hop, ST220

 

I see all the points you both make - when it is spelt out in this way - I simply can't agree more.

 

ummm; I have to admit; I have also tried to ask CCTV to 'remark' - and nothing has ever been forthcoming - I note he tends to 'ignore' my posts and 'sweep' past them; strange, most strange

 

Well Applecart, maybe CCTV engineer will have no choice but to remark, when faced with overwhelming evidence that he is not being frank with us as I have detailed below..

 

 

 

It would appear, I too have been the victim of CCTV Engineer’s, - “If it appears too good to be true, than it is likely to be just that”, School of nonsense.

 

Unfortunately, I did not heed in time, the warnings of other members to this site like ST220, Nicky Bodmin, HIP_HOP, Applecart and others.

 

You don’t do you, when visiting a forum like this, because you just think it champions just causes for the consumer?

 

I thought it was simply people, helping other people on this site to get justice? But it is now obvious that there are mind games and brinkmanship at hand, Not everyone is, who they say they are, and offers of help and advice are on occasion just empty gestures of promises of everything but, the delivery of nothing.

 

Whatever the incentives at play was that persuaded CCTV to write me an email that suggested he was Jeff the Solicitor, only he can reveal. But write he did.

The same Solicitor, who CCTV states is connected to the OFT case against the Log Book Loan Company?

There is no doubt that this will back fire with disastrous consequences when this is now made public. Hopefully for others, he will not pull the same trick twice.

 

No wonder CCTV feigns connection to a solicitor with 27 years Bill of Sales experience! He is that solicitor!

 

I have included below, that email from CCTV’s (Tom’s) personal yahoo email at 22:57:25 at night!

 

I had been so wrapped up in what is going on around me, that it took my friend to point out that solicitor’s simply don’t normally send out emails at that time of night.

 

They wouldn’t send emails from an unconnected personal yahoo account. And most definitely, would not write such an unprofessional email to an individual that has not been instructed by them and simply sign of as Jeff!

 

The email is littered with spelling mistakes, which I can now see is Tom’s (CCTV’s) trademark and is simply signed Jeff as mentioned above. This is the same Jeff that I now read that Hip_Hop has been questioning whether he exists or not?

 

If such a person exists, it is surely not the person in the email below, nor does Tom/CCTV have a relationship with him to the extent that the solicitor needs to use Tom’s personal yahoo email account late at night, to post questions to prospective client’s who have not instructed him,?

Unless of course, you are on another agenda like Tom is than all rules are off?

 

I wouldn’t ordinarily comment on a public forum instead jut electing to move on but this is simply wrong.

 

Others may not think it matters. That CCTV is simply offering an opinion that we can all just take or leave. Where’s the harm in that?

But I trusted that opinion because of his self styled expertise; after all, he got his case dismissed against Log Book, had connections with the OFT Solicitor? Was an expert witness for the OFT? All these things built his credibility up in my eyes. Now I question what, if anything, is real in his world of OFT and Log Book?

 

I seriously now doubt anything he states as being fact.

 

Maybe someone like the IMS guy can make contact with OFT and can find out why CCTV is pretending to be the solicitor in the OFT case?

 

Are the Moderators of this forum aware of the exploits this member is up to?

 

To offer opinions as part of a general discussion is one thing but to systematically offer a judgment of value and then pretend to be the lawyer, who has this judgment in hand, is upsetting for questioners like me looking for solutions to my problems.

 

I am not sure what can really be done about this other than to warn others by posting the evidence for all to see.

 

I have posted below the relevant PM’s sent and received and also emails swapped. No content has been changed with the exception of a small typo which was corrected for the reader in red and the IMPOSTER ALERT that I also highlighted in red, so that other members can easily identify Tom’s/CCTV’s poor attempt to convince me that he was Jeff the Solicitor!

 

 

I have protected CCTV’s email address to protect his identity but unfortunately he didn’t offer me any protection against wasting over a week of my time.

 

Unfortunately I don’t think I will be continuing my interest with the forum as the whole experience has left me feeling pretty deflated by action of one of its members.

