Jump to content
Hip_Hop

Attestation-same signature on BOS, Affidavit & CCA Credible witness/Party thereto?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3282 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

I want to share this scenario with you and invite your constructive thoughts on my BOS.

 

The BOS is witnessed in the presence of the borrower (Me) by the Underwriter, who signs as a witness and gives Nine Regions Ltd address in Putney, as the address of the witness to the BOS.

 

Same underwriter swears and signs Affidavit as that of the witness attesting the due execution in front of Solicitor/Commissioner for Oaths but, lists his personal home address which differs to that given on the BOS.

 

CCA is signed on behalf of Nine Regions Ltd by same underwriter (No reference to his position in Nine Regions Limited company, nor his name), just his signature, which is the same as the others.

 

i.e All 3 signatures match.

As most already know, the bill of sale must be attested "by one or more credible witness or witnesses, not being a party or parties thereto"

 

I want to contest the validity of the BOS on the basis that the witness is not credible as they are a party thereto as detailed above.

 

I understand that in Encyclopaedia of the laws of England Page 142 it states

 

"There is nothing in the act that prevents an agent of the grantee being an attesting witness [Pearce vs Brookes 1895], 2 Q. B. 451)."

 

My interpretation is that it does not mean they (an agent of the grantee) can be a party or parties thereto to both the Bill of Sale and CCA, does it?

 

I contend that although Pearce vs Brookes might be utilised to support the notion that an agent of Nine Regions can be an attesting witness on an affidavit, it does not give a wider remit. Any Caggers who can give an informed legal opinion or can qualify why they feel this challenge would succeed or fail would be very helpful?

 

It doesn't appear anyone has tested this situation, so far in court, although it has been raised previously in different posts but no sticky is available with a definitive answer ??

 

Any constructive views/opinions that would advance this thread and assist others in the BOS/CAG community, who have suffered loss as a consequence of their business dealings with this company, is welcomed and encouraged.

Edited by Hip_Hop
small edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the same signature on all 3 docs but no one else has the same? Oh Happy Days!... Hold on, just noticed that someone else has the same ..Oh never mind that's just two of us....Hold on, just read somewhere.......

 

No one has a constructive opinion or view to add...???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what are you trying to do here?

not my game i'll admit..

 

you owe these people money?

or

you don't and they claim you do?

or

you are trying to use 'legalities' to contest outstanding payments?

 

then i'll find someone...

 

dx

siteteam


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DX,

 

Thank you for your questions. To clarify, there are a number of postings that are in regards to the witnessing of CCA, BOS and Affidavit that ask the same question, is it legal for a party that benefits an agreement to witness their own agreement that they benefit from but to date no definitive answer can be found on the forum, so the question is repeated and repeated.

My original posting was to use my bos details as an example only to ascertain if there was indeed a member(s) who could clarify that, if not than Caggers will remain in blissful ignorance regardless of my own predicament. I am sure any advice would be appreciated by other Caggers who have similar documentation with just the one signature by a beneficiary on all paperwork.

Edited by Hip_Hop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has a solicitor witnessed the bos

 

must be independant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
has a solicitor witnessed the bos

 

must be independant

 

No, as detailed in Post #1 the BOS was witnessed by the Underwriter (The beneficiary). The affidavit was sworn by the underwriter in front of a Solicitor/Commissioner Of Oaths who signs the affidavit as being "Before Me" but was not a witness, nor present when the BOS was signed by the Underwriter and Borrower.

 

The Commissioner of Oaths/Solicitor was independent. The signature has firm stamp below it.

Edited by Hip_Hop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hip_hop.

if you think your bill of sale is not right i would see a solicitor. you have done alot of work but what i can see is your are only reading things that you think will help you and not the true act.

 

point 1. a solicitor who signs off a bill of sale Must be licenced by the crown. to do bill of sales.

 

agents can witness bill of sales (on your paperwork you will see he has put his name and personal address) this make him a witness.

 

if you are going to fight that your bill of sale is not valid then have it checked first.

