Log Book Loans

[anon2]

Hi there

I have a loan with said company and am a little concerned that they have registered an interest in my car with HPI.

I contacted HPI today and they told me that the agreement I have with Log Book Loans is classed as a 'lease' and not a personal loan.

I need some help to have their interest in my car removed as it is not Hire Purchase.

Is anyone familiar with this process, and can anyone help?

Many Thanks

Andrew.

[Boobaby]

As stated on another thread did HPI give you some advice on how to go about this, failing that try CAB they may be able to help.
Boo

[anon2]

Originally Posted by Boobaby

As stated on another thread did HPI give you some advice on how to go about this, failing that try CAB they may be able to help.
Boo

LOL HPI advised me to contact LBL and inform them of their error! - not going to waste my time. Going away with work tonight, will sort out on my return.

[buzby]

HPI's Regiister is multi-faceted, it does not simply list those vehicles that had an HP contract taken out on them. DVLA never seem to be interested in resolving complaints about the HPI flag, and refer all complaints to them. In my case, I completed an HP agreement yet the bank is still showing as having an interest.

[DoubleCheese]

As I mentioned in another post, I believe its meant to be a flag to show other financial institutions of their interest in a particilar vehicle. Can you imagine the nightmare of buying a vehicle then realising that it had finance on it and it was not recorded, or worse still that you couldn't even check!?

[buzby]

Nightmare? Who for? I've always found it unusual that I'm expected to pay up to £50 to a profit-making body for a report that may not even be legally binding, that someone else had a financial interest in a vehicle. This information should be publically available as part of the V5, so that I can have all relevant documentation to hand at the point of sale to permit me to make an informed choice on the purchase.

As I understand it, if a potential owner in Scotland makes such a purchase and it is later found that the goods were not the seller's to sell - PROVIDING the purchaser bought it in good faith, it cannot be recovered by the beneficial owner - they have to look towards their customer. No me, that's an equitible solution and offers a greater level of protection that seems unknown in E&W.

[Bigbear733]

Hi Everyone

I have a way to get back at Log Book Loans (“LBL”) and Mobile Money (“MM”). I assure you, this will work - I am a lawyer.

I have read the various threads with some horror at the tactics used by LBL and MM and this is my reason for posting.

Unfortunately, first some bad new – the loans they issue, and the way they secure their interest over a vehicle, via a Bill of Sale (“BOS”), is completely legal, if they follow the correct procedure. I have reviewed a LBL case and they seem to be doing everything correctly; I have not looked a MM, but I would presume they are also following the correct procedure. Furthermore, despite some posts that suggest the contrary, they can take possession of goods which are secured by way of a BOS without a court order.

Sorry, it gets worse before it gets better – if you are unfortunate enough to purchase a vehicle which has a chattel mortgage (what the BOS effectively creates) attached to it then, even though you are an innocent party, the vehicle can still legally be taken off you without a court order.

I am surprised that I have seen another lawyer in a press article suggest that this is illegal – he referrers to innocent parties purchasing vehicles with outstanding hire purchase (“HP”) agreements and, what he refers to as “other loans” (although he does not elaborate on what other loans are), and states that the an innocent purchaser obtain the goods with good legal tile. He is completely correct in relation to HP agreements as s27 Hire Purchase Act 1964, as substituted by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, provides that an innocent purchaser without notice (ie in non legal speak - a private individual who buys something not knowing that the item was subject to a HP agreement) takes the goods purchased with good legal title. However, there is no such provision for security taken by way of a BOS. In fact, the common law position was amended by s27 and a good analogy to explain why the law works this way is to consider stolen property. If your car was stolen and sold to an innocent party do you think that if the police managed to locate the vehicle you should not be able to re-claim the car – obviously I would think most of you would think that if something is stolen from you then you can take it back once located – and this is exactly the legal position. The general rule in law is that someone can only give good legal title if they themselves posses it, and, unless there is some legislative exception, this rules applies to the sale and purchase of all chattels (in simple terms, chattels is legal speak for property which is not land and buildings – sorry if I sound patronising but I know there are some reader who are not as legally conversant as other and I just want them to understand what I am saying).

I have read a number of other posts that incorrectly state the law and give false hope but I don’t have the time to deal with each issue raised.

Unfortunately, in my opinion it will be very difficult to legally challenge LGL or MM based on the BOS.

However, now for the good news. To operate within the law lenders require a consumer credit licence. This is issued by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) and recent legislative changes have given the OFT significantly more discretion and powers in who to issue consumer credit licences to and, where appropriate, to revoke such licences.

