logbook loans vs police

[Hip_Hop]

Hi Guys,

where a loan has been put on someone elses car and then removed.

 

As you know Nicky, I have recently taken an interest in reading your postings (there's a lot to read, spread out over a year back) and have trawled through your threads as I was interested in piecing together your case against LBL, I do love puzzles.

Please can clarify what you mean by "where a loan has been put on someone elses car and then removed." I can't find any reference in your threads to Log Book Loans removing the loan on the vehicle that they seized?

 

This case will be a very powerfull tool for the OFT case. Details will be published in January on the forum.

There are criminal charges from this case alone to come

 

I believe and have read on the forum (ST220 post from memory), that their appeal against OFT decision to revoke their consumer Credit Licence is being heard in early November, so your case may have no bearing in actuality, if they lose that appeal against the OFT's decision to revoke. Interestingly, what criminal charges are you referring to, I thought this was just a civil Litigation matter?

 

I assume that you are court fee exempt? I ask, as most of us would have given up by now because of the court costs as a Litigant in Person that we would have had to cough up over the months without reimbursement. Anyway, your case like mine is just two of no doubt plenty of cases pending against LBL/Nine Regions. That's why thier licence is up for revoking.

I don't think they see either you or I as a thorn in their side more just business as usual fodder to process as part of their unlawful seizure practices.

 

As always, just my penny's worth Nicky and like you I want companies like LBL/Nine REgions who trade unfairly and without ethics, to be stripped of their powers ASAP!

Edited October 28, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi,

 

I dont mean to be rude but you really dont know much about the Appeal hearing obviously. I have alot of dealings with the OFT over my case. Reasons I have to keep to myself. But please follow this link. You will see the hearing is only a directions hearing and is a long long way off the final judgment day.

www.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/RegisterFtT_ConsumerCredit_Oct10.pdf

[Nicky Bodmin]

Copy and past in the search bar

[Nicky Bodmin]

Well maybe Hip Hop if you paid more attention to my posts you will see that my car was stolen by this company. I never had a loan with them. The loan was put on my car years after I had bought it

[Nicky Bodmin]

Clive Wisemayer is an interesting choice of legal representation for the company.

 

In the preperation for trail of my case he has already been told by the courts to re file the defence this time correctly lol sorry but I cant help but laught at this. All the stuff I have heard about him It makes me wonder if this is just a part time job for a little extra spending money for his holidays

[Hip_Hop]

Hi,

 

I dont mean to be rude but you really dont know much about the Appeal hearing obviously. I have alot of dealings with the OFT over my case. Reasons I have to keep to myself. But please follow this link. You will see the hearing is only a directions hearing and is a long long way off the final judgment day.

www.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/RegisterFtT_ConsumerCredit_Oct10.pdf

 

Hi Nicky, there was nothing in your post that suggested that you were being rude. If there was, I missed it.

 

It appears though, that you may have misunderstood and thereby misinterpreted my post. Which is easily done if one just quickly peruses.

 

You are absolutely correct, I know nothing about the appeal hearing obviously, and that is why you will find nothing in my post that suggests I have any detailed facts or knowledge of the appeal. I never suggested or have I referred that I did in my post.

 

What I did refer to Nicky in my post, was st220's previous post, which I have copied and pasted immediately below for the avoidance of any doubt and for clarity.

 

For anyone that's interested, LBL have an appeal hearing scheduled for the 8th and 9th of November!!

 

I would have posted a link to the information, but my post count is too low.

 

So, as can be seen by all , who read ST220's posting above, There is nothing in the ST220's post or in my original post that supports your claim that I stated I know much (if sanything)about the details of the appeal hearing at all, far from it. ST220 knew more than me, by the virtue of his posting that revealed the hearing and the dates of the hearing which, is now the total knowledge that I have on the appeal hearing.

 

Nicky, if you want to add to his post that it is a directional hearing not a full hearing for the purpose of clarity than that is for you to decide and add, if you so wish.

 

I hope that clarifies matters as I don't want you to get the impression that I want anything more than the absolute overthrow of these commercial sharks and their unlawful practices. I am sure you will agree that anything that allows other caggers to have clarity on the forum is anything but helpful?

 

Finally, I find, when one is dealing with a multitude of threads from members, such as yourself, that are spread over such an extraordinarily long period and with somewhat slightly different legal positions and points made, that a question asked here or there for clarity purposes is no bad thing, is it?

That's the joy of public forums and debate-to expand knowledge and understanding for all?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity

[Hip_Hop]

Well maybe Hip Hop if you paid more attention to my posts you will see that my car was stolen by this company. I never had a loan with them. The loan was put on my car years after I had bought it

 

Now that might be considered rude by some Caggers Nicky but I will put it down to a simple misunderstanding of my rationale to your post and what you feel are my true intentions by adding my opine, to the thread in this public forum.