 

how much of your loan is outstanding ????

and you have a judgement and your car back ....... i would now hide it........... logbook will do everything right next time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post unapproved.

Whatever personal thoughts,we cant have these sort of comments directed.

Please keep things civil.


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right Martin. So here is basically the same thread response without the Harry Enfield character comparison/strapline etc. I have kept the essence of the post the same though, as clarity in my posts are important factors.

 

.

Hip_hop.

"if you think your bill of sale is not right i would see a solicitor."

 

There is no need to see a solicitor as I have a judgement and ruling against LBL that satisfies my requirements to bring this agreement to an end once we have agreed a commercial resolution and adequate recompense.

 

"you have done alot of work but what i can see is your are only reading things that you think will help you and not the true act."

 

I don't understand your legal argument, it makes no sense. It is the nature of legal argument that one focuses on legal points that proves one's case, hence the reason why the judge acceded that I had a Prima Facie case and that LBL had breached the CCA. My legal case was proven. What true act would you have focused on CCTV?

 

"point 1. a solicitor who signs off a bill of sale Must be licenced by the crown. to do bill of sales."

 

With respect CCTV you are incorrect. Qualified Solicitors in England and Wales are not licenced they are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Solicitor/Commissioner of Oaths that signed the Affidavit in regards to my agreements, didn't sign off the bill of sale nor did he "do bill of sales" in regards to the affidavit. He was signing the affidavit as a Commissioner of Oaths that the affidavit sworn by the underwriter was true.

 

"agents can witness bill of sales (on your paperwork you will see he has put his name and personal address) this make him a witness."

 

With respect, you must read the details in postings before commenting CCTV.

 

I state in post #1 "There is nothing in the act that prevents an agent of the grantee being an attesting witness [Pearce vs Brookes 1895], 2 Q. B. 451)."

 

I simply question the assertion whether it is lawfully enforceable for a party that benefits an agreement to witness their own agreement that they benefit from. That's the primary question of the thread. Did you not pick up on that?

 

 

 

"if you are going to fight that your bill of sale is not valid then have it checked first."

 

It was never my intention to fight my case primarily on theBOSlink3.gif

 

As I have stated many times before in my other postings. Only 3rd party victims i.e like yourself and Jolygreengiant who have purchased cars with a BOS attached etc have an opportunity to address the BOS directly as not being directly legally valid. The rest of us are more likely to run out of time if we make the BOS our primary target and miss out on stronger legal argument. Where others have tried to do so with the limited 15-30 minutes, they end up mostly with either a time order and/or return of vehicle such as achieved by Ims etc as you are aware.

 

The definitive breach judgment result and order, that was made against Nine Regions Ltd T/A Log Book Loans, was a much better result than that achieved previously by others, which is the reason I posted it for all to see.

Out of curiousity, where's your judgment posted CCTV?

 

"how much of your loan is outstanding ????"

 

It has no relevance as it is not an HP agreement.

 

"and you have a judgement and your car back ....... i would now hide it........... logbook will do everything right next time"

 

Again I fail to understand why you make that assumption. I don't believe there is a need to hide anything. The
account is in dispute
link3.gif
and is subject to an ongoing legal process. You are fully aware that there is a money claim hence the reason that there is a Direction Hearing posted below the order that the judge ordered for the rest of my claim for the 13th October.

As you know, LBL have been found in breach of CCA S.76 and unlawfully seized the car. There is a financial compensation penalty for unlawfully doing so. Therefore, it is highly unlikely, Nine Regions/ LBL will be looking to
seize
link3.gif
the car anytime soon or ever. Would you with a judgment against you for unlawful seizure? The game is up for them CCTV as is their appeal to hold on to their licence once OFT have been made aware of this unlawful act and others that have been perpetrated whilst trading under appeal. My details will be included if we are not able to settle an agreeable compensation sum.

 

CCTV in closing, it is unfortunate that your post does not take any of these points forward, nor do your comments advance the thread for others. i.e Is the legal argument made or not. If it is is, why? If it isn't , why? That was the main reason I posted it. For clarity.