My proposal is that we work together to get the consumer credit licences of LBL and MM removed and this is how to do it:

The law in relation to credit advertising was changed recently by the Consumer Credit (Advertising) Regulation 2004 (the “Regulations”). I will not bore you with the details but the OFT have issued guidance to lenders on the interpretation of these regulations. Basically a lender must publish a typical APR where, amongst other things, they offer credit to people with a poor credit history or where they offer an incentive.

The OFT have stated that terms such as “No Credit Checks” or “Super Fast Loans”, or similar, will trigger the requirements to publish a typical APR. See para 8.16 of the following guidance: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft746.pdf

I have seen advertisement placed by both MM and LBL that contravene the Regulations by not stating a typical APR. I saw one today – they are not difficult to find.

This is what I propose that everyone does – look out for MM and LBL adverts. If they say anything like “fast loans”, “no credit checks”, “CCJ’s - no problem”, “Cash Loans within 30 minutes” etc then they must quote a typical APR. If they don’t then they have broken the law.

Report every breach of these regulations to your local trading standards (a letter or e-mail is best, but phone if you don’t have time). If enough complaints are received then the OFT will have to consider revoking their consumer credit licences. What’s even better, the directors of LBL and MM will face criminal prosecutions and convictions as breaching the Regulations is actually a criminal offence.

If enough people take action, as I have suggested, then LBL and MM will lose their consumer credit licences and this will stop them trading – in short, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

I hope this has been helpful and I wish you all luck.

[buzby]

What you've described (the LBL claim of title) is certainly true for E&W, and a purchaser would have a fight to prove that his title claim had merit, the Law in Scotland is quite clear. Providing there was nothing suspicious that would alert the subsequent purchaser that his transaction was 'too good to be true', his claim of title would be valid and take precedence. LBL would have to pursue the original purchaser for the cost.

[Joa]

Log Book Loans and Mobile Money

[Bigbear733]

buzby - sorry, I was only commenting on English law - I am not qualified to comment on Scottish law.

[lindyloo39]

Hi
Can any one out there give me some advice? I took out a loan with lbloans over a year ago - £1000 - I have paid back over £2000, but now they are saying i owe more due to interest. The problem is I thought the loan was completed in November 2007, and in February 2008 i had the car scrapped because it failed its mot and was too much too repair, therefore I no longer have the car. Can log book loans still come after me? PLEASEEEEEE HELP. They are now sending out 'heavies' and threatening my neighbours.

[buzby]

Well, the problem here is in what you thought - WAS the loan completed in November 2007? If it was, them you can challenge them. If you were wrong, then what has happened to the car is immaterial to their claim against you. Interest will be applied to any overdue balance until the debt is cleared, and as a sub-prime lender, they make their money on the higher levels of interest they charge for their loans and 'enforcement' that a typical 'high street' lender. As for 'threatening your neighbours' what do you mean? Asking them of your whereabouts?

[lindyloo39]

Originally Posted by buzby

Well, the problem here is in what you thought - WAS the loan completed in November 2007? If it was, them you can challenge them. If you were wrong, then what has happened to the car is immaterial to their claim against you. Interest will be applied to any overdue balance until the debt is cleared, and as a sub-prime lender, they make their money on the higher levels of interest they charge for their loans and 'enforcement' that a typical 'high street' lender. As for 'threatening your neighbours' what do you mean? Asking them of your whereabouts?

yes the loan was completed at the end of November but from somewhere they say there is now interest on top. Re: my neighbours, the 2 heavies that last came said when they come back again they will threaten my neighbour just to embarrass us, surely they cant do this. They know where we are but because my husband isnt intimidated by them, they said "well maybe your neighbours will be".

[buzby]

Interest can only be added if you were late with payments during the duration of the loan, and these have simply 'rolled up' and they want payment of this after the initial term concludes. However it is not right for them to lett the monthly payments continue without you being given a statement showing what they say is owed and you a chance to verify that their figures are correct. If you feel you are being intimidated, say you'll phone the police, and DO it if you are threatened, as for them harassing a neighbour for your debt? It's totally illogical.

Ask for a statement of account and go through it carefully - if they don;t give you one, say you have no indention of dealing with them until they do. Even if they hand one over, you want a day or so to review it and check your own payment records. If you have missed payment dates, they they are on stronger ground to recover their money, but if not, stand your ground.

[Fleeced73]

Lindy, did these 'heavies' identify themselves? What company do they work for?

[lindyloo39]

Yes, I think they said their companies name was Armstrong recoveries, they said they were from Manchester

[myusername]

logbookloans does not sound like a good idea to me

[Fleeced73]

Armstrong is a new name in the LBL sage, try and find what the 'bailiffs' (they aren't that actually) are called