 

The lack of any real communication from Tom/CCTV in over 5 days, despite repeated PM’s and emails should have been a warning too and the PM to tell me not to let Hip_Hop in on the judgment. Now I know why. Well it will not happen again!

 

24th October 2010 12:03 #28

THFC1960

 

Cagger since Oct 2010

Posts 9

Re: Are Log Book Loans Money Laudering?

 

Originally Posted by cctv engineer

 

like i have said to you in reply to your email . our solicitor who has delt with bill of sales since 1983 does know what he his talking about and when he sees a case on here he will act. 5 members he has contacted and have won. lets take stubs you havent seen the outcome on the forum thats all done and dusted. trooper has had a judgment sent to him by me. and i have it here which is the same case as THFC 1960 and we are giving good info.

 

Hi CCTV can you advise/post me the judgment that you sent Trooper that you say is the same case as mine. Thank you so much.

 

 

24th October 2010 18:11 #29

cctv engineer

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2009

Posts 356

Re: Are Log Book Loans Money Laudering?

 

Originally Posted by THFC1960

 

Hi CCTV can you advise/post me the judgment that you sent Trooper that you say is the same case as mine. Thank you so much.

 

Hi THfc1960 i will pm you contact details.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

24th October 2010 18:27

cctv engineer

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2009

Posts 356

Hi.

 

Hi please send your detail to the following email and we will arrange a time to talk.

 

regards Tom.

 

tom*****@yahoo.com

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:THFC1960

To: tom_*****@yahoo.com

Sent: Mon, 25 October, 2010 16:35:49

Subject: CAG PM

 

Hi Tom,

 

Thank you for your PM

 

I look forward to receiving the judgment that you are in receipt of.

 

It was encouraging to read that it is the same judgment that you sent to Trooper's for the same case.

 

I feel so relieved that by having this judgment, I will be able to stop Paying logbookloans.co.uk when I have a Bill of Sale and Consumer Credit Agreement made between Nine Regions and myself.

 

Really appreciate your help with providing the judgment.

 

I know that I will be able to reference the judgment to get the agreement made void or a similar outcome to Trooper?

 

Bless you.

 

Regards

 

THFC1960

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

25th October 2010 18:24

cctv engineer

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2009

Posts 356

 

Re: Hi.

 

Hi THFC1960. jeff will see your email tomorrow. he is only there in work hours. but he will only send it with names taken away except for the judges name.

 

please do not post it back onto the forum and never pass info onto hip-hop as trooper myself and spud all think he is lbl

 

 

thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 27/10/10, THFC1960 wrote:

 

From: THFC1960

Subject: Fw: CAG PM

To: tom_*****@yahoo.com

Date: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010, 12:07

 

Hi Tom,

 

Thank you for your PM on Monday evening.

 

The waiting is causing me anxiety as I have not yet received anything from Tom. ? (Typo Should be Jeff)

 

Is everything O.K, does he have my email address?

 

Kindest regards

 

THFC1960

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

******IMPOSTER ALERT***************************************

 

 

Wed, 27 October, 2010 22:57:25

Re: Fw: CAG PM

...

From:

tom *****

...

Add to Contacts

To:

THFC1960

 

Hello.

 

sorry my name is jeff. Tom has passed some details on to me about your problems with logbook loans.

 

what i understand is you have been paying a company called logbook loans and your bill of sale is with nine regions.

 

we have looked at too cases were this has come to light. Toms own case and simon from the forum.

 

can you send me a bit more information. items to look out for. which is the name of the solicitor on your bill of sale . areas ----manchester-bolton-wigan-north liverpool-stockport. most around the north west area we can make the bill of sale void.

 

i have only spoken with Tom over the phone for a short time about your problem. so

can you please just give me a quick run down about your problem.

 

Jeff.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29th October 2010 14:35

THFC1960

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2010

Posts 9

Re: Hi.

 

Hi CCTV Engineer,

 

I havent heard from Jeff on when he is posting the judgment? Is everything OK?

