Logbook loans have lost their final appeal they are officiallly gone

[Hip_Hop]

They are not officially gone just yet.

For those who want clarity...........

 

Log Book Loans can seek permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) on the grounds that there has been an error of law. If the appeal period were to be extended in this way Log Book Loans would be able to trade under their licences until the end of the appeal period. Under section 34A of the Act they have been granted 6 months to wind down their operations if they do not wish to appeal.

 

Hip_Hop

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi guys

 

have you read the findings.

There are losts of stuff in it. One that I think is good is that they have not been allowed since 2009 October to take cars without a court order thats some thing I didnt know untill now.

Thats their main power been removed its shows the ref in sec 150 in the link below. LBL have been ignoring this because the sale of my car took place in and around this time.

 

http://www.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/CCA20090010_0011_logbook_loans_consumer_credit_judgment.pdf

[Nicky Bodmin]

This to most on here desperate for advice now have a company that have one strick guide line to follow.

 

They cant take a car because they feel like it or take it in any manner they please. Now they have to apply for a court order to remove a car.

 

This was set out when they had their licence revoked in Oct 2009. I feel this opens up alot of cases yet again.

 

I know for sure LBL have not complied with this specification set out by the OFT. Lets see how many come out of the wood work with cars that have been taken without a court order since 2009 Oct. LOADS

 

That was the one thing that makes LBL and companies a like so frightening was the fact they took cars under the BOS with no regaurd to their customers rights set out in the CCA.

[Louisa B]

So if they did take a vehicle without a court order, what can the keeper expect to get back?

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Well, Well, Well!!!

 

This is a fine day isn't it? Goes to show, that advert about the 'underdog' (personal injury advert - you know the one) makes an awful lot of sense : )

 

In my opinion, if LBL/NR can find any legal basis upon which to appeal - then they are above the law and i would definately have to take my hat off to them!!

 

If they do appeal - which is of course their 'right' - what are they actually inviting?

 

They will be inviting 000000's of consumers the necessary time needed to secure and successful claim damages - so, not a bad thing if they appeal hey?

 

Likewise if they do decide to shut up shop - then consumers need to act very quickly to get their claims in and those claims that are already in - need to be brought to a close as quickly as possible - because it will be another ball game trying to get what you are owed when a company effectively goes into administration.

 

Any talk of them setting up in another name is immaterial - consumers should by now know that if they smell a hint of any unfair play - the consumer should now have the confidence to refer the issue to the OFT and all other protective bodies without fail.

 

Likewise connection either close or far of companies setting up or applying for a consumer licence to lend to consumers on the LBL/NR business model, I can imagine would be closely monitored - the OFT would have no issue with taking them out of the picture - The financial Ombudsman/the police etc; should also now be aware that they have been 'played' by such dodgy companies and should now start to show more empathy towards consumers who genuinely wish to complain.

 

This is a long time coming.....and is greatly received.....!!!!

 

The important thing is to get the word out there - asap - there are still consumers posting who are unsure, confused, and being duped by this company and their associates - I do wish the OFT had the power to advertise a public message about this decision on national tv - to be aired 6 times a day for a month!!! wishful thinking eh?

 

Oh, and to all those Caggers copied into the email from the 'powers that be' - WELL DONE INDEED - WE DID IT!!!!! Yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaah

 

 

And to Julita - A Big Massive THANKYOU!!! - Whereever you are right now - just know we Miss ya and luv ya loads - your out of sight, but your dedication and drive and compassion for consumers rights will never ever be forgotten : )

 

Apple : )

[applecart]

So if they did take a vehicle without a court order, what can the keeper expect to get back?

 

In a nutshell......The lender should EXPECT the consumer to take the lender to court and the Consumer should be confident that he/she will get PAID!!

 

Apple : )

[applecart]

HI GUYS WE HAVE DONE IT PLEASE READ THE LINK

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/125-11

 

Hi Nicky

 

Hope you are well hun..?

 

Just wanted to have a bit of a giggle really...... have you seen the pleas of Mr Barnet (LBL/NR Director)in his written submissions giving his reasons for why they want more time?

