Are Log Book Loans Money Laudering?

cctv engineer · October 24, 2010

So no explanation from you as to what a "Laundering Licence" is then? It must be a secret CCTV or you would have shared it with the rest of us.

Why answer any questions CCTV when you can make claims, without the need to back any of them up with facts that are verifiable? No links, nothing.......

Hip -Hop. why why do you need the feel to fight all the time. you are like a little kid. this thread has nothing to do with your problems why are you hindering others from getting info. it would be best if you just did your thing but dont question our advice. you have been doing it for a few months jeff has been dealing with bos for 27 years.

he has helped others on here and Hip-hop he never charged any of them a pennie. now you are putting that good faith from jeff into question as to why he sould even carry on he his here to help not fight with you.

Hip_Hop · October 24, 2010

I am sure Anonymous Jeff can fight his own battles CCTV as he is a solicitor of 27 years' standing. But if you want to answer the question, what is a laundering Licence? Then Anonymous Jeff can continue to remain anonymous and the status quo can remain unchanged thereby,offering Anonymous Jeff the ability to continue his sterling probono work unchallenged.

You on the other hand CCTV, still need to answer the question posed by THFC1960 and myself...What is a Laundering Licence that you refer to in your advice, in this thread?

By the way, I am doing my thing by asking the question, and it does not, in any way,stop Anonymous Jeff being able to help others by doing my thing, but it does , with respect, reveal your complete unwillingness to clarify matters whenever you, (Not Anonymous Jeff), are challenged on certain aspects of your advice, either by myself, Applecart or Nicky Bodmin etc.

If it would help you to focus on answering the question at hand, I would willing to start a new thread with links to all those posts that have questioned your advice or those that have come up against a brick wall when they have asked you to confirm advice given previously? Or, you could save us the hassle and simply answer the question?

So you see, it is not hindering to get posters like yourself to clarify a point on this thread that you posted on, no matter how much you protest. And, as this is a public forum, where seekers of truth and clarity and debate, are in abundance, I am perfectly at liberty to question that or any advice whenever and however I choose, if it allows others to find clarity in threads, from any poster, whose advice adds confusion to the debate.

So, answer the question "What is a Laundering Licence?" for us Caggers that want clarification on your foggy wisdom CCTVAnd I will move on to do my thing elsewhere. Or, if you are unable or still unwilling, why not get Anonymous Jeff to answer the question instead.... Or simply retract that a Laundering Licence is part of the process.

Either way, clear up your confusion.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity

THFC1960 · October 24, 2010

like i have said to you in reply to your email . our solicitor who has delt with bill of sales since 1983 does know what he his talking about and when he sees a case on here he will act. 5 members he has contacted and have won. lets take stubs you havent seen the outcome on the forum thats all done and dusted. trooper has had a judgment sent to him by me. and i have it here which is the same case as THFC 1960 and we are giving good info.

Hi CCTV can you advise/post me the judgment that you sent Trooper that you say is the same case as mine. Thank you so much.

cctv engineer · October 24, 2010

Hi CCTV can you advise/post me the judgment that you sent Trooper that you say is the same case as mine. Thank you so much.

Hi THfc1960 i will pm you contact details.

cctv engineer · October 24, 2010

I am sure Anonymous Jeff can fight his own battles CCTV as he is a solicitor of 27 years' standing. But if you want to answer the question, what is a laundering Licence? Then Anonymous Jeff can continue to remain anonymous and the status quo can remain unchanged thereby,offering Anonymous Jeff the ability to continue his sterling probono work unchallenged.

You on the other hand CCTV, still need to answer the question posed by THFC1960 and myself...What is a Laundering Licence that you refer to in your advice, in this thread?

By the way, I am doing my thing by asking the question, and it does not, in any way,stop Anonymous Jeff being able to help others by doing my thing, but it does , with respect, reveal your complete unwillingness to clarify matters whenever you, (Not Anonymous Jeff), are challenged on certain aspects of your advice, either by myself, Applecart or Nicky Bodmin etc.

If it would help you to focus on answering the question at hand, I would willing to start a new thread with links to all those posts that have questioned your advice or those that have come up against a brick wall when they have asked you to confirm advice given previously? Or, you could save us the hassle and simply answer the question?

