Logbook loans have lost their final appeal they are officiallly gone

[caro]

hi guys this is the PM I was sent who is this person

with the info about loans2go

 

Yes. Some clarification would be good.

[samuel20]

So here is my understanding of things (some I believe accurate, some educated guess work)

LBL have 2 choices. Firstly appeal the ruling against them, having one final attempt to save their license, under the knowledge if they lose then that’s it, shut up shop (note that DOESN’T mean all previous loans are unenforceable and everyone who owes them money can stop paying, existing debt will still be valid unless proven it was mis-sold on an individual case basis. It just means they can’t