 

Regards

 

THFC1960

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30th October 2010 20:17

cctv engineer

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

Cagger since Oct 2009

Posts 356

Re: Hi.

 

Hi THFC. i do know he has spoken with you but how far he has got i dont know .............. he was with oft for two days last week and i wont see him till monday. i will ask him then.

 

30th October 2010 23:28

THFC1960

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2010

Posts 9

Re: Hi.

 

Thanks CCTV, I was beginning to get worried.

 

He hasn't spoken with me only emailed me.

 

Do you think he will be able to let me have the judgment with personal details deleted monday after you have seen him, as I am really anxious to get matters moving as quickly as possible?

 

I don't as you know need anything else at the mo but am really grateful for your help and assistance. Don't see why they should get another payment to logbookloans.co.uk, if Jeff has the judgment to stop this.

 

Every day is one day closer to another payment that is going to crooks not to the Lender I signed up with.

 

Gosh, hadn't realised how late it is, so off to bed, hope to hear from you soon,

 

Keep well.

 

Regards

 

THFC1960

 

 

 

 

 

1st November 2010 20:54

THFC1960

 

Basic Account Holder

Help the CAG!!

Download our toolbar

 

 

Cagger since Oct 2010

Posts 9

 

Hi CCTV,

 

Hope you are well. I am nearly fit to burst in anticipation.

 

When can I expect to see the edited judgment Tom

 

Best regards

 

THFC1960

Edited November 4, 2010 by THFC1960
Corrupted img links removed

[ST220]

I can't believe what I am reading about CCTV. I am waiting for a judgement from this forum member, which I am still waiting on. Will this not now be forthcoming as promised?

 

Very unlikely THFC1960, but I guess you have already figured that out for yourself. Interestingly, I have just read another post by CCTV in which he copied and pasted an email he supposedly received from another firm of solicitors. This also had the same spelling and grammatical errors as the email you posted from "Jeff?" and as also evident in CCTV's own posts.... The most worrying thing about that post is that he was asking people to post the names of the solicitor on their BOS's, as this email he pasted was from a firm whos name had been used on BOS's but they were saying that they never did them. However he was instructed not to name the firm, but wanted everyone else to name the solicitors on their BOS's. The first thing that springs to mind is can caggers be identified by the solicitors on their BOS by LBL?

 

Makes one most suspicious, but I really hope what I'm thinking is wrong:(

[applecart]

Hi THFC1960

My goodness; I can't imagaine what CCTV could possibly say given your posted information...... ?? Just makes me wonder, how much venom he may have managed to spread around the forum - I think he has over 300 posts todate??

 

MY DEFINITION OF A 21st Century 'TOUT'

 

'touts' come and go - once they are exposed under one name, they may appear on the forum again posing as a completely different person; their mission is relentless - in my experience; they tend to raise what appears to be a genuine concern or issue; then start the 'pm' game - they abuse the 'PM' facility to get you to reveal more and more about you, personal numbers, personal detail etc etc - then, I imagine once they know who you are, where you live, who your agreement is with etc; they work to undermine you, your case..... essentially you will find that no matter what you try to do - you just don't seem to move forward - why? - because your 'enemy' will always be one step ahead of you!!

 

(a 'tout' is not just someone trying to extort money from you or trying to secure your business for their own financial gain - they also come on the forum seeking information - they want to know what the consumer knows or what information the consumer has been exposed to; they would then use this information to put together strategies to combat likely claims/defences against consumers in court).....

 

Notwithstanding the above; what concerns me most about your post is your comment below:

 

"Unfortunately I don’t think I will be continuing my interest with the forum as the whole experience has left me feeling pretty deflated by action of one of its members."

 

Many of us come on the forum to divulge personal experiences or personal views to help others without having to reveal our identities - revealing your identity can be fatal, especially when you may be fighting a lender who also has access to an open forum.

 

I would encourage you to avoid 'PM's and to be conscious at all times of the 21st Century Tout

 

Apple : )

[applecart]

"Cagger since Oct 2009

Posts 356

 

Re: Hi.

