OUTSTANDING FINANCE>>Log Book Loans

[trooper68]

Cheers for that Trooper, if you could look up how many owners it would need to have had since the loan was taken out for it to fail that would be great!

 

Ed

 

 

Well Apple, EDDT1

 

I did a bit of digging, i cannot seem to find the legistation on the BoS, I think I read an artical on the item on the number.

 

But this may be helpful, it looks like there was a case simular to yours that went to the high court.

 

eBay buyer?s court victory as £24,000 car is returned - News - getwokingham - The Wokingham Times

 

very good reading.

 

trooper68

[applecart]

Thanks for that Trooper 68... most interesting reading as you rightly say - well spotted. Are you going to flag this up direct to the OFT?? I think you should.

 

Notwithstanding the torment the lady went through - it was most interesting to note that the comment about the trader was 'they EVENTUALLY admitted their mistake.

 

This trader is adamant that they are soooooooooo right and everyone else is sooooooooo wrong!!!

 

What planet are they living on?

[trooper68]

Thanks for that Trooper 68... most interesting reading as you rightly say - well spotted. Are you going to flag this up direct to the OFT?? I think you should.

 

Notwithstanding the torment the lady went through - it was most interesting to note that the comment about the trader was 'they EVENTUALLY admitted their mistake.

 

This trader is adamant that they are soooooooooo right and everyone else is sooooooooo wrong!!!

 

What planet are they living on?

 

OFT would not know where to start, but I may help on here is anyone has a case on the go. She never gave up.

 

So if we can fine the case number, this could help a few people if the had purchased the car in good failth to find it have a LOL/BOS intreast. I might not help with the "agents" but can be proved that they should look in to it, before driving away with it.

 

now where to start....

 

trooper68

 

trooper68

Edited November 3, 2009 by trooper68

[Pacman2]

not too mention log book loans did a loan for someone with no real proof of ownership of the vehicle in the first place (a photocopy of a logbook jeez - obviously it wouldnt have even been in the guys name).

But it does highlight how have a go log book loans were i mean they must have known they had no right to it even if they applied their own (rather dubious) rules to it

[applecart]

Hi All

 

I followed through on an asertion that Nicky B made recently - and she is correct............

 

In a conversation with the HCJ I advised them that I am a member of the CAG (he knew about it - how good was that) He confirmed that you can indeed make a application direct to the HCJ on a N244 form for a fee of £40

 

You could also opt to have the BoS 'set aside' for a fee of £75.00 (but we were agreed that this is not the best course of action for most consumers)

 

We then debated - why does it have to be taken to the HCJ when most consumers live nowhere near London when the application can be taken to a County Court Judge - he agreed that it can be done at County level - but cautioned that you must have a copy of the original BoS....and that you may have to wait longer for a decision.

 

In either eventuality if you instigate either of these actions the trader cannot lawfully touch the car once you kick start a claim. (but we know this trader too well....don't take your car out of hiding)

 

I was informed that the application is sent to a Master who will make a decision based on the information put in front of him (even if your application goes to County Court - they will check with the HCJ that the registration exists)

 

If you go through HCJ the process can take as few as 3-5 days!! (longer if you go through a County Court - I was lead to believe)

 

If the Master's decision is that the BoS is void - then he can order that the document is removed from the register immediately....

 

If the Master decision is that the Bos is only void on the odd technicality - then he may call for the BoS to be corrected....

 

e.g: If the Master decides that the Bos is o.k save for a technicality - i.e it was simply registered out of time - but everything else is ok - then he may decide to give an order rectifying the Bos and the document is then a valid Bos.....

 

I was advised that if it should be that where a BoS is void this does not invalidate the cca - I challenged this and was told 'it's a separate agreement' - I told him that the CCA affords that where a Bos is found to be an invalid security as party to a CCA - then section 105 and 106 protect consumers rights - this is when he advised that 'ahh....you could be right'.

 

Anyway -he went on to offer further advise for consumers (bless him) his advise was that when you make such an application to the Master - you must be sure to include the original copy of the BoS - if you only send a copy (the one the trader sends you) this will almost certainly cause a situation where the document is sent back to you and could delay the process.