Edited by Hip_Hop
clarity points added, due to PM's received

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no one on the CAG forum who can look at post #1 of this thread and give a legal opinion on whether my bos and others who have the same detail is enforceable or not? I purposely kept it simple but the best comment to date is to see a solicitor and that, is on a self help forum?

 

The same individual, the underwriter, signs the BOS as witness, signs the Consumer Credit Agreement and swears the affidavit even though he is a beneficiary and nobody else thinks this is strange or shares my concern that there is leverage to use this against them? This is either really strange???? or maybe I am just reading this wrong. Any advance on see a solicitor?

 

Where are the fighters on this forum, it appears to have gone very quiet, Wannabe, Apple, CCTV, Nicky, Postggj etc anyone???

Edited by Hip_Hop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently looking to bring a case against Nine Regions based on this very point. I looked up the cited case on Lexis Nexis and unfortunately it does not contain the full judgment (just the head note). Whilst it was held that an Agent could act as witness I feel that the correct way of challenge would be in the context of the CCA 1974; i.e. if the witness has signed the CCA 1974 agreement as a party (in other words for and on behalf of Nine Regions Ltd) then there is a line of argument to distinguish present day BOS covered by a CCA 1974 agreement with what happened in the cited case over a century ago. Looking at the case law database the point has NOT been raised, and therefore it is yet to be decided in the higher courts. Therefore if the OP (or anyone else) is considering this poiint I'd be happy to chat in private etc.

 

One thing I have noticed is this affadavit, I assume people have obtained this from the Judgments and Orders section at the RCJ? I only ask as when I was doing my own research no affadavit pertaining to the BOS in question appears to be with the paperwork. Another method of general challenge is were Nine Regions fail to serve a valid Default Notice, one can then go for a Declatory Judgment against Nine Regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on I have found a case, which is very useful in my view. Citation is Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 5. This case is available as a full judgment (I have the copy and can supply to 'credible' persons on request). The judgment goes into some detail as to the purpose of a witness (or attesting person) for a BOS. Talks about having an interest in the outcome etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear tgsh2006

I would be interested in receiving a copy of this.

Several of the points you have offered I have mentioned previously.

My opinion (not a legal one) LBL have a slight upper hand currently in that it has been passed that their employees cannot be excluded from witnessing an agreement. I personally have no problem with this. The secretary, the tea lady etc can witness, ie persons that do not have a gain from the outcome.

But for the underwriter to sign off on everything (judge jury executioner), at very least this is unfair relationship. It is my belief that this has never been argued before. If this argument was successful every LBL would probably become unenforceable.

Good luck to those fighting this blood sucking company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you PM me I can organise a full copy of the judgment. The case relied on by LBL can be distinguished on quite a few points. Firstly it is very much Pre CCA 1974 (obviously) and therefore does not take into account the unique facts and protections that Parliament intended via the CCA 1974. LBL's BOS is attached to a regulated CCA 1974 agreement therefore I believe the Seal case is better authority, as it deals with the key point about having no interest in the outcome etc etc. Despite what LBL may claim the issue has NOT been the subject of a judgment on 'all fours' by the higher courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all

 

give me a few days to go back over this thrread

 

ime doing an sd set aside at the moment for another Caggeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on I have found a case, which is very useful in my view. Citation is Seal v Claridge (1881) 7 QBD 5. This case is available as a full judgment (I have the copy and can supply to 'credible' persons on request). The judgment goes into some detail as to the purpose of a witness (or attesting person) for a BOS. Talks about having an interest in the outcome etc.

 

Hi tgsh2006

Do you mind if we debate the citation you refer to....?

 

My thoughts are that the case was heard in 1881 - so the comments made in the Judgment refer to the 1878 BoS Act; I would be very wary if you intend to rely on such a judgment; simply because the reference made to section 10.1 of the 1878 Act would not be relevant today.