So you see, it is not hindering to get posters like yourself to clarify a point on this thread that you posted on, no matter how much you protest. And, as this is a public forum, where seekers of truth and clarity and debate, are in abundance, I am perfectly at liberty to question that or any advice whenever and however I choose, if it allows others to find clarity in threads, from any poster, whose advice adds confusion to the debate.

So, answer the question "What is a Laundering Licence?" for us Caggers that want clarification on your foggy wisdom CCTVAnd I will move on to do my thing elsewhere. Or, if you are unable or still unwilling, why not get Anonymous Jeff to answer the question instead.... Or simply retract that a Laundering Licence is part of the process.

Either way, clear up your confusion.

Hip-hop again you just want to fight . i dont understand it. i wish a team leader would switch you off or just leave our posts alone.

we have contacted THFC1960. and we will call THFC1960 tomorrow.

Hip_Hop · October 24, 2010

Hip-hop again you just want to fight . i dont understand it. i wish a team leader would switch you off or just leave our posts alone.

we have contacted THFC1960. and we will call THFC1960 tomorrow.

CCTV what is there to fight about? You post a point about a Laundering Licence. Two forum members ask you to qualify what a Laundering Licence is and you don't answer. What is it you are having difficulty understanding. The question or that you don't have the answer? How are these posts and threads exclusive to you Tom. Am I missing something?

I would be Happy to move on when you have switched on and answered the simple question. What is a Laundering Licence?....... Simples

Edited October 24, 2010 by Hip_Hop

cctv engineer · October 24, 2010

CCTV what is there to fight about? You post a point about a Laundering Licence. Two forum members ask you to qualify what a Laundering Licence is and you don't answer. What is it you are having difficulty understanding. The question or that you don't have the answer? How are these posts and threads exclusive to you Tom. Am I missing something?

I would be Happy to move on when you have switched on and answered the simple question. What is a Laundering Licence?....... Simples

a simple google ............. ok i have done it for you. but i dont understand why you should need it as it has nothing to do with your problem. you are either fighting lbl for your loan or your going to start your own fight against what licence they have or not.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/offering-credit/

also when people ask for info i pm it to them ...........so please dont think we have not answered there post.

Hip_Hop · October 24, 2010

a simple google ............. ok i have done it for you. but i dont understand why you should need it as it has nothing to do with your problem. you are either fighting lbl for your loan or your going to start your own fight against what licence they have or not.
http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/offering-credit/

also when people ask for info i pm it to them ...........so please dont think we have not answered there post.

It wasn't for me CCTV. I won my court judgment battle on the day, remember?

I have read the link thoroughly and yet again, you have got it wrong.

Unfortunately, this is becoming a regular occurence. It's in the detail and your personal misinterpretation of that detail CCTV and the lengths you go to, to avoid answering any challenge to your advice based on that misinterpretation, that is just so damaging and totally frustrating when it is found to be wrong.

The lack of attention to detail in some of your postings is key to why some of us challenge your advice, not your intentionsCCTV, which I believe to always be honourable .

A Consumer Credit Licence is not a "Laundering Licence" no matter where in a posting you slip that term in, because Tom, a " Laundering Licence" does not in its own right, exist.

It's nowhere to be found in the OFT link you left. Nor will you find a "Laundering Licence" as a separate legal licence on any search engine outside the OFT.

It is simply, a non legal term that you made up and have included in your posts, and that is why your personal advice is being challenged, not the advice of a Anonymous Jeff the solicitor.

I don't ask questions because I need your advice CCTV but so that others are spared going on another wild CCTV goose chase trying to match your misinterpreted details whether it's in terms/muddled acts or your made up legal terms. No one should be exposed to unneccessary searches because of your confused legal interpretations.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but your previous lackadaisical approach in your use of legalese irrespective of its legal correctness, may mean nothing to the casual reader, but to those looking for pertinent guidance, it is key to not wasting valuable time searching for legal definitions on the web that don't exist, such as :-

1. Your 8 Year max Legal Rule for Bills of Sale on vehicles - Ring any bells?

2. Your misinterpretation of when the 7 clear days starts Rule on registering a Bill Of Sale, ring another bell?

3. Your reference to a non-existing Bill Of Sales Act 1925 Ring another bell?

All these terms/Interpretations that were posted as fact, exposed as incorrect and misleading. All were included in your posts CCTV.