 

What planet is this Company on?... just to add to that.... did you see where it said, they consider that the holding of a credit licence is more to do with the fact that they actually 'have' one, rather than the underlying ramifications of not adhereing to its regulatory force and effect - I really am beginning to believe that this Company truly has no idea at all, what the tribunal process is all about and how the outcome will and has effected their current existance and entire lifes and all those connected with them.........LOL

 

Appeals are ideally substantiated by legally based submissions to identify legal flaws that may have caused an adverse decision - which firm of Lawyers/Advisors is advising this Company? - they are being so led up the garden path, wasting time, what little money they have left for Shareholders - Thankfully the Judge advised them, that it is the interests of the consumer that comes first not their shareholders, their staff or them - Phew!!

 

ASP letters!!! criminal... The OFT have yet to decide if criminal action should be taken against the Directors of the Company for being aware of the practise and condoning the on-going activity..... If I was them, I'd take what money I can glean off what's left of my shares and hot tail it to Bermuda triangle...LOL..... because they surely will not allow them to get away with it!!!

 

party to Barnet's plea was that the 6mth winding up period was not enough time for them to.... and get this...

 

generate more new business!!!! LOL (NB: the 6mth extension is not available to the LBL side of the business only NR)

 

I don't mean to be disrespectful - but I have to say......They are mis-guided and Clueless, Totally Clueless!!

 

I'm going to put my 'chuckle bug' away now : )

 

This business of the abuse of consumers that made them £20 billion or was it Million has to stop!!! notwithstanding the abuse of the Appeals process - from which it is now clear, they are using to get more business - rather than, winding down the operation - for goodness sake LBL/NR your licence has been already been REVOKED - which part of the word REVOKED is not sinking in???

 

 

Have a pleasant day y'all

 

Apple

Edited November 25, 2011 by applecart
added more text

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Apple,

 

Well I have big problem I failed to win my case. God knows why because it was my car all along but they convinced the Judge that I was in on the fraud. I have lost £13 thousand including my car and now they are doing me for a furthur £15 costs. They are going for a charge on my house as we speak. I will end up on the streets. I never took a loan with them but a fraudster did and never made any payment.

 

Im on my knees now finished. How could this happen. I swear it was my car I had proof of purchase all MOT all tax disc from 2005 up to the date LBL took car.

 

They have totaly destroyed my life and I never heard of them till their balifs turned up

 

Every thing I have worked all my life for is on the line im totaly broken. Its just a matter of time now before im without business and a home all because of them.

[applecart]

 

Hi Nicky

 

OMG!!.... Don't take this the wrong way Hun, because I do empathise with what you have said.. it's an awful situation to find yourself in ..... but, if I remember, your case was always going to be a tough one....it would be hard even for the most exxperienced barrister to overcome the fact that you had a car, that an unknown person was able to come along and take out a loan against to the point that bailiffs were on your doorstep and you were totally unaware up to that point -

 

A Judge would have wanted to know how come you didn't respond to letters that must have come to your house to do with the unpaid monies? - why didn't you act sooner? etc etc??

 

A Judge would have had in mind the reactions of the average man on the street who found out as you did that some conman had charged their vehicle.... it is almost impossible to answer how come you didn't know; why you didn't react to letters - ie. return to sender, call the company, make a complaint, etc etc...

 

There is of course no easy answer to stop them from pursuing a charge on your home after a judgment has been givne to them - in the event that they do get a charge - you could of course, get the charge set aside in the event that you can produce new evidence?

 

Plus, if they do not appeal (which I fully expect them to do) then the upside would be that they are not able to persue any outstanding debts after a period of 6 months - this would help you and others who owe them money a great deal (the date will start from the end of 28 days or if they do appeal after the appeal hearing if they lose).

 

So, there is hope...... The OFT worked hard to get this plague called LBL/NR off consumers backs and as I understand it... then no outstanding debt can be claimed by them 6 mths after they either fail to appeal or lose any further appeal.....

 

Nicky, it's been a long time since I fought a charging order - but, from memory, you have to make application to have it set aside before it is charged to your home... it is a two step application for them - they have to apply to place a charge on your home - the Land Registry have to notify you - it is when you get that, that you have to apply to court to get it set aside and fight tooth and nail to ensure it doesn't happen - they can't force you to sell your home - if they are successful in getting the charge applied - they have to sit back and wait until such time as you sell your home - likewise, if they do not appeal, or lose any further appeal - then you know after 6 mths it may be worth looking into getting the charge removed on the ground that the chargee is out of business - all this depends on how they go about exiting the market of course as to how you play it... so, chin up.... it's not all doom and gloom - sure they got your car - it was a tough case for you never mind a barrister to win - but, you know what? you tried - and you played a big part in getting them to answer to the OFT - so, which one of you came out the victor? - Certainly it will not be LBL/NR..... Don't worry, they can't take your house hun... OK?