 

I thought I had paid attention to the multitude of posts that are assigned to you Nicky and maybe I have just misunderstood the legal case that you had made to date?

 

My understanding is that the case that the car was stolen hasn't as yet been made by you.The police at the time didn't accept that it had been stolen, my attention to your post would have revealed this pertinent information, if they had.

 

My understanding is that LBL have a Bill of Sale that they saw fit and proper to execute and consequently seized the car. The police agreed at the time that it was a Civil Litigation matter and allowed the car to be taken (your term stolen)

 

Additionally, the police do not appear from your postings to have apprehended the person who fraudently had a copy of your log book and secured fraudently a loan against the vehicle, but they may have a photograph of him?

 

So with respect Nicky, please can you clarify what more attention do I need to make or point have I missed in your postings that doesn't correlate with that view?

 

I appreciate that it is absolutely disgusting and grossly unfair that this firm is allowed to use archaic legal instruments to pick up cars that have been the subject of fraud. But unfortunately Nicky, the law isnt fair, contrary to what most people think.

 

It isn't about saying simply A stole property from B when A has a document that stipulates they entered into an agreement in good faith as did B (you) in your contract when you acquired the car in equally good faith.

 

No amount of shouting from the roof tops that they stole this or that, changes that fact, so please bear this in mind when reacting to other caggers input.

 

I am very mindful, that cases are won and lost in court on legal argument and legal probability, irrespective of fair or unfair dealings by the other party.

 

If everything was as clear and as defined in your case Nicky for it to be a simple case of, "my car was stolen", they, LBL wouldn't be able to mount any case at all. But as you and I both know, that isn't how the law works and they have.

 

So I really hope you make your case or the OFT if they are assisting you do, but please allow me to strip out the emotional elements and concentrate on the notional facts as described by you in your postings and not just your interpretation of what you think the law should rule on.

 

I hope that that qualifies my ample attention to your posts?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Hip_Hop

[Nicky Bodmin]

But I didnt buy the car with a loan on it. I had owned the car for 4 years out right then somebody decided to steal my logbook and do a loan

[Nicky Bodmin]

So what this case will do if it goes there way is tell the public that you can walk down any high street in the UK pick a car get the Logbook and pull a loan. And they will not only get away with that but the Company that gave the loan can also take the car. That I might add belongs to god knows who.

 

Cause that is what they will be allowing to happen

[Hip_Hop]

So what this case will do if it goes there way is tell the public that you can walk down any high street in the UK pick a car get the Logbook and pull a loan. And they will not only get away with that but the Company that gave the loan can also take the car. That I might add belongs to god knows who.

 

Cause that is what they will be allowing to happen

 

In a nutshell, if that is indeed the judgment than yes that is exactly what the strength of the legal argument against them would have resulted in.

 

The important factors to realise in this mess is that it is the judge that rules on the balance of the evidence and the case presented by both sides. There are no theys just the judge. And his judgment will be made unilaterally on the probability of that evidence proving a more persuasive legal argument than the other side. It is obvious from my other responses to your other threads that you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had true legal possession rather than LBL. Except that in your case it is unusual that someone could secure a sting like this without (it would appear) some complicit assistance?

 

Getting a loan from LBL, like that perpretrated by your fraudster would mean the stealing of a log book, (which is no easy thing). The possessor would also need access to the dashboard to read the mileage (Did have access to your keys too Nicky?)and as I have stated on your other thread, they would need to have insurance details that match the same address as the log book. There are with respect Nicky numerous anomolies that are not present in every day England and dont suggest as you have, that, LBL are able just to amble along down a high street and pick up any car they choose with access to these things.

 

So with respect, you really need to get the legal argument as strong as you can? Which is difficult to know from our humble position, how strong that is Nicky, without recourse to your legal argument.

 

So on that note, I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavours with this motley crew!And really hope that you are the benefactor of a judgment in your favour, when your opportunity presents itself

Edited October 28, 2010 by Hip_Hop
additional point

[ST220]

Just to clarify, I simply posted that LBL have an appeal hearing in November! Which they do. I appreciate it is only a directions hearing, but it's still an hearing.

 

Hope this clears it up!!

[OBWanBenoni]

Getting a loan from LBL, like that perpretrated by your fraudster would mean the stealing of a log book, (which is no easy thing). The possessor would also need access to the dashboard to read the mileage (Did have access to your keys too Nicky?)and as I have stated on your other thread, they would need to have insurance details that match the same address as the log book. There are with respect Nicky numerous anomolies that are not present in every day England and dont suggest as you have, that, LBL are able just to amble along down a high street and pick up any car they choose with access to these things.