 

Hi THFC1960. jeff will see your email tomorrow. he is only there in work hours. but he will only send it with names taken away except for the judges name.

 

please do not post it back onto the forum and never pass info onto hip-hop as trooper myself and spud all think he is lbl

thanks "

 

Hip Hop I think you now know why it is you never got a copy of the judgment:roll:

[applecart]

Duplicate post appeared, so removed

Edited November 5, 2010 by applecart
removed - duplicate post

[Hip_Hop]

"Via PM"

 

A Cagger since Oct 2009 Posts 356 and reposted by THFC1960

Re: Hi.

 

Hi THFC1960. jeff will see your email tomorrow. he is only there in work hours. but he will only send it with names taken away except for the judges name.

 

please do not post it back onto the forum and never pass info onto hip-hop as trooper myself and spud all think he is lbl

thanks "

 

Hip Hop I think you now know why it is you never got a copy of the judgment:roll:

 

Hmmm....Indeed.

Amazing post by THFC1960...What a story... What blatant manipulation by one Cagger over another. Hopefully we have seen the last of that type of manipulation, I hope?

 

I have been busy fighting my own battles in the interim so have not had time to respond to those amazing revelations on Jeff the invisible Bill of Sales Lawyer.. Sorry, meant to say CCTV but old habits die hard when you are repeatedly told he exists when he plainly only existed in CCTV's mind and those other Caggers who had blind faith in Jeff the invisible Bill of Sales Lawyer.....Sorry, did it again!

 

Interestingly, the lack of further misinformation parading as fact from certain quarters has resulted in very little Log Book Loans/Bill of Sales posting activity generally. You couldn't make it up could you? Well maybe you can ? And if you do, you get found out than the posts just dry up...As they have.......

 

In any event, of a much more interesting nature for us all and hopefully good news? IMS Now that the 30 days stay has now expired and Nine Regions have finally instructed solicitors to represent them. Were you able to use your counsel's opinion to get them to shift their position on accepting a settlement figure from you to settle, to one that they will compensate you IMS, for the unlawful seizure and subsequent damage since the return of your car on July 20th? I hope so?

Edited November 16, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[ims]

Hi all, sorry i havent been on for a while, as you can imagine, all the legal matters that are going on and between us all is just masses of paperwork, this is what has been updated to date!

 

I recieved a letter from LBL/Nine regions solicitor who will be representing them on the day, he has kindly ammended thier defence and counterclaim, and has struck out alot of thier defence, in this ammended defence/counterclaim, they issued to my local court he kindly admitted that the repossestion that took place was infact unlawful, and as a consequence of this, LBL/Nine rtegions have creditted my account with the associated costs (its nice to know i wont have to pay for them to damge and steal my car, its also nice to know that on my court case which i have put to 2 judges now, which was based on them illegally repo my car, has been agreed by thier solicitor!!)

 

In with this ammended defence/counterclaim, he has said that the defendant LBL/Nine regions WILL ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT OF £1200.00 Ha, the blind cheek, As you can imagine, i didnt agree, but given the the complexity of what is about to happen, i asked the judge for direction, and spoke to my uncle, who was after laughing hard, told me to seek a solicitor to represent, which i now have.

 

The solicitor in turn said i needed to ammend my claim, to include not only the safe return of the car (which has now happened) but damages to the vehicle, cost of repair, damages to my charecter (that being police cars outside my home etc) compensation for loss of vehicle/earnings and return of court/solicitor costs, His estimate is around £24,000.00 all in all. As you can imagine, im pleassed if it all comes about.

 

As for the above postings, all i can say is WOW!! I had numerous calls to CCTV and recieved a copy of CCTV court transcript from Julietta from OFT, so after all that i thought he was genuine, especially after reaming off alot of legal interpretations regarding BOS etc, and him having a solicitor on board that had alot of experience, Gladly i relied alot on my uncle and my new brief, and double checked everything, Im sorry to hear that some of you were not so lucky, Also i have never spoken to JEFF the solicitor, but im curious as to how he knows of my case? Unless he has read about it on my thread.

 

Well, thats all i can say for now, will try to update as soon as i have more news. regards

[ims]

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 i reply with appology if any other post was innoproriate of me towards you! in response to the quote above,

 

i can see your direction, basically NR are going to try use the defence that how can we legally be liable for damages to our own property, legally you cant compensate for damaging your own property, and im guessing this is what they thought of in thier first and second hearing, however, thier solicitors letter has agreed the repo was unlawful, nut have made no mention of the BOS or CCA bieng bad, but from what i can summarise from dealing with my uncle and my new sol, is that a bill of sale can only be relied upon if it was acted against by the cosigner, IE only nine regions ltd, can act upon it, and as it is incorperated into the credit agreement, no other company can enforce it without the debt bieng sold, if the debt is sold the BOS is no longer enforceable, as thie original company no longer owns the debt, thierfore it becomes void, as it was log book loans ltd that repossesed the car albeit the company that authorised anglia to take it, they have enforced legal title without nieng the owner, as if they have bought the debt from NR, then it is just the debt they own not the title. Hope this helps a little.

 

From what else i can gather, and i may be wrong as i cant remember exactly what was said:

 

In first instance Nine regions Ltd did have legal title to my car, but as the BOS it incorperated into the credit agreement and formed part of it, this is only withstanding it the consumer credit act is followed legally, If NR did not uphold thier legal obligtations set out within the consumer credit act, then the CCA would become a civil matter which needed to be enforced following a court order, provided that i made request to the lender informing them of thier obligations and allowing 14 days for rectification, as this was done, in my sending them a letter of dispute, and them allowing LBL to repo the car, the CCA and BOS becomes LESS WATER TIGHT, however i can not at this time, say it makes the agreements VOID as this has to be determined by the judge, But given the insight and other evidence i provided, both my uncle (barrister) and my solicitor are agreed that the judge has the power to overturn these agreements.

 

It was of thier opinion that the BOS had become void on the grounds mentioned on my previous posts etc, and as this was void, the cca must be either, terminated due to lack of security and the evidence provided, or if void due to the incorperation of the bos and the enforcement procedure.

 

As LBL/NR have not used this as a defence im guessing thier solicitors have come across this already and failed

 

I dont know if anyone else knows of this, but when i was in the clerks office to present my letter of non settlement, the clerk, seemed to be pleased of my arrival, when i asked him about what he thinks i should do next, he seemed to know alot about my case, when i asked him how, and why, he told me that, every so often the government apparently pick out certain cases that go through the court, in order to monitor how the system is bieng used and how they can make the court procedure more asseable to the common public etc etc, apparently, he could only give me limited information, but did say that an independant solicitor and judge, had test trialed this case, and the prognossis was that the Claimant was favourable, and that the court system was monitoring the case closely, I was wondering if anyone else had heared of this action bieng taken??

[ims]

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?

 

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?

 

My statement was in connection with the advice set upon my case, im sorry if it was taken that every little detail posted my cctv was infact true, i too am lost at the 8 year rule etc, as this has never been mentioned to me, given my car was over 8 years old, niether my uncle or my solicitor has mentioned this, if it was true, im sure they would have jumped at it to save time. appologies again

[Hip_Hop]

In with this ammended defence/counterclaim, he has said that the defendant LBL/Nine regions WILL ACCEPT A SETTLEMENT OF £1200.00 Ha, the blind cheek, As you can imagine, i didnt agree, but given the the complexity of what is about to happen, i asked the judge for direction, and spoke to my uncle, who was after laughing hard, told me to seek a solicitor to represent, which i now have.

 

The solicitor in turn said i needed to ammend my claim, to include not only the safe return of the car (which has now happened) but damages to the vehicle, cost of repair, damages to my charecter (that being police cars outside my home etc) compensation for loss of vehicle/earnings and return of court/solicitor costs, His estimate is around £24,000.00 all in all. As you can imagine, im pleassed if it all comes about.

 

Hi IMS,

 

Great to hear from you.

 

As per usual with me a question and answer session for clarity.

 

£1200? Are Nine Regions still contesting that the amount paid to Log Book Loans Ltd by a family member, is still not being credited to your Nine regions account ?

 

Secondly the c£24,000 claim, whilst in theory sounds wonderful, it also (sorry), sounds opportunistic. I have to ask, what is the current replacement value of your car at today's value? What real loss of earnings can you show as a real loss, I ask as I am sure the judge will ask you both to settle commercially way before this is brought to trial.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if your solicitor makes a part 36 offer to LBL once the two sides have swapped a couple of correspondence on the losses you have endured and the strength of your losses, that can be proven and......... you will then settle.

 

Pre-settlement will consist of posturing by both sides and then........settlement. For considerably less than £24,00? I believe so. But hey, that is the joy on them not contesting unlawful seizure. It is the game you get to play, before........ they settle. How do I know this? Because I have been through the same game already and without strict proof of loss, posturing is all that happens.

 

In the end, the judge determines if he wants you to proceed. Believe me, if he wants you both to settle, he will make directions so lengthy and so costly, that both sides will prefer to settle rather than proceed to trial! How do I know this , because that happened to me. Will it happen to you ?...Probably. Can you be the exception? Maybe? Just giving you a viewpoint.

 

Just my penny's worth as per usual with the usual caveats. Whatever happens. Get proof, Taxi receipts, quotes for repairs etc.....

 

Oh......And the very best of luck.

[Hip_Hop]

As for the above postings, all i can say is WOW!! I had numerous calls to CCTV and recieved a copy of CCTV court transcript from Julietta from OFT, so after all that i thought he was genuine, especially after reaming off alot of legal interpretations regarding BOS etc, and him having a solicitor on board that had alot of experience, Gladly i relied alot on my uncle and my new brief, and double checked everything, Im sorry to hear that some of you were not so lucky, Also i have never spoken to JEFF the solicitor, but im curious as to how he knows of my case? Unless he has read about it on my thread.

 

Eh...IMS...You do realise that the email wasn't from Jeff....It was CCTV (Tom), pretending to be Jeff the Solicitor?

 

For the casual reader, Jeff the Solicitor, (who in the email to THFC1960, that was written by CCTV, (Tom), pretending to be Jeff the solicitor), refers to a simon (IMS) in post #189 above, extract below.

 

"we have looked at too cases were this has come to light. Toms own case and simon from the forum."

 

But as THFC1960 has revealed, it wasn't really Jeff the solicitor sending an email to her at 22:57:25 on Wed, 27 October, 2010 but CCTV Engineer (Tom) pretending to be Jeff the solicitor, the solicitor that CCTV Engineer (Tom) repeatedly refers too in various threads that has over 27 years of Bills of Sale experience?

 

This same individual (CCTV Engineer/Tom), has the temerity to PM and email other Caggers to suggest that I am some how connected to LBL???? And yes, I do have proof to back that statement up.

 

Obviously I have no direct connection with Log Book Loans.... Other than having had a judgment made in my favour, the return of my Jaguar XJ8, return of my Log Book plus a Consent Order that ordered Nine Regions LTD to pay me compensation of over £5000, settlement of any other liabilities outstanding and removal of any interest from the HPI Register and details from Experian.

 

Other than that, no connection!

 

But CCTV can pretend to be Jeff the Solicitor and that is all fine and dandy because he is a witness for the OFT case against Nine Regions Ltd t/a Log Book Loans?.........Hmmm don't get that rationale, never will.

 

Ho Hum.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[ims]

Hi hip hop, ok here goes, i had to hire an alternative vehicle for 8 weeks whilst lbl had mine, this cost me £100 per week, the total damages to my car are as follows

keys recode: £65.00

Recode pass: £25.00

NSR Hand brake cable : £34.99

Labour : £58.00

OSF wing painted, OSF door OSR door and OS quarter : £1050.00

Loss of earnings = 1week without any car £300.00

Loss of earnings on recovery : 7 weeks £1500

Proof of overpayment : £1000.00

Costs incurred court £ 600

 

This is only so far, the car they took has a hpi value of 3995 as of last night, hope this helps, what was the breakdown of costs/compensation on your case?

[ims]

£1200? Are Nine Regions still contesting that the amount paid to Log Book Loans Ltd by a family member, is still not being credited to your Nine regions account ?

 

Yes they are still saying that they are not log book loans ltd and therfore have no recolection of that money!

 

In the end, the judge determines if he wants you to proceed. Believe me, if he wants you both to settle, he will make directions so lengthy and so costly, that both sides will prefer to settle rather than proceed to trial!

 

this is true, the directions are lengthy and the whole process is going to be costly, honestly, at this stage, i have been told by the courts that we will still be in arguement in july next year and our next trial may be as late as august!!, guessing the judge wants a settlement then, and to be fair, ive had enough of all this and would like to put it to bed, however, i WILL NOT pay any more money to these bullies, if they were to offer similar to your case, i would take it, just as a matter of convenience, and to let my head have a break. The £24,000 the solicitor mentioned included his costs etc etc, that was the final figure lbl would pay in total, his costs, court costs, compensation, damages etc, it would be nice to get that much tho lol

[Hip_Hop]

It would appear, by my rough reckoning using your figures, that you are looking at gross c£3932.99?

I don't know how you justify 7 weeks of loss in earnings, on recovery, if you had an hire car in place, which you have already factored in to the equation?

 

No doubt, LBL will also deduct contested amount of £1200 if your solicitor is unable to make the legal argument that payment was made? That leaves c£2,700?

 

Out of curiosity, thought your family member paid £1200 by cheque and that the bank would be able to show evidence that said cheque was encashed?

 

I asked the car valuation, to use it as a bench mark i.e £3995 against a possible claim of £24,000? But seen in context, the car value now has no bearing, nor does the £24,000 figure that was stated in your previous posting as it would never get to that stage, without the judge coming down heavily on the party obstructing settlement, in order for legal costs to mount to that level.

 

Therefore, hopefully, commercial sense will prevail and you will get mutual agreement sooner rather than later.

 

Hopefully, your solicitor will negotiate that any settlement will also include an order as to costs?

 

Again, just my personal viewpoint given, with the usual caveats etc... In any event, let's hope you are able to get a quick resolution through your solicitor, so that you can get on with life and your future.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

 

Hi hip hop, ok here goes, i had to hire an alternative vehicle for 8 weeks whilst lbl had mine, this cost me £100 per week, the total damages to my car are as follows

keys recode: £65.00

Recode pass: £25.00

NSR Hand brake cable : £34.99

Labour : £58.00

OSF wing painted, OSF door OSR door and OS quarter : £1050.00

Loss of earnings = 1week without any car £300.00

Loss of earnings on recovery : 7 weeks £1500

Proof of overpayment : £1000.00

Costs incurred court £ 600

 

This is only so far, the car they took has a hpi value of 3995 as of last night, hope this helps, what was the breakdown of costs/compensation on your case?

Edited December 14, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity

[ims]

Hi hip hop, the hire vehicle i had was not aloud to tow, for insurance purposes, nor did it have a tow bar, so all the recovery work had to be sub contracted leaving me with loss of earnings etc, hope this clarifies.

 

We have the cheque reciept, but nine regions will not accept it as they say they are not log book loans ltd, that is the dispute they are making, saying that how would i have the information about log book loans ltd, my arguement is:

 

1) both companies have the same registered office

2) both companies trade under log book loans

3) both companies have the same directors

4) the hpi report on my car said log book loans ltd are the lenders

 

would you look through all the documentation to make sure you paid the right company, if infact, you contacted log book loans ltd for the loan, and taking into account the above, would you have any reason to doubt the company. Also the first and second repo team that visited my house both said they were working on behalf of log book loans ltd!

 

I think what has happened, is that the company directors have got a little confused over which company owns what, as some of the paperwork that was submitted to court had 3 different company names, all trading from the same offices, using the trading name log book loans, and claiming my account number!

 

i think that even them, and thier solicitor havent quiet noticed, all the points i have regarding thier paperwork.