 

They request the original because it will be the one that shows them all the registered numbers etc...

 

He also advised that any evidence you can supply with your claim must be attached - the more evidence the better - as this will assist the Master make a decision there and then - if you do not submit enough evidence - then the Master may order that a hearing is held (this is what you must work to avoid - because you will be charged a fee).

 

So... in essence.... if you get the original agreement, stack it up with a confirmation from the OFT that they believe the document is invalid, then get proof that the OFT have essentially revoked the traders licence; and attach proof that the trader has sought to exercise the possession of the vehicle when you have advised them that the BoS is invalid and has threatened to continue to do so - I'm sure this would do for starters.....

 

Nicky B, Trooper68 - May have more to add to this in due course.....

 

Thank you Nicky B for pushing, pushing, Pushing and Pushing me to look into this - I hope I have not disappointed you with my findings : )

[trooper68]

Hi All

 

I followed through on an asertion that Nicky B made recently - and she is correct............

 

In a conversation with the HCJ I advised them that I am a member of the CAG (he knew about it - how good was that) He confirmed that you can indeed make a application direct to the HCJ on a N244 form for a fee of £40

 

You could also opt to have the BoS 'set aside' for a fee of £75.00 (but we were agreed that this is not the best course of action for most consumers)

 

We then debated - why does it have to be taken to the HCJ when most consumers live nowhere near London when the application can be taken to a County Court Judge - he agreed that it can be done at County level - but cautioned that you must have a copy of the original BoS....and that you may have to wait longer for a decision.

 

In either eventuality if you instigate either of these actions the trader cannot lawfully touch the car once you kick start a claim. (but we know this trader too well....don't take your car out of hiding)

 

I was informed that the application is sent to a Master who will make a decision based on the information put in front of him (even if your application goes to County Court - they will check with the HCJ that the registration exists)

 

If you go through HCJ the process can take as few as 3-5 days!! (longer if you go through a County Court - I was lead to believe)

 

If the Master's decision is that the BoS is void - then he can order that the document is removed from the register immediately....

 

If the Master decision is that the Bos is only void on the odd technicality - then he may call for the BoS to be corrected....

 

e.g: If the Master decides that the Bos is o.k save for a technicality - i.e it was simply registered out of time - but everything else is ok - then he may decide to give an order rectifying the Bos and the document is then a valid Bos.....

 

I was advised that if it should be that where a BoS is void this does not invalidate the cca - I challenged this and was told 'it's a separate agreement' - I told him that the CCA affords that where a Bos is found to be an invalid security as party to a CCA - then section 105 and 106 protect consumers rights - this is when he advised that 'ahh....you could be right'.

 

Anyway -he went on to offer further advise for consumers (bless him) his advise was that when you make such an application to the Master - you must be sure to include the original copy of the BoS - if you only send a copy (the one the trader sends you) this will almost certainly cause a situation where the document is sent back to you and could delay the process.

 

They request the original because it will be the one that shows them all the registered numbers etc...

 

He also advised that any evidence you can supply with your claim must be attached - the more evidence the better - as this will assist the Master make a decision there and then - if you do not submit enough evidence - then the Master may order that a hearing is held (this is what you must work to avoid - because you will be charged a fee).

 

So... in essence.... if you get the original agreement, stack it up with a confirmation from the OFT that they believe the document is invalid, then get proof that the OFT have essentially revoked the traders licence; and attach proof that the trader has sought to exercise the possession of the vehicle when you have advised them that the BoS is invalid and has threatened to continue to do so - I'm sure this would do for starters.....

 

Nicky B, Trooper68 - May have more to add to this in due course.....

 

Thank you Nicky B for pushing, pushing, Pushing and Pushing me to look into this - I hope I have not disappointed you with my findings : )

 

 

 

Hi Apple & Nicky

 

Fantastic, it really clears up a few questions, great research.

 

Intreasting that the courts need a FULL copy of the oringinal, most of the BoS i've seen are only basic in the outline, very limited in information the copys that these guys give out to the borrowers, almost makes you think they don't want to give out a full copy.

