Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Howler, I agree with everything dx and Manxman have said. You can do this, please don't let them win.   HB
    • Hi I have received a letter from Tesco stating they will no longer reply to me regards this matter. Even though ICO have raised concerns. Please help with where I should go now. 
    • Howler - don't get pissed off.  Look at it as a game.   If I remember correctly they threatened you with having a charge put on your wife's property - which you and your wife successfully got them to back down on and you got a written apology from the chief officer(?) of the Legal Aid service.   Now they've assessed your income and outgoings and have passed it onto debt collectors without any reference back to you and without giving you an opportunity to challenge their findings.  I'd be complaining to the Legal Aid service again that that is unfair and wrong.   I know you've recently had bad news in that you've been diagnosed with some sort of brain problem (sorry - don't know how else to put it) and your wife is not well, so all this is the last thing you want, but in the overall scheme of things, it is only money.   They say you owe them, what, about £106k?  Can you afford to pay it - NO!  What can they do about it?  Sue you - so what...  nobody dies from being sued.  Get on with your lives and you and your wife enjoy yourselves.   And remember, London1971 and dx100uk reckon you should be claiming back the money you've already paid them   Just don't get depressed or down about it.  It's simply not worth it.  Even if you lose it isn't worth worrying about and making your self (and your wife) more ill.   When (or rather IF) you get an actual court claim - come back.   (It's a bit like that old saying.  You owe the Legal Aid service £1000 - that's your problem.  You owe them £100k and can't pay it - that's their problem!)
    • Hi.   I agree with Dave on which way to go with this. I know you're new to all of it but it's worth more research to see how PPCs behave, if NCP have made any errors and so on.   HB
    • Well, it's up to you, but I would consider two things.   1.  If you wanted to give in, the time to give in would have been at the start.  They're now suing you and if you pay now you'll have to pay their costs, and if it goes to a court case and you lose you'll have to pay their costs, so in a sense you might as well continue the fight.   2.  Although you were "in the wrong", it's perfectly possible that NCP don't have planning permission or sent out their demand too late, or will simply discontinue if you put in a robust Witness Statement.   Meanwhile I've tweaked the defence a bit, see if others agree or disagree.   1.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.   2.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.   3.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability.   4.  I believe that the claimant did not obtain planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.   5.  The Defendant has added additional amounts to the claim to try to circumvent limits on legal costs in an abuse of court procedure.  
  • Our picks

Ex parte injunction against log book loans - and you can do it too


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2620 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have received help from this site, so this is for the people who have had their car taken and it is still within the 5-7 days before lbl sell it.

 

Firstly, I'm a moron for getting a log book loan. We know that - so lets move on quicly.

 

They took my car Wed 3 March from outside my house. It was the usual - they had clamped it and if I didn't hand over the keys, I would be liable, they said, for the towing costs. So no car, they wanted £1,800 and said they would sell the car in five days if I didn't pay.

 

I decided to go to court for an ex parte injunction and it went like this:

 

Fill out an N1 claim form, the brief details of the claim being for "the return to the claimant of the vehicle taken from his/her possession on DATE by repossession agents acting for the defendant".

3 Copies

 

Fill out an N16A -General form for injunction. This is a one page form where you ask the court that the defendant "be forbidden from selling, auctioning or otherwise disposing of the vehicle currently in its possession and return it to the claimant.

3 copies

 

Witness statement - your own, no need for exhibits yet.

3 copies

 

Go to the local court at 10am (before the judges start their normal lists) and say you have an ex parte injunction application. This costs £150, or if you are on benefits you are exempt (take evidence).

 

Wait until a judge has time to hear the injunction.

 

In my case, it took 5 minutes for the judge to decide to grant an injunction order to forbid lbl from disposing of the car and they have to come back to court with a defence etc.

 

I think it is important to be able to stop the sale of the vehicle, and get a proper hearing.

 

The "agent" who picked up my car was not licenced by the Security Industry Authority, which I think you have to be in order to immobilise and take cars.