 

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Guys

 

I think as this information is in the public domain, it should be made available on the CAG for all to read:

 

"125/11 18 November 2011

The OFT has welcomed a Tribunal's decision to strike out appeals by the UK's biggest logbook loan businesses against the removal of their consumer credit licences.

The First-tier Tribunal's ruling to strike out the appeals of Nine Regions Limited ('NRL') and Log Book Loans Limited (together 'Log Book Loans') follows the OFT's original decision that Log Book Loans were unfit to hold consumer credit licences.

Logbook loans are secured on vehicles such as cars and motorbikes. If the borrower defaults, the loan company can seize the vehicle without going to court. Even after the vehicle is sold the borrower can still be pursued for any shortfall.

The OFT asked the Tribunal to strike out Log Book Loans' appeals because of evidence that emerged during the appeal hearing. Log Book Loans admitted that thousands of letters had been sent to borrowers in the name of a firm called Adams Spencer & Phillips (Legal Services) Limited ('ASP') falsely threatening to take legal action on behalf of NRL.

The First-tier Tribunal found that:

• the letters were sent to give borrowers a false impression that ASP was a body authorised to carry on activities as if it were a firm of solicitors, such as the conduct of litigation
  
• ASP actually had no employees and was not a body or individual duly authorised to bring legal action on behalf of NRL
  
• deceptive practices included that between September 2009 and April 2010, employees of NRL called customers pretending to be employees of ASP
  
• the ASP letters were part of a deliberate deceit
  
• the deception was played out, not simply in front of customers but also with third parties such as solicitors acting for borrowers, as well as the Financial Ombudsman Service.
  

David Fisher, Director of the OFT's Consumer Credit Group said:

'The OFT welcomes the Tribunal's decision to strike out the companies' appeals. The decision confirms our view that these companies are unfit to hold their consumer credit licences.

'Intentionally deceiving debtors as part of a debt collection policy is an extremely serious matter, which calls into question a licensee's fitness. We expect businesses licensed by the OFT to treat all their customers, including those in arrears, fairly and transparently.'

 

NOTES

1. A copy of the decision is on the First-tier Tribunal's website.
   
2. Log Book Loans can seek permission to appeal the decision of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) on the grounds that there has been an error of law. If the appeal period were to be extended in this way Log Book Loans would be able to trade under their licences until the end of the appeal period.
   
3. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires most businesses offering credit, lending money or involved in activities relating to credit or hire to be licensed by the OFT.
   

Apple

[applecart]

Hi Guys,

 

Here is all 54 pages of the findings and submissions etc from the decision to strike out the LBL/NR Appeal:

 

Apple

 

lbl case.pdf

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Apple,

 

In responseto your last post you raised a couple of points.

 

I didn’t have any paperwork sent to my house with ref the loan. The firsttime that I ever hear

Name LBL was inthe Jan 2009. The bailiffs came to repro my car.

The car was in the garage at thetime having a new engine fitted. It had been off road for a yr with no engine.It had been kept outside my house.

I contacted the borrower and wasthreatened if I reported him I would be in danger. He told me they couldn’t takethe car because of the cash just spent on it.

I called LBL and told them aboutmoney just spent and that I had an interest in the car. They agreed and askedif they could take my mob number just in case the borrower doesn’t pay thenthey would contact me.

I called a few more times afterthis but got no were.

Then in July they came and aggressivelyremoved my car.

Can you tell me if because of thethird party interest in the car they should have addressed this?

I yesterday read the OFT firsthearing were they set out their case

They OFT raised in their caseabout the execution of the BOS. I have set out below what happened on the BOSon my car. I feel after reading this that the BOS used to take my car was Voidif this is so I can still turn this around at Appeal.

I have read something that I would like your comments on

 

THIS IS THE LINK http://www.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/0006_LogBookLoansCCA20090010and11_PrelimDecision.pdf

 

 

FACTS OF THE BILL OF SALE ON MY CAR. but not bill ben though. LOL

 

THE FIRST ISSUES

 

The OFT raised The FIRST ISSUE in sec 4

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

1. The CA was signed by ie BILL (the rep for LBL) 11 Set 2008

2. The CA is signed by BEN (the borrower)

 

3. The Bill of Sale is also witness by BILL (the rep for LBL using the companyaddress) 11 Sept 2008

4. The Bill of sale is also signed by BEN (the borrower)

 

5. BILL also swears the Affidavit (this time using his home address) 15 sept2008

Two diff addresses used for BILL

 

Has this document been properly executed according to the act.