 

I wonder if they will, what would be the case if they do not have the original? is the BoS void? or flatly refues to give out a copy? something i'll have to look into

 

So the recommendations would be to all borrowers from any BoS lenders is to request a full original copy. Then check that the BoS is valid via the High Court or go County level and get it processed to High Court.

i can see an issue in that the agents taking the car, holding for 5 days as as they state and selling it, before the courts can process the paperwork.

So it would be prodent to go county, push the paperwork through and as for an injunction at the same time and then serving them? correct

 

 

Again Apple, Nicky well done..

 

trooper68

[Nicky Bodmin]

Blitz I think some details may be needed regarding the signature of the witness to the BOS, it states he was an area rep and I am sure I have read somewhere that the witness cannot be related to LBL.

 

Also I think the date stamp on page 3 may also be

Thanks again.

Hi guysthis may help you to understand the legal interpretation of the requirement

 

BILL being the borrower

 

Borrower Signature

Borrower Address

Borrower description (occupation)

 

The same information should be on the signature part of the form for the witness

 

BEN being the witness

 

witness signature

witness address

witness description ( occupation)

 

There has to be two peoples names (signatures) on the BOS. as shown above (Bill & Ben)

 

LITTLE WEED is the underwriter for the lender

 

LITTLE WEED - is the underwriter that signs the Credit agreement, therefor LITTLE WEED cant sign the BOS as the witness because LITTLE WEED then is party there to the bill; as LITTLE WEED is benefiting financially on the commission earned from the agreement.

 

BEN can be a witness to the BOS and yet be an employee or agent for the lender

 

How they have got around this to confuse people away from this point is there are only two signatures BILL (borrower) BEN (lender) on the CA. And BEN (borrower) and BILL (witness) the BOS.

There has to be three people present (BILL, BEN AND LITTLE WEED) to sign all relevant documents not just the two (BILL and BEN )as they have done. This means there has been no credible witness. LITTLE WEED

[luc1]

Hi all,

Looks like I will be going to court early 2010, I've received the BoS from HCJ, so can I get this checked to see if the BoS is valid, even though that the BoS is between the previous owner & LBL?

 

Bill & Ben must of used the last of the ink.... as there is no Little Weed signature on this BoS!

 

[trooper68]

Hi all,

Looks like I will be going to court early 2010, I've received the BoS from HCJ, so can I get this checked to see if the BoS is valid, even though that the BoS is between the previous owner & LBL?

 

Bill & Ben must of used the last of the ink.... as there is no Little Weed signature on this BoS!

 

 

 

Hi Luc1

 

There's an post i did with a simular case to yours. The link refers to a case where the buyer had the car taken as there was an outstanding BoS on it.

I'm trying to find the case number, no luck yet, but i'll keep digging.

 

If there is a BoS outstanding you could request a true full copy, i've checked with the BoS act, it states that anyone can view and make recordings for a shilling..Yeah a shilling. If it was me, I would ask in a reged letter for a full BoS copy on the car, see what happens, if they refues you can use that in your defence. If they do supply you with a copy you could chance your arm with what Apple suggest, using that info the high court may void the BoS, theres a fee.

 

Either way with Nicky and Applecarts digging everyone has a clearer direction.

 

trooper68

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi All

 

I followed through on an asertion that Nicky B made recently - and she is correct............

 

In a conversation with the HCJ I advised them that I am a member of the CAG (he knew about it - how good was that) He confirmed that you can indeed make a application direct to the HCJ on a N244 form for a fee of £40

 

You could also opt to have the BoS 'set aside' for a fee of £75.00 (but we were agreed that this is not the best course of action for most consumers)

 

We then debated - why does it have to be taken to the HCJ when most consumers live nowhere near London when the application can be taken to a County Court Judge - he agreed that it can be done at County level - but cautioned that you must have a copy of the original BoS....and that you may have to wait longer for a decision.

 

In either eventuality if you instigate either of these actions the trader cannot lawfully touch the car once you kick start a claim. (but we know this trader too well....don't take your car out of hiding)

 

I was informed that the application is sent to a Master who will make a decision based on the information put in front of him (even if your application goes to County Court - they will check with the HCJ that the registration exists)

 

If you go through HCJ the process can take as few as 3-5 days!! (longer if you go through a County Court - I was lead to believe)

 

If the Master's decision is that the BoS is void - then he can order that the document is removed from the register immediately....