 

I can give more information on detail if required.

 

In addition, with regard to the lbl documentation, ie, Bill of Sale and Contract, on 18 February the OFT (go to OFT website and search lbl) issued a report on their concerns about the Bill of Sale wording, etc. This is very useful for the court action.

 

 

Frustrated.

Edited by frustrated46
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well Done mate!

More work for poor Mr Wismayer to defend...

Their reputation now goes before them within the courts of the UK believe me...

 

Question is: will they take any notice of the injunction because they have been known to ignore such 'trivialities'

Edited by Fleeced73
Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, the judge added a penal notice, which includes the words "If you do not obey this order you will be guilty of comtempt of court and you may be sent to prison".

 

They are apparently sending a barrister this morning to court. Wish me luck!!

 

Frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best of luck frustrated - let us know how you get on :)

jaxads

 

Halifax - £2281, successfully refunded all charges after LBA letter & telephone call.

Have been offered the difference between the £20 and £12 charges from Capital One -- am sending LBA for remainder.

GE Money - Received settlement of £441, being total charges requested. No interest though.

CCA'd Bank of Scotland / Blair Oliver Scott to produce CCA Agreements on two Credit Cards - well in default, although still chasing payment!!!

EOS Solutions "ceased action on account" on behalf of a friend.

 

All in all, quite busy at the moment and enjoying every minute of it
:eek:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've ignored those before too! :shock:

 

 

Er, the judge added a penal notice, which includes the words "If you do not obey this order you will be guilty of comtempt of court and you may be sent to prison".

 

They are apparently sending a barrister this morning to court. Wish me luck!!

 

Frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, just got back from court.

 

Llb sent a barrister and solicitor. Their goal was: 1 - to get the injunction lifted so that they could sell my car. 2 - to get costs awarded to them for the failed injunction. This would have meant I owed them for the loan against the car that I didn't have, and about £5k legal costs.

 

Well, it didn't go well for them. I did not get the car back today, but the injunction forbidding lbl from disposing of it remains in place until a full trial of the issues. They were also refused their costs.

 

The judge was very interested in the OFT report about the unfair consumer terms in the Bill of Sale. At the half day hearing there will be a full discussion of lbl's methods of collection and their contracts.

 

So, it turns out that it is possible to stop these people in their tracks from selling the vehicle before getting a proper hearing.

 

Frustrated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Frustrated -- well done today :D

 

When are you back in court with the dreaded LBL??

 

We'll all be around offering as much help and support as possible for you.

jaxads

 

Halifax - £2281, successfully refunded all charges after LBA letter & telephone call.

Have been offered the difference between the £20 and £12 charges from Capital One -- am sending LBA for remainder.

GE Money - Received settlement of £441, being total charges requested. No interest though.

CCA'd Bank of Scotland / Blair Oliver Scott to produce CCA Agreements on two Credit Cards - well in default, although still chasing payment!!!

EOS Solutions "ceased action on account" on behalf of a friend.

 

All in all, quite busy at the moment and enjoying every minute of it
:eek:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, just got back from court.

 

Llb sent a barrister and solicitor. Their goal was: 1 - to get the injunction lifted so that they could sell my car. 2 - to get costs awarded to them for the failed injunction. This would have meant I owed them for the loan against the car that I didn't have, and about £5k legal costs.

 

Well, it didn't go well for them. I did not get the car back today, but the injunction forbidding lbl from disposing of it remains in place until a full trial of the issues. They were also refused their costs.

 

The judge was very interested in the OFT report about the unfair consumer terms in the Bill of Sale. At the half day hearing there will be a full discussion of lbl's methods of collection and their contracts.

 

So, it turns out that it is possible to stop these people in their tracks from selling the vehicle before getting a proper hearing.