 

The OFT raised The FIRST ISSUE in sec 4

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed it in the FIRST ISSUE sec 90. 102 on

 

Can you please read for me and tell me if the above is void on this basis.

 

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

The OFT raised The SECOND ISSUE in sec 5.

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

all loan doc were signed in my car park he never went to any business premises

 

THIRD ISSUE

 

The OFT raised The THIRD ISSUE in sec 6

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

The affidavit was signed in Penzance on the 15th Sept 2008

 

The high court seal was stamped on the 16th September 2008

 

5. BILL also swears the Affidavit (this time using his home address) 15 Sept2008

Two diff addresses used for BILL

 

If what I am seeing here I don't have to prove I owned the car. The Bill ofSale is worthless.

There is also 2 BOS one the borrower had possession of and a totallydifferent one that was sworn and stamped in the High Courts.

 

Also the registration of the Bill of sale is questionable to.

 

The attestation of the Bill of Sale is my winner pleases advice.

[Dvs]

I have read through everything, but I am not sure where this leaves you if you currently hava LBL? Do you carry on paying? Can they still come and take your car from your drive? I can see it is very good news, but not sure where us current customers stand

[applecart]

Hi Apple,

 

 

 

In responseto your last post you raised a couple of points.

 

 

I didn’t have any paperwork sent to my house with ref the loan. The firsttime that I ever hear Name LBL was inthe Jan 2009. The bailiffs came to repro my car.

 

The car was in the garage at thetime having a new engine fitted. It had been off road for a yr with no engine.It had been kept outside my house.

 

I contacted the borrower and wasthreatened if I reported him I would be in danger. He told me they couldn’t takethe car because of the cash just spent on it.

 

Sounds like quite a nasty character - I would have reported the blighter to the police without hesitation -fraud is a criminal offence - you found him, could identify him and you allowed him to intimadate you - ..... I'm sure there is more to the situation than you can go into on an open forum ... and I would not encourage you to highlight the full circumstance at all and would never condone anyone doing so ........ but, on the face of it - it more sounds like you allowed him..... to advise you ......how to assist him get away with the fraud....... Things like this don't sit well with me, and I am a layperson - what say a Judge Nicky?

 

 

I called LBL and told them aboutmoney just spent and that I had an interest in the car. They agreed and askedif they could take my mob number just in case the borrower doesn’t pay thenthey would contact me.

 

LBL were possibly suspicious for why they wanted your contact number - but again, I speculate, you do not have to explain further -ok : )

 

I called a few more times afterthis but got no were.

 

Then in July they came and aggressivelyremoved my car.

 

Can you tell me if because of thethird party interest in the car they should have addressed this?

 

On this point Nicky...... Regardless of the circumstances of the case, LBL have no right to take ANY car without a court order (see my previous posts for the CCA reference that corralates to the BOS legislation to make this clear)(their is clear legislation, that is over and above the orbiter comments found in an appeal, so that if reference is made to it in the appeal, the law will back it up what ever the appeal says)

 

I yesterday read the OFT firsthearing were they set out their case

 

They OFT raised in their caseabout the execution of the BOS. I have set out below what happened on the BOSon my car. I feel after reading this that the BOS used to take my car was Voidif this is so I can still turn this around at Appeal.

 

I have read something that I would like your comments on

 

THIS IS THE LINK http://www.consumercreditappeals.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/decisions/0006_LogBookLoansCCA20090010and11_PrelimDecision.pdf

 

Yep... I've read it Nicky, makes very interesting reading too - given what LBL put customers through - so the content of your link clarifies without doubt a number of the issues/questions that have popped up on the forum time and time again.

 

FACTS OF THE BILL OF SALE ON MY CAR. but not bill ben though. LOL

 

I liked 'Bill and Ben' : )

 

THE FIRST ISSUES

 

The OFT raised The FIRST ISSUE in sec 4

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

1. The CA was signed by ie BILL (the rep for LBL) 11 Set 2008

2. The CA is signed by BEN (the borrower)

 

3. The Bill of Sale is also witness by BILL (the rep for LBL using the companyaddress) 11 Sept 2008

4. The Bill of sale is also signed by BEN (the borrower)

 

5. BILL also swears the Affidavit (this time using his home address) 15 sept2008

Two diff addresses used for BILL

 

Has this document been properly executed according to the act.