 

If the Master decision is that the Bos is only void on the odd technicality - then he may call for the BoS to be corrected....

 

e.g: If the Master decides that the Bos is o.k save for a technicality - i.e it was simply registered out of time - but everything else is ok - then he may decide to give an order rectifying the Bos and the document is then a valid Bos.....

 

I was advised that if it should be that where a BoS is void this does not invalidate the cca - I challenged this and was told 'it's a separate agreement' - I told him that the CCA affords that where a Bos is found to be an invalid security as party to a CCA - then section 105 and 106 protect consumers rights - this is when he advised that 'ahh....you could be right'.

 

Anyway -he went on to offer further advise for consumers (bless him) his advise was that when you make such an application to the Master - you must be sure to include the original copy of the BoS - if you only send a copy (the one the trader sends you) this will almost certainly cause a situation where the document is sent back to you and could delay the process.

 

They request the original because it will be the one that shows them all the registered numbers etc...

 

He also advised that any evidence you can supply with your claim must be attached - the more evidence the better - as this will assist the Master make a decision there and then - if you do not submit enough evidence - then the Master may order that a hearing is held (this is what you must work to avoid - because you will be charged a fee).

 

So... in essence.... if you get the original agreement, stack it up with a confirmation from the OFT that they believe the document is invalid, then get proof that the OFT have essentially revoked the traders licence; and attach proof that the trader has sought to exercise the possession of the vehicle when you have advised them that the BoS is invalid and has threatened to continue to do so - I'm sure this would do for starters.....

 

Nicky B, Trooper68 - May have more to add to this in due course.....

 

Thank you Nicky B for pushing, pushing, Pushing and Pushing me to look into this - I hope I have not disappointed you with my findings : )

 

Hi Apple,

No not at all because very enquiry brings a little more information that we all can use.

I wondered why I didn't here from you yesterday, was a little disappointed, I so enjoy our debates.

The three of us Trooper included make a wicked team.

Im glad you contacted the HCJ because you have brought another issue to my attention.

Locating the parts of the BOS is not enough of an issue, but we also have got to filter the points that can invalidate the BOS into categories

 

As you pointed out, if the master doesn't think that the breach is enough on its own, then we now have to look at the points and judge its merits of power to void it and not just a correction to the registration.

 

This is where caggers personal case is down to

 

1.Did they take out the loan

2.Did you buy the car with the loan on it

3. Have always been the owner of the car.

 

The above seem to be the main complaints. Each one will have its own path and points of breach

 

 

If anyone can add to the above

[luc1]

Hi Trooper, thanks for the reply.

 

Ive got the copy of the BoS from the high court - its at my home. Tomorrow I will upload this on here. I dont think nothing is missing, Ive got the BoS & CCA. Hopefully once this is uploaded you can take a quick look, to tell me if anything is missing..

 

Thanks again.....

[Nicky Bodmin]

OFT would not know where to start, but I may help on here is anyone has a case on the go. She never gave up.

 

So if we can fine the case number, this could help a few people if the had purchased the car in good failth to find it have a LOL/BOS intreast. I might not help with the "agents" but can be proved that they should look in to it, before driving away with it.

 

now where to start....

 

trooper68

 

trooper68

 

Hi Guys

 

Dont know if you are aware of this, but you can go on the HC website and search through the court time table to see who is attending hearings.

Also look at the applications that are being reviewed.

I reckon that might show LBL quite allot

 

Also find out who is challenging them.

 

Might be worth a little look

Edited November 4, 2009 by Nicky Bodmin
add more info

[luc1]

Nicky, Apple & Trooper..... got to say thanks for your input on the LBL forum. I've got say to without your help I will be lost.

 

Also, I know there are many more members on here who have helped me & others.... so thank you.

[trooper68]

Hi Guys

 

Dont know if you are aware of this, but you can go on the HC website and search through the court time table to see who is attending hearings.