 

Frustrated

 

Well done as Fleeced says more work for Wismayer's ..........Incidentally you could introduce witnesses as to their collection practices by asking other victims to make statements & if necessary attend court to give evidence & be cross examined. There may be a few willing to do so:-D

 

If you do you may have to seek permission to amend your PoC but being a LiP you could try to do that at the commencement of the next hearing

Link to post
Share on other sites

& even they aren't required to give evidence it wouldn't be a bad idea if some could attend anyway just to show moral support......& the interest there is in your case from other victims of LBL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. :) I have permission from today's hearing to put in an amended Particulars of Claim as I added various points of law at the hearing orally and the judge said it may as well be all put together.

 

The order is:

 

18 March amended PoC

1st April, their defence

 

The barrister wanted a month for defence, but judge said no.

 

Has anyone had contact with lbl's new repossession company, Templar Enforcement Agents Limited? Their agent is not registered and licenced by the Security Industry Authority under s.12 of the Private Security Industry Act, which you have to be to immobilise cars.

 

Companies House states that Templar was only incorporated in Sept last year. The company itself does not need a licence, but the agent does.

 

As for the injunction witness statement I produced to get the court to stop lbl from selling the car, I could copy and paste on here if anyone needs to do same?

 

Frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. :) I have permission from today's hearing to put in an amended Particulars of Claim as I added various points of law at the hearing orally and the judge said it may as well be all put together.

 

The order is:

 

18 March amended PoC

1st April, their defence

 

The barrister wanted a month for defence, but judge said no.

 

Has anyone had contact with lbl's new repossession company, Templar Enforcement Agents Limited? Their agent is not registered and licenced by the Security Industry Authority under s.12 of the Private Security Industry Act, which you have to be to immobilise cars.

 

Companies House states that Templar was only incorporated in Sept last year. The company itself does not need a licence, but the agent does.

 

As for the injunction witness statement I produced to get the court to stop lbl from selling the car, I could copy and paste on here if anyone needs to do same?

 

Frustrated.

 

Contact Fleeced he knows a bit about this firm & any possible link with their previous agents

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Frustrated i have been dealing via oft and the financial ombudsman to get my case resolved and after nearly 4 weeks of getting there but very slowly i came across your article yesterday and decided why not!!

I went to court yesterday in barnet at 1 pm ...i walked out of the judges room at 2.20 with the order granted. I know the victory is partial but man did i feel good...and the judge has ordered them to court within days. The judge also ordered me to serve the document on mm wich i promptly did. At least now they cant sell the car they were so desperate to steal and they have to come to court. i now want to print the oft report you are talking about and take it to the hearing which is on the 17th. Thank you for sharing your comments and i would encourage anyone to get up and do something about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work! If everyone who has their car taken goes to court before lbl can sell the cars, they will be forced to defend their actions in court every time, and they will need a lot more space for car storage.

 

I'll add a note later about the injunction hearing and the points of law the judge thought needed to be aired at a full hearing.

 

Incidently, if any of the cars come back damaged, it might be necessary to sue them for compensation.

 

Frustrated

Edited by frustrated46
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result. It seems the courts are getting the measure of these people. However as Fleeced has already warned they do have a tendency to ignore court injunctions. If this happens to you it's imperative that you report them to the court who will I'm sure demand their attendance in person to explain their breach..............& possibly to commit them to prison, something which it's alleged by some is only a matter of time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today was my first day in court with mm . They appeared timeously and pushed as hard as they could to have the injunction lifted. I stated my case as fairly as i could with the judge and he ordered the case to go to trial. He also ordered that the injunction i got against them remains and is not to be lifted. Again i realise i have a way to go but this temporary victory is sweet. Especially as they did not take it very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm new to this, but unfortunately not to lbl. I wish I'd found you earlier but better late than never. This is all scary. Ive just had my agreement terminated by them, and am really scared about what happens next. I really admire you for fighting back, will keep my fingers crossed for you and will definitely be watching this space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks joncris..no they did not like it one bit. At one stage in the hearing it looked like it was going their way and he looked as smug as anything ..but when the judge ruled against them his smugness seemed to desert him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...