 

Why?... because the 1878 Act was amended by the BoS 1882 Act and section 10 was amended also - there is no longer an instant where a solicitor would attest any Bill of Sale - what they will do of course; as we all know is, to swear the affidavit - which is the oath taken by the lenders representative that they witnessed you sign the BoS and the agreement etc etc - the 'representative' is the person that the amended act now refers to - and requires that this so called representative is a 'credible witness'

 

Since the amendment to the BoS Act 1878 - I believe to take a lender to task over the 'credibility of the witness' is a grey area - and certainly not one to rely on alone - sure, bring it into the equation - but do so on the premise that you have relevant evidence to back up your submission..... I don't consider that the citation above would help a consumer - sorry, but that's my opinion.

 

Further, given the clear logic of the Judge when he speaks of whether an employee should/could sign on behalf of the Company (lender) and he's point as to whether the employee would derive a commission etc... - I again, fail to see how he's logic would help consumers looking to rely on the un-credability of the witness as party to their defence??

 

Apple : )


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear tgsh2006

I would be interested in receiving a copy of this.

Several of the points you have offered I have mentioned previously.

My opinion (not a legal one) LBL have a slight upper hand currently in that it has been passed that their employees cannot be excluded from witnessing an agreement. I personally have no problem with this. The secretary, the tea lady etc can witness, ie persons that do not have a gain from the outcome.

But for the underwriter to sign off on everything (judge jury executioner), at very least this is unfair relationship. It is my belief that this has never been argued before. If this argument was successful every LBL would probably become unenforceable.

Good luck to those fighting this blood sucking company.

 

If LBL have a 'slightly upper hand' on who signs their agreement - then it spells sense for any consumer to avoid citing the citation from Seal because from what I read; that citation supports it!!!!

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am currently looking to bring a case against Nine Regions based on this very point. I looked up the cited case on Lexis Nexis and unfortunately it does not contain the full judgment (just the head note). Whilst it was held that an Agent could act as witness I feel that the correct way of challenge would be in the context of the CCA 1974; i.e. if the witness has signed the CCA 1974 agreement as a party (in other words for and on behalf of Nine Regions Ltd) then there is a line of argument to distinguish present day BOS covered by a CCA 1974 agreement with what happened in the cited case over a century ago. Looking at the case law database the point has NOT been raised, and therefore it is yet to be decided in the higher courts. Therefore if the OP (or anyone else) is considering this poiint I'd be happy to chat in private etc.

 

One thing I have noticed is this affadavit, I assume people have obtained this from the Judgments and Orders section at the RCJ? I only ask as when I was doing my own research no affadavit pertaining to the BOS in question appears to be with the paperwork. Another method of general challenge is were Nine Regions fail to serve a valid Default Notice, one can then go for a Declatory Judgment against Nine Regions.

 

With respect, trying to piece together old out of date case law with the current CCA 1974 as amended just simply wouldn't work!! - I'm unsure of the message you are bringing to the forum here - I'm sure it is not your intention to confuse caggers? - would you mind making a clear point, so that we can debate and discuss on the forum?

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evening all

 

give me a few days to go back over this thrread

 

ime doing an sd set aside at the moment for another Caggeer

 

Hi Postggj, thank you for your post of 16th October. If you could have a peruse over this thread and give an opine, when it is convenient for you to do so, It would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Hip_Hop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi People,

 

What happens where:

 

1) The credit agreement is unenforceable due to bankruptcy

2) The credit agreement was signed by person 'A'

3) The bill of sale was witnessed and signed by person 'A'

4) The sworn affidavit was signed and witnessed by person 'A'

5) The bill of sale was received on the 7th Day, but registered 13 days after date of bill of sale.

 

Any help with this would help lots as I am in Court with these xxxxxx now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ping postggj

 

dx


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly came across this link in respect of an appeal made last Dec on the very attestation point I raised in this thread! The OFT were thinking on the same lines, so have included the link for others to peruse and comment on accordingly.