Also look at the applications that are being reviewed.

I reckon that might show LBL quite allot

 

Also find out who is challenging them.

 

Might be worth a little look

 

I'll have a buchers, i was not aware, but for giggles, i'll have a count up...

 

cheers trooper68

[Nicky Bodmin]

I'll have a buchers, i was not aware, but for giggles, i'll have a count up...

 

cheers trooper68

 

Hi to save time finding out what section to look under call the courts it will save you time. Tell them what you r looking for they might be able to point you in the right direction good luck

[applecart]

Hi All

 

Nicky I have just sent you a pm to give a greater interpretation of my coversation with the HCJ.

 

I've spent time today looking into the grounds on which a Bos could be found to be unenforceable and next steps to take and how it can affect the consumer.....

 

My assertion that Section 105 protects consumers, I felt didn't go far enough....so my attention turned to the fact that there must be more protection for consumers somewhere within the CCA 1974 - Surely.... and........

 

What I've found is that those who have agreements where more than a third of the monies under the agreement have been paid appear to have stronger protection from the trader taking their vehicles...

 

Let Me explain:

 

Section 90 says:

 

At anytime when -

(a) the debtor is in breach of a regulated HP or regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and (lbl agreements are all regulated conditional sale agreements)...

 

(b) the debtor has paid to the creditor ONE THIRD or MORE of the total price of the goods and..

 

© the property in the goods remains in the creditor (which it will do, because they get you to sign a BoS), the creditor is NOT ENTITLED to RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE GOODS from the debtor EXCEPT on an ORDER OF THE COURT (their Agents only ever show a copy of the Bos, never a court order!!)

 

Subsection 7 of Section 90 CCA 1974 says:

 

Goods falling within this section are in this Act referred to as "protected goods"

 

Then I found that Section 91 goes on to say:-

 

'If goods are recovered by the creditor (lbl) in contravention of section 90 (a) the regulated agreement; if not previously terminated, SHALL TERMINATE, and (b) THE DEBTOR (you) shall be RELEASED FROM ALL LIABILITY UNDER THE AGREEMENT, and shall be ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM THE CREDITOR (lbl) ALL SUMS paid by the debtor under the agreement

 

so.... if you have had a visit from lbl, and you can be sure that the original owner of the car has paid more than a third - then this provides further grounds on which you can kindly ask LBL's Agents to 'sling their hook' elsewhere.... OR.. if you have sold a car that has a LBL on it and you can show the buyer that you have paid more than a third - you give the buyer better protection from lbl Agents

 

 

Then Look at this:

 

Section 92 says:

 

(1) EXCEPT UNDER AN ORDER OF THE COURT, the creditor (lbl) or owner shall NOT BE ENTITLED to ENTER ANY PREMISES TO TAKE POSSESSION of goods subject to a regulated Hire Purchase, Regulated Conditional Sale or regulated Conditional Hire Agreement

 

So again, if you have paid more than a third and you have put your car in hiding and lbl's Agents have managed to locate it (most unlikely, but if they do) and they have entered any premise and have taken it - they have acted illegally without a court order.

 

92 (3) says:

 

AN ENTRY IN CONTRAVENTION OF SUBSECTION (1) is actionable as a breach of statutory duty

 

I am not aware that the CCA 2006 has repealed (overturned) any of these sections of the CCA 1974 and they therefore are as relevant today as they were when they first came into force.

 

So.. in building a case against lbl for unlawful possession of your vehicle - if you have paid or the person you bought the car off can evidence having paid a third or more - then you have a strong defence in these sections of the law.

 

It may be that Sections 105 & 106 of the CCA 1974 also assist and further protection and remedy from Section 142....

 

But, I will dig deeper to see how they can help.... but if anyone can add to this info or if I have mis-interpreted the Act in anyway - please tell.

 

Hope this is useful and helps to show how the law protects vunerable consumers further.

 

Apple : )

 

Nicky, Trooper, luc1 and others - I have seen your further input/queries and will come back on some of the points you make - just needed to flag this info up first guys : )

[applecart]

Hi Trooper68

 

in response to your post at 31 above...