 

The OFT raised The FIRST ISSUE in sec 4

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed it in the FIRST ISSUE sec 90. 102 on

 

Can you please read for me and tell me if the above is void on this basis.

 

The Appeal Hearing answers this question at Paragraph 111 - it confirms what you have always said - the BOS is void if it is signed by the same 'underwriter' and gives constructive debate as to how they came to the conclusion.

 

If I was defending a BOS on this ground, I might be tempted to mention and provide the hearing date citation detail of the appeal hearing and copy and paste relevant parts of it - ie I would copy the question and then copy and paste the answer given by the Judge into my defence..... : )

 

Remember though - the BOS in your case is not in your name, neither is the CCA..... Due to the BOS being against your car - my thoughts on further consideration is that you may have a bone of contention that you can put before a judge here..... with the CCA - you are not party to it, you have no obligation to the lender under it - it has nothing to do with you - should you be able to show the BOS is void - then the reference to the BOS in the CCA will also be void........ likewise, this gives you grounds to have any charge they seek to make against your home set aside : )

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

The OFT raised The SECOND ISSUE in sec 5.

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

all loan doc were signed in my car park he never went to any business premises

 

LBL cannot claim the protections of the CCA that would be afforded them if the agreement was signed on their own premises - but, this has nothing to do with you - your name should not be on the CCA and hoepfully there is no 'close connection' that can be evidenced between you and the fraudster?

 

THIRD ISSUE

 

The OFT raised The THIRD ISSUE in sec 6

 

The Tribunal Judge addressed this in sec

 

The affidavit was signed in Penzance on the 15th Sept 2008

 

The high court seal was stamped on the 16th September 2008

 

5. BILL also swears the Affidavit (this time using his home address) 15 Sept2008

Two diff addresses used for BILL

 

The appeal dealt with whether LBL could rely that agreements signed off its own premises (i.e at cash converters or carparks etc - were to be considered 'their' premises - the answer was NO)

 

If what I am seeing here I don't have to prove I owned the car. The Bill ofSale is worthless.

 

On the Contrary, you do have to prove you owned the car, otherwise why would you be so concerned about what has happened to your car...... proving the BOS is worthless is armour to assist you show that not only did the fraudster take a loan against your car, but that the loan was secured against your car by way of a Bill of Sale, which on its face and the applicable Law was void from inception, so that ultimately with all that has happened to you, the BOS was 'worthless' to begin with - and on these grounds you want a 'declaration that the Bill of Sale is Void for (whatever reason/s you find it to be void on) and that the Lender, and that the court consider damages in your favour given the extent of your losses - namely: your car, monies, time etc etc.....'

 

BE careful not to 'go over old ground' try to simply make 'reference' to the previous case - i.e no need to restate all that has been said before - this is an appeal or a new case - keep focused and stick to the detail of the new evidence.

 

 

There is also 2 BOS one the borrower had possession of and a totallydifferent one that was sworn and stamped in the High Courts.

 

A copy should be given to the borrower by the lender with the official stamped copy being kept at the High Court.

i.e, the customers copy will not have the High Court Stamp on it - if the customer has a copy of one with the High court stamp on - and no copy without it (the original) then this suggests that the one copy that was ever signed was also the one copy that was sent to the High Court - thus leaving no copy with the borrower for consideration - such behaviour is not what the CCA condones. A borrower must be left with copies of any/all documents that are party to an agreement including the BOS prior to its registration.

 

Also the registration of the Bill of sale is questionable to.

 

 

The attestation of the Bill of Sale is my winner pleases advice.

 

Best if I say what I have found from the appeal decison here:

 

Is the BOS void if attested/executed by one person = YES (see paragraph 111)

 

Are the stores of Cash Converters etc considered to be premises belonging to NRL or LBL's = NO (see paragraph 155)

 

What date is the date that consumers should recognise as the registered date of the BOS at the High Court of Justice? = the date of the stamp by the High Court (see Paragraph 173)

 

If you get a text promoting a loan - is it an advert seeking to solicit business = YES (see Paragraph 212)

[applecart]

I have read through everything, but I am not sure where this leaves you if you currently hava LBL? Do you carry on paying? Can they still come and take your car from your drive? I can see it is very good news, but not sure where us current customers stand

 

Hi Ya

 

I certainly understand where you are coming from with this question, Like many consumers who still have outstanding loans with LBL - the question is on everyones lips.....