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/280.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hip Hop

 

It would seem to me that all that occurred from having briefly skimmed through the link you post, is that NRL's appeal was allowed? They are really good at delay and contortion!

 

Let's not forget, NRL have a lot riding on the decision from the appeal hearings - if the OFT decision to revoke their licence is upheld; then they won't be licensed to lend anyone any money, this would include all their Franchisees too.....

 

It does not surprise me that they will look for any nook and cranny to hide under to delay the inevitable outcome.......

 

NRL fail to realise that it's not about the Law's they use to protect their business... but the way they IMPLEMENT the Law that is of great public distress....

 

Given the fact that they have appealed the issue of 'attestation' along with the OFT decision - this is a clear sign that they have no idea what they are expected to do to stay within the Law - Their business model is no more than a blatant disrespect of the very customers they seek to serve and a blatant disregard for the Law and those that seek to uphold it!!!

 

Attestation as I have erred before is not a stand alone win - it is the overall concept, delivery and execution of their complete business model that is at fault - that is why... consumers should never rely on one issue alone to challenge NRL/LBL in a court of Law...

 

This is a Company that uses past cases that they have 'won' as party to it's claim against consumers - for those that I have seen, I can see that the consumer was unrepresented and blinded with science so that NRL won against them...I wish I had fought their cases for them - it would have been a far different outcome!!

 

The Company is rotten to the core in my opinion.

 

The final hearings are happening right now, The OFT website will inform us all in due time of the outcome either way.

 

Perhaps it would be a better debate as to the possible outcome of the Final appeal???

 

Question - Hiphop, do you have any knowledge of 'securitisation'?

 

Apple : )


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Applecart,

 

No, unfortunately I do not have knowledge of securitisation.

 

I appreciate that NRL/Logbbook loans were given the right to make the appeal but I never forget that there are numerous logbook loan companies out there that operate in this arena and the attestation point raised in my original thread still stands. I just thought it mighty be worth ressurecting for others, if they need to scrutinise other Bills of Sales/CCA's if others are abusing their positions? This is irrespective that NRL are appealing against the OFT case against them.

 

As to the current appeal being heard in the tribunal by the embankment. I think that NRL/Log Book loans are absolutely aware of their operational activities and are simply using whatever legal means are available to them, to operate for as long as possible whilst their appeal is being heard.

They can afford the best of legal minds and will continue to use the best that is available. They are a multi million pound operation that are commercial ruthless.They operate as lenders of last resort and will no doubt re-phoenix if they lose the appeal.

 

It is coming up to two years since they were initially given the minded to be revoked alert by the OFT and how many more millions have they sequestered? It's all just one big game for Iain Shearer!

 

They are not looking to serve customers Applecart-they are looking to fleece them!

 

That is the core essence of their business model-To be as commercially successful as they can be-SIMPLES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HiphopOn Securitisation - I wished you did know about it, because I'm sure you would bring a lot of useful information to the debate on the forum to do with it - but not to worry... : )On the NRL/LBL - The appeal concerns ALL Franchisees trading as LBL, whereever they are trading, under whatsoever guise, so if they lose; they ALL go out of business.This is the reason why the case has taken so long - The OFT are looking to strip them ALL out - they ALL have the same footprint.It doesn't matter how much 'money' they have or how much 'sway' they may have over their chosen solicitors or barristers etc; non of them are above the Law!!The OFT's position is very strong, they will/should have the support of CAB's up and down the country, Trading Standards and a number of Consumers who will/should have all attended the appeal to act as witness against NRL - I cannot see the likes of NRL/LBL having such strong support... So hopefully there will be no need for consumers to be debating their civil rights when they are simply looking to arrange credit for whatever purpose,,,,, this is what the courts are for... and when companies are found to be repeatedly flouting the Law without regard for consumer rights - then they should expect to have their credit licence revoked!!!If you recall - they were warned loooong before the decision to revoke was made.... they chose to 'business as usual' ... Well.... hopefully they will be found to be totally wrong.!!Apple : )


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...