 

Time can be an issue - your right, but if as a consumer you feel your civil liberty is in danger (i.e they have threatened or have tried to take your car) then regrettably, your first course of action - must be to put the car into hiding (especially if you are dealing with LBL)

 

This is the only way you will get any hope of some peace of mind in order to pull your thoughts together in order to decide on the best route to take via the court....

 

Nicky knows I'm an advocate of the County court route - right Nicky? - but we do agree to disagree : )

 

If they have already taken the car - then, as far as I know you would have no choice other than to go for an injunction - but alongside that injunction, I understand you also must show an intention to take them to court for another issue and then you must take that action - so it makes sense to avoid this route wherever possible - best to try to stay in control - because if you have allowed your vehicle to be taken you are then chasing your tail (no offence meant) and lets face it - the injunction granted is not normally for an indefinate period - you run the risk that if you do not follow through - the trader simply waits for the time to run out and start the process of trying to possess the car all over again (if I am wrong - lets debate further)....and you end up in a viscious circle... which is what the trader wants...so you need to be ahead of the game.

 

If you have to go the Injunction route - costs can be as much as £150 - county court or £75 Magistrates court I beleive (correct me if I have thee fees wrong) just to make an application...

 

if you are ahead of the game - your talking a N244 - at £30 - county court route or £40 - HCJ route....

 

See the difference?

 

My thoughts are the cheapest route is that as soon as you get a sniff that they are after your car - put it into hiding!!!

[applecart]

The Story in the news posted by Trooper68 is interesting on another point - the guy who went to lbl didn't even go ahead with the loan, but they still registered with HPI!!!! and hadn't removed the interest - when they were supposed to have done in the first place - My goodness, this ,means even if you call them by mistake and give them your car details - they will register an interest - this is terrible .....

 

Yet more checks for a innocent buyer may need to make - you have to check if the person actually went ahead with the loan in the first place!!!

[luc1]

The Story in the news posted by Trooper68 is interesting on another point - the guy who went to lbl didn't even go ahead with the loan, but they still registered with HPI!!!! and hadn't removed the interest - when they were supposed to have done in the first place - My goodness, this ,means even if you call them by mistake and give them your car details - they will register an interest - this is terrible .....

 

Yet more checks for a innocent buyer may need to make - you have to check if the person actually went ahead with the loan in the first place!!!

 

 

Sorry, where can I find this story which Trooper had posted?

 

Luc1

[applecart]

Here you go luc1

 

eBay buyer?s court victory as £24,000 car is returned - News - getwokingham - The Wokingham Times

 

Apple : )

[luc1]

Here you go luc1

 

eBay buyer?s court victory as £24,000 car is returned - News - getwokingham - The Wokingham Times

 

Apple : )

 

Very interesting......

 

Thanks!

[trooper68]

Very interesting......

 

Thanks!

 

 

I'm trying to find the case number via the courts, I may have to contact the paper or reporter. What strikes me is the simular cases we have heard on the threads, I wonder if the site team can help tracking down the case...

 

trooper68

[cerberusalert]

You can do an online CCJ search for £8 CCJs, court orders & fines - Search yourself and others - Trust Online

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi guys ,

I have just looked at the linkkm and registered the site Their file is clean nothing registered againstspelling

them

 

Im shocked

Edited November 6, 2009 by Nicky Bodmin
spelling

[dickym3]

Hi. I have signed up to this forum in desperation too - an almost identical situation to EDDT. I bought my m3 at the end of September using a Halifax credit card cheque (7.9%APR!) for £3900 but had a caller yesterday to the house called Frank who informed me Logbook loans had title to the vehicle. I bought it off the previous owner (V5 registered in his name at his address) who bought it in May from the girl who took out the LBL agreement in Jan 09. So I am the second "innocent purchaser". Like a prat, I didn't HPI it, as the previous owner stated he had already done so through his work. Frank tells me it had never been HPI'd. He seems very affable and eager to work something out but I have been reading the stories here and am frankly cr*pping myself. Do I have rights to possession under the CCA 1974? What do I do next? Apart from hide the car?? Is this really 2009, not 1969?? HELP.....!