 

Ethically, unless there is a dispute with the lender over a bonafide issue - one must maintain payments in any event (said tongue in cheek and wry smile....)

 

yes, they can still take your car, especially when consumers default, LBL don't hesitate to steam in to take a car.... and yes, they will take it off your own personal driveway, outside morrisons, outside your place of work, off the moon if they were told that that is where it is being kept - all of course would be illegal without the order of a court - but they don't bother with court orders, they just deal with getting the money in by any means necessary - so this is why defaulting consumers, from what I have read, tend to hide their cars ....... so that they get chance to deal with the default via legal means without the lender taking the law into its own hands.

 

It is good news!! don't under estimate the work of a number of consumers and the OFT in getting this positive outcome todate which will/should benefit consumers long term.

 

The main benefit is that if Nine Regions do not appeal again - then they can only collect outstanding debts for the next 6 mths - there is a provision for them after that time where they can employ the services of a licenced Debt Collection Agent to collect in any monies that they have been unable to collect after that period, they cannot collect it themselves.....

 

This was not something that was made available for loans owned by Log Book Loans - which means that LBL at all times must use a licenced debt collection agent if there is no appeal within 28 days of the decision....

 

The countdown started last week........

 

But if they do appeal - which is what they have shown is a tendancy of theirs - they know they will buy more time, more time to abuse consumers and their rights.... I know what I would do if I had a loan with them right now and found out that they appealed yet again!!!!......

 

 

Apple

[Dvs]

I think we can safely assume that they will appeal as whilst they are trading like they are they are making lots of money. I thi k they will also start being a lot more ruthless in taking people's cars as soon there will be no company to sue for wrongfully taking the veichles without a court order.

 

What would you do if you had a LBL and they do appeal then AC?

 

Hi Ya

 

I certainly understand where you are coming from with this question, Like many consumers who still have outstanding loans with LBL - the question is on everyones lips.....

 

Ethically, unless there is a dispute with the lender over a bonafide issue - one must maintain payments in any event (said tongue in cheek and wry smile....)

 

yes, they can still take your car, especially when consumers default, LBL don't hesitate to steam in to take a car.... and yes, they will take it off your own personal driveway, outside morrisons, outside your place of work, off the moon if they were told that that is where it is being kept - all of course would be illegal without the order of a court - but they don't bother with court orders, they just deal with getting the money in by any means necessary - so this is why defaulting consumers, from what I have read, tend to hide their cars ....... so that they get chance to deal with the default via legal means without the lender taking the law into its own hands.

 

It is good news!! don't under estimate the work of a number of consumers and the OFT in getting this positive outcome todate which will/should benefit consumers long term.

 

The main benefit is that if Nine Regions do not appeal again - then they can only collect outstanding debts for the next 6 mths - there is a provision for them after that time where they can employ the services of a licenced Debt Collection Agent to collect in any monies that they have been unable to collect after that period, they cannot collect it themselves.....

 

This was not something that was made available for loans owned by Log Book Loans - which means that LBL at all times must use a licenced debt collection agent if there is no appeal within 28 days of the decision....

 

The countdown started last week........

 

But if they do appeal - which is what they have shown is a tendancy of theirs - they know they will buy more time, more time to abuse consumers and their rights.... I know what I would do if I had a loan with them right now and found out that they appealed yet again!!!!......

 

 

Apple

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Apple,

 

So there is a glimmer of hope here.

 

Firstly there was no court order to remove my car. There was no levie on the car. I didnt see any warrent to remove the goods. Nothing

 

Second withy ref the number of bills of sale. The signatures and how they were filled out make 2 different documents. The copy left with the borrower was not the copy that was stamped in the High Courts it is totaly different signature even the rep signature is written differently. In fact between the CA and BOS documents I have on file 3 different borrower signatures. This in itself nis wrong

[applecart]

Hi Apple,

 

So there is a glimmer of hope here.