As well intentioned as you are CCTV, on occasion your wrongly detailed legal advice does muddle and confuse others and cause a lot of frustration.

It is regrettable that you didn't take the first opportunity offered by THFC1960 at POST 13 in this thread to respond quickly, electing, rather deliberately to being provocative by waiting until POST 33, to finally reveal your original source for the term "Laundering Licence".

You could have saved yourself and THFC1960 and I a lot of time and aggrevation.

Hiding behind (an Anonymous) Jeff the solicitor, does not give you the right to peddle legal nonsense which is what a "Laundering Licence" eventually turned out to be.

We can move on. But you simply can not repeat these transgressions CCTV and not expect to be challenged. When and if you are CCTV, accept it like an adult, and look to benefit the whole community by clarifying when asked, rather than taking every challenge as a personal affront to your well meaning intentions.

The forum isn't here to massage our egos nor to initiate "fights", it is here to help and advise people who are desperately looking for answers/advice and guidance under normally very stressful situations. Advice that will help them in their quest to overturn where possible, unlawful seizures, unlawful Bills of Sale etc. Anything that detracts from that is unwelcomed.

Your Solicitor (Anonymous Jeff) is welcomed to post advice CCTV but a working qualified solicitor of over 27 years' (Bill of Sales) standing I assume has better thing to do than that?

That, doesn't mean you can post unqualified legal nonsense, however well intentioned.

PleaseCCTV make absolutely certain in future, that you are quoting the right legal information in your posts as the alternative is watching threads unfold when advice is not able to be independently verified when needed.

Also, your quick reactions in a timly fashion, when other Caggers challenge your advice, would also be welcomed as it would have been on this thread.

Edited October 25, 2010 by Hip_Hop
clarity

Hip_Hop · October 25, 2010

Hi THFC1960 Good luck with your endeavours. I hope the judgment that CCTV sent to Trooper and which he states is a similar case to yours, is forthcoming and helpful.

Sorry that your thread was used to make a point but I am sure that you appreciate, that well intentioned individuals like CCTV must be held responsible for what they post regardless if they mean well or not.

We must all be accountable for our actions and postings and that includes myself. We all have a collective responsibility to make sure that our advice and help to others, culminates in the same aim, victories against Logbook Loans and Nine Regions Ltd! Anything else just serves to help them, which is why I feel so strongly when I see advice that just confuses and does not explain and advance the argument/point made.

If that temporarily upsets a fellow Cagger then that is unfortunate, nevertheless, we must keep ourselves in check, our enemies have huge reserves to play with and substantial legal resources, our fellow victims do not. So we owe it to them to be ultra careful when advising.

I, like CCTV, Applecart, Trooper68 and all my fellow Caggers, am passionate that Log Book and their cohorts get all that they deserve.

Good Luck THFC1960!

Edited October 25, 2010 by Hip_Hop

applecart · October 26, 2010

Hi,

Wonderful site! Have been reading lots-Gosh there is a lot to read isn't there?

Read various threads about Nine Regions Ltd trading as Log Book Loans lending the sum with a Bill of Sale as security on our cars, but also read that if the payments go to Log Book Loans Ltd, this is money laundering as they are a separate company and have no entitlement to the security of the Bill of Sale nor the payment as the Consumer Credit Agreement does not have the other company "Log Book Loans Ltd" as party to the agreement.

So, got checking. My paying in book is made out to Nine Regions Ltd but I have been making sporadic payments by debit card. On checking my bank statements the payments show up as going to logbook.co.uk What does this mean in legal terms, web domain? Does this mean my payment went to Nine Regions Ltd or Log Book Loans Ltd or somewher completly different? I don't want to call them and tip them off if anyone knows differently.

Also paid an agent independently last year, again by debit card and it went to a company called FRADS? which shows up as recovery agents when I checked them up on the internet. My statement and all correspondence have all these credits listed to my account as normal but gives no indication of any other company or companies other than Nine Regions Ltd at the bottom of all correspondence. Can any one help me understand if I have been a victim of money laundering or not? Thank you

Also tried to edit title of thread to put an n in Laundering, but it won't let me LOL

Barbara

Hi Ya

Have a look here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/mlr/reportsuspicion.htm

This site is a link to the HMRC website - so that if you believe a company is acting suspiciously and you fear money laundering is going on - it appears that HMRC may be interested in looking into the organisation.