 

 

No they don't.... My vehicle had 4 Bills of sale put on it after I purchased it. At no time were the loan company at my property, saw an MOT or a copy of an Insurnace document - let alone know what the mileage was. The loan companies are just handing out loans without seeing the vehicle or adhering to their own internal controls.

 

My court case is in early december - although the claimant hasn't submitted her witness statements by the deadline - not to sure what this means.

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi,

 

Well witness statements are what they will base the case around. Its the supporting evidence from the witnesses. I do know that if they dont file them before the hearing then they are not allowed to be relied on and you can ask for them to be not taken into account.

 

Who is the claimant if you dont mind me asking.

[Hip_Hop]

No they don't.... My vehicle had 4 Bills of sale put on it after I purchased it. At no time were the loan company at my property, saw an MOT or a copy of an Insurnace document - let alone know what the mileage was. The loan companies are just handing out loans without seeing the vehicle or adhering to their own internal controls.

 

My court case is in early december - although the claimant hasn't submitted her witness statements by the deadline - not to sure what this means.

 

Hi OBWanBenoni,

 

With respect, the spirit of my post was that ordinarily, it is not that easy to get a log book loan using a security if the borrower doesn't have access to the necessary documentation, like a valid looking V5C, a valid looking Insurance certificate with matching address and/or other documents like recent utilty and photo ID.

That is the normal requirements needed for satisfaction that the security (the vehicle) is possessed by the loan applicant and that it can have a valid BOS attached to the security and that the security has a book value of higher value than the total loan plus interet initially applied for.

 

These are the usual pre-requisites, generally before they agree to lend any money.

 

So, I was simply alluding to the fact, that it would be extremely difficult to back up Nicky's assertion that if she lost her case, that it would allow any Log Book loan company to simply walk down a High Street and arbitrarily put Bos's unilaterally on any vehicles as was being suggested in her Post, that's all.

 

I was just putting in to perspective, the real risks of such a thing like that happening.

 

My post obviously was a general one and didn't discount all the scenarios, but on reflection, maybe it should have had a general disclaimer like, "This post excludes those borrowers hell bent on commiting fraud" like the fraudster in Nicky B's case, where by all the means available to that person, he was able to obtain the necessary docs by foul means.

 

As you have now put the example of your case in the mix OB can I clarify a few things too, to put your case in its correct context?

 

How much was the original seller to you OB, party to/initiator of the subsequent BOS's/further loans, since selling?

 

It is difficult to know if either the borrower or the lender or indeed both were complicit in the fraud that took place after the original seller sold you the vehicle. Do you have any indication of the roles played by either party?

 

Obviously, your situation is definitely different to what most would expect as the norm, in the context of my original response.

 

So your previous postings confirm the original seller, had a history with the loan company and a pre-existing BOS attached to the vehicle?

 

You seem to be suggesting that fresh BOS's can not be made unless fresh sight of the security is established too, even though the borrower was an established customer?

 

Bear with me on this but if, (and it is only an if, as I am not sure of the ins and outs of the process), it isn't. Might that be the reason why no fresh sight of MOT/Isurance was needed? Did they still have in their possession a V5C?

 

You don't mention any reasons you might be aware of, why you were never approached for the outstanding loan in all the time you had the car, so I assume there were valid reasons but they are not revealed in your postings.

 

Interestingly, if the lady you sold to hadn't been approached to pay and she subsequently sold on, and that purchaser was approached, who in the chain would then be accountable? Off track I know but was just interested in if that hypothtical scenario did unfold who would be in the frame then?

 

You also don't say if the further BOS's that were granted were made out to the original seller or to another unidentified party?

 

You state, he claims that he fully discharged the original loan when you enquired so, does he have any involvement with your case now as a party to the loans or is he is appearing in any other capacity?

If not, are you not contemplating to claim against the original seller at some juncture?

 

Have you seen sight of any the BOS' following the original loan arrangements post the date that you acquired the vehicle?

 

Again, sorry for the 101 questions but think it is quite interesting to know these things so that they can be put into context for other Caggers who may be put in the same situation as yourself OB, and again to see your unique situation in relationship to my original reaction to NB's post.

 

Equally I know this isn't a game for you and would understand if you want to leave answering any question until after your own hearing, but just thought I would enquire anyway.

 

That aside, there is no doubt that your issues with a 3rd Party victim who made the unilateral decision to settle directly the outstanding loan claim and then to decide to file a claim to get it back from you, is unfortunate in the least.

So, I wish you well in your endeavors to put this to bed and to get on with life ASAP.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Hip_Hop
reconfigured for clarity