 

I agree, there is a 'glimmer' - whether you win or not will depend on how you 'deliver' that 'glimmer' so that it sparkles in your favor this time around

Firstly there was no court order to remove my car. There was no levie on the car. I didnt see any warrent to remove the goods. Nothing

 

Check - no court order - breach of CCA & BOS 1878/amended version; Check - no levy, meant no time to address the issue prior to the removal of the car - Check mate - no warrant to remove car... same as no court order = conversion of 'nothing' to 'something in your favor' if you handle it correctly

 

Second withy ref the number of bills of sale. The signatures and how they were filled out make 2 different documents. The copy left with the borrower was not the copy that was stamped in the High Courts it is totaly different signature even the rep signature is written differently. In fact between the CA and BOS documents I have on file 3 different borrower signatures. This in itself nis wrong

 

It is lawful to leave a 'un-stamped' copy with the borrower, prior to sending a 'un-stamped' copy to the HCJ for registration, so that the borrowers official copy bears NO HCJ stamp and the one at HCJ has a stamp (hope this makes sense? think in terms of 'pre-contract' information being levied on the borrower, and copies of executed agreement and bos to be left with the customer)

If you find the one stamped by the HCJ has a different signature - it may be that the bos sent to HCJ for registration was not executed by the 'underwriter' - but done so that the Company has the bos in it's own name - not the 'underwriter'..... it would seem that as LBL have been going along in thier business, they have seemingly sought to correct (in their own way) the errors of their admin practises (given that their well used and reliance on the case law in 'pearce' has been found to be of no use to them afterall)

You may be right there Nicky, but check and double check that you validate the position on your thinking with the signature on the CCA and understand why it may be so, before you get into a court battle with them on this - ok simply because, I havent checked this lately, so I would need to look into it to confirm my thoughts on what you say here.

 

It's always best to cross and re-check everything you intend to rely on - so that when you go to court there is no way that thier defence team undermined you and what must be your facts.

 

But essentially, I think your on the right track - but on the day, you know and I know, if you are not 100% confident of what you know - then this can be your un-doing : (

 

You simply cannot afford them to overcome your knowledge the next time round..... be strong, be confident (based on knowledge) and once you are sure - go get em : )

 

Apple

[applecart]

I think we can safely assume that they will appeal as whilst they are trading like they are they are making lots of money. I thi k they will also start being a lot more ruthless in taking people's cars as soon there will be no company to sue for wrongfully taking the veichles without a court order.

 

What would you do if you had a LBL and they do appeal then AC?

 

Hi Ya

 

I've learnt over the time that I have posted on the forum - that there are somethings best left 'un-said', or 'un-stated',... in favor of caggers either reading between the lines or coming to their own conclusions : )

 

But, once you 'read between the lines' there is no disputing what AC would do : )

 

Apple

[andy5263]

If we had our LBL after October 2009 and our car was repossessed without a court order as repo men quoted BOS meant court order is unnecessary can we get our car back.

 

My wife took out the loan due to problems with the assessment of her university grant thus we needed the money to pay off mortgage arrears. We couldn't manage to make payments to LBL as the grant situation was/is still not resolved.

 

Interesting that I ended up on this thread because I've seen the car for sale at a local garage after it has been sold at auction. We still have the original V5c and a set of keys. Must admit I'm quite tempted to go and repossess the car myself but have resisted.

 

What course of action do we have now???

[sillygirl1]

Contact your local Trading Standards and explain the situation, that the garage and the auction house are 'colluding' in selling property that they have no title to. That should kick start the action you need. Can't help any further than advise that.

[andy5263]

Many thanks will get my other half to do this tomorrow as loan and car is in her name and have to check with her first before going in like the proverbial bull in a china shop

[andy5263]

Does log book loans have anything to do with hillesden securities. We have just received a letter from aplins solicitors for an amount suspiciously like that owed to log book loans. Assume they are trying to collect as much debt as possible before the appeal just in case it goes tits up. What recourse do we have to this. They are threatening bailiffs. Can they do this or is it scare tactics as it will have to go through the courts. Is BOS enforceable in this manner or does the matter have to go through the county courts first?

 

Contact your local Trading Standards and explain the situation, that the garage and the auction house are 'colluding' in selling property that they have no title to. That should kick start the action you need. Can't help any further than advise that.

[applecart]

Does log book loans have anything to do with hillesden securities. We have just received a letter from aplins solicitors for an amount suspiciously like that owed to log book loans. Assume they are trying to collect as much debt as possible before the appeal just in case it goes tits up. What recourse do we have to this. They are threatening bailiffs. Can they do this or is it scare tactics as it will have to go through the courts. Is BOS enforceable in this manner or does the matter have to go through the county courts first?