Certain Companies involved in the business of finance must register with HMRC under the Money Laundering Regulations (reg 2007) - I did a quick check on the register for both Log Book Loans Ltd and Nine Regions Ltd - they appear not to be registered at all......

To make an assertion one way or the other as to whether these companies are laundering money would not be our place as consumers - but the bodies who would be interested are HMRC and Customs.

Apple : )

applecart · October 26, 2010

Hi THFC1960 Good luck with your endeavours. I hope the judgment that CCTV sent to Trooper and which he states is a similar case to yours, is forthcoming and helpful.

Sorry that your thread was used to make a point but I am sure that you appreciate, that well intentioned individuals like CCTV must be held responsible for what they post regardless if they mean well or not.

We must all be accountable for our actions and postings and that includes myself. We all have a collective responsibility to make sure that our advice and help to others, culminates in the same aim, victories against Logbook Loans and Nine Regions Ltd! Anything else just serves to help them, which is why I feel so strongly when I see advice that just confuses and does not explain and advance the argument/point made.

If that temporarily upsets a fellow Cagger then that is unfortunate, nevertheless, we must keep ourselves in check, our enemies have huge reserves to play with and substantial legal resources, our fellow victims do not. So we owe it to them to be ultra careful when advising.

I, like CCTV, Applecart, Trooper68 and all my fellow Caggers, am passionate that Log Book and their cohorts get all that they deserve.

Good Luck THFC1960!

Gentlemen Please!!!

I've provided the link for the consumer - all well that ends well : )

Apple : )

Hip_Hop · October 26, 2010

Thank you Apple for your link, your clear and concise rationale behind the advice, and interestingly, not a "Laundering Certificate" to be found anywhere?

That folks, is why his advice is sought, because he never makes a confusing point, statement or unvalidated guess,which is what we all search for when looking for help and advice on the CAG forum

That is what you get when one deals with the Apple! Thank you to the scholar and gentleman that you are.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Hip_Hop
Clarity

applecart · October 26, 2010

Thank you Apple for your clear link and clear and concise advice. Helpful as always, never a confusing point, statement or unvalidated guess in sight when one deals with the Apple! Thank you to the scholar and gentleman that you are.

Thank you - I'm humbled.............

We all get there in the end : )

Apple

Hip_Hop · October 28, 2010

also when people ask for info i pm it to them ...........so please dont think we have not answered there post.

Question for THFC1960 please can you confirm that you are now in receipt of the judgment that CCTV and his /Anonymous Jeff the Bill of Sales Solicitor have supposedly in their possession and promise to PM when posted to do so, as in your case on his 24th October posting above?

Please do not reveal any of the judgment information received on the forum, as you never know whom or what is an LBL tout. I only ask for forum clarfication purposes, as many others have not been posted the promised judgments previously and this would be bad show if it continues unmonitored to be the norm.

It also allows site leaders to monitor if there are any issues with fellow caggers offering false promises of information by soliciting for personal information and thereby compromising the CAG.

THFC1960 Just post "have received judgment" to assist other forum members so that they can be assured that their requests will be met in a timely fashion too, if they request info off of CCTV.

I am sure that all info will be forthcoming but we look forward to getting your confirmation by return

Regards

Hip_Hop

Edited October 28, 2010 by Hip_Hop

THFC1960 · November 4, 2010

Thanks Applecart. So no Certificate of Laundering?

THFC1960 · November 4, 2010

No I haven't received it and have emailed and PM'd CCTV too but nothing in over 5 days. I think I will be one of many expecting a lot but receiving very little, for my patience. Will update you as soon as I hear anything

Question for THFC1960 please can you confirm that you are now in receipt of the judgment that CCTV and his /Anonymous Jeff the Bill of Sales Solicitor have supposedly in their possession and promise to PM when posted to do so, as in your case on his 24th October posting above?

Please do not reveal any of the judgment information received on the forum, as you never know whom or what is an LBL tout. I only ask for forum clarfication purposes, as many others have not been posted the promised judgments previously and this would be bad show if it continues unmonitored to be the norm.

It also allows site leaders to monitor if there are any issues with fellow caggers offering false promises of information by soliciting for personal information and thereby compromising the CAG.

THFC1960 Just post "have received judgment" to assist other forum members so that they can be assured that their requests will be met in a timely fashion too, if they request info off of CCTV.

I am sure that all info will be forthcoming but we look forward to getting your confirmation by return

Regards

Hip_Hop

THFC1960 · November 4, 2010

Hi Hip_Hop it appears you were correct in your assessment.

It would appear, I too have been the victim of CCTV Engineer’s, - “If it appears too good to be true, than it is likely to be just that”, School of nonsense.

Unfortunately, I did not heed in time, the warnings of other members to this site like ST220, Nicky Bodmin, HIP_HOP, Applecart and others.

You don’t do you, when visiting a forum like this, because you just think it champions just causes for the consumer?

I thought it was simply people, helping other people on this site to get justice? But it is now obvious that there are mind games and brinkmanship at hand, Not everyone is, who they say they are, and offers of help and advice are on occasion just empty gestures of promises of everything but, the delivery of nothing.

Whatever the incentives at play was that persuaded CCTV to write me an email that suggested he was Jeff the Solicitor, only he can reveal. But write he did.

The same Solicitor, who CCTV states is connected to the OFT case against the Log Book Loan Company?

There is no doubt that this will back fire with disastrous consequences when this is now made public. Hopefully for others, he will not pull the same trick twice.

No wonder CCTV feigns connection to a solicitor with 27 years Bill of Sales experience! He is that solicitor!

I have included below, that email from CCTV’s (Tom’s) personal yahoo email at 22:57:25 at night!

I had been so wrapped up in what is going on around me, that it took my friend to point out that solicitor’s simply don’t normally send out emails at that time of night.

They wouldn’t send emails from an unconnected personal yahoo account. And most definitely, would not write such an unprofessional email to an individual that has not been instructed by them and simply sign of as Jeff!

The email is littered with spelling mistakes, which I can now see is Tom’s (CCTV’s) trademark and is simply signed Jeff as mentioned above. This is the same Jeff that I now read that Hip_Hop has been questioning whether he exists or not?

If such a person exists, it is surely not the person in the email below, nor does Tom/CCTV have a relationship with him to the extent that the solicitor needs to use Tom’s personal yahoo email account late at night, to post questions to prospective client’s who have not instructed him,?

Unless of course, you are on another agenda like Tom is than all rules are off?

I wouldn’t ordinarily comment on a public forum instead jut electing to move on but this is simply wrong.

Others may not think it matters. That CCTV is simply offering an opinion that we can all just take or leave. Where’s the harm in that?

But I trusted that opinion because of his self styled expertise; after all, he got his case dismissed against Log Book, had connections with the OFT Solicitor? Was an expert witness for the OFT? All these things built his credibility up in my eyes. Now I question what, if anything, is real in his world of OFT and Log Book?

I seriously now doubt anything he states as being fact.

Maybe someone like the IMS guy can make contact with OFT and can find out why CCTV is pretending to be the solicitor in the OFT case?

Are the Moderators of this forum aware of the exploits this member is up to?

To offer opinions as part of a general discussion is one thing but to systematically offer a judgment of value and then pretend to be the lawyer, who has this judgment in hand, is upsetting for questioners like me looking for solutions to my problems.

I am not sure what can really be done about this other than to warn others by posting the evidence for all to see.

I have posted below the relevant PM’s sent and received and also emails swapped. No content has been changed with the exception of a small typo which was corrected for the reader in red and the IMPOSTER ALERT that I also highlighted in red, so that other members can easily identify Tom’s/CCTV’s poor attempt to convince me that he was Jeff the Solicitor!

I have protected CCTV’s email address to protect his identity but unfortunately he didn’t offer me any protection against wasting over a week of my time.

Unfortunately I don’t think I will be continuing my interest with the forum as the whole experience has left me feeling pretty deflated by action of one of its members.

The lack of any real communication from Tom/CCTV in over 5 days, despite repeated PM’s and emails should have been a warning too and the PM to tell me not to let Hip_Hop in on the judgment. Now I know why. Well it will not happen again!