 

Hi Ya

 

Looks like Nine Regions (t/a Log Book Loans) have sold the debts onto Hillesden Securities.

 

Hillesden Securities Ltd are licenced by the OFT to debt collect etc:

 

see their licence details here:

 

Application / Licence Details

 

 

 

 

Licence Number:0100058

Licence Status:Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

 

Business NameCompany Registration NumberHillesden Securities Limited1418063

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit Consumer hire Credit brokerage Debt administration Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises:No

 

 

Trading Name(s) (Current):

 

Direct Legal & Collections DLC Hillesden Finance Hillesden Leasing

 

Trading Name(s) (Historic):

 

Maldon Leasing Wayborn Leasing Rayment Leasing

 

Issued Date: 17-Jun-1980

Date Maintenance Payment Due: 11-Oct-2015

 

 

Legal Formation:

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

 

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

NamePositionAnthony Edward Locke Ian James Faccenda Robin Michael Faccenda Stephen Orlando Grima Susan Faccenda

 

Historic Individuals that run the organisation:

 

NamePositionMr Alan Kenneth MazdonOFFICERMr Richard Arthur LambertOFFICERMr Robin Michael FaccendaOFFICERMs Susan FaccendaOFFICER

 

Nature of Business:

 

Debt Adjusting Other

 

Current Address(es):

 

Address TypeAddressCorrespondenceDirect Legal & Collections, Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DN, UKPrincipal Place Of BusinessDirect Legal & Collections, Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DN, UKRegistered OfficeWillow Road, BRACKLEY, Northamptonshire, NN13 7EX, United Kingdom

 

Historic Address(es):

 

Address TypeAddressCorrespondence., Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DNCorrespondence., Buckingham Road, Buckley, Northants, NN13 5DNCorrespondenceDirect Legal & Collections , Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DNPrincipal Place Of BusinessBuckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 5EXPrincipal Place Of BusinessDirect Legal & Collections, ., Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DNPrincipal Place Of BusinessDirect Legal & Collections, Buckingham Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7DNPrincipal Place Of BusinessWillow Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 5HBRegistered Office., Willow Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 7EXRegistered OfficeDirect Legal & Collections, Buckingham Road, BRACKLEY, Northamptonshire, NN13 7DN, United KingdomRegistered OfficeWillow Road, Brackley, Northants, NN13 5HB

 

 

 

Hillesden have taken on a massive headache in my opinion - do they really think that a 'pink card' is Notice of Assignment?

 

Lets assume that all debts were created legally and remain enforceable for a moment .............Do Hillesden realise the gravity of the protections available to consumers whose loans were/are secured by a chattel (vehicle) - and registered as such at The High Court of Justice.......and I might add - NOT IN THEIR NAME.....Do they realise the gravity of the protections available to consumers where the Credit Agreement is also NOT IN THEIR NAME....

 

I can assure Hillesden that their 'little pink cards' go no where near the requirements bestowed upon them under the current Law.....to legally chase and take possession of any debtors vehicle or to chase any debt.

 

Let me advise you all - At the point that Hillesden passed the money to NR without prior notice to any debtor..... the money owed by all debtors and the securities for the monies was all extinguished - gone!!

 

Thanks Hillesden : ) - in essence - All debtors need to do is contact The High Court of Justice with proof that Hillesden have very kindly discharged the debt and released the security held with them - being the vehicle.

 

It may be that Hillesden were at all times the owner of the debts - looking at their records at Companies House, they do show a 395 notice - I wonder if they owned the debts since then????

 

It would be interesting to see if Hillesden attempts to take any debtor to court - LOL.... if this happens to any consumer - Please, Please let me know at the first instance, I have so much in store for them : )

 

In the meantime, debtors should stay vigilant - it may be we end up taking Hillesden to the OFT - I understand their practises are just as draconian as NR/LBL....

[applecart]

In direct answer to your post...

 

Write back to the firm of solicitors advising them that you do not recognise the said company or debt ( this being on the understanding that unless they can catergorically prove that said amounts are your liability - then they should sling their hook : )

 

Try this draft letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I write in response to your recent communcation dated [insert date] received on the [date].

 

It is with the utmost respect that I advise that I owe no such debt as mentioned.

 

I truly assume that you have unwittingly sent this communication to me in error and

therefore feel duty bound to advise you of same.

 

I trust that you will amend your records accordingly.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

[sign]

 

 

Send it recorded delivery and keep a copy on a file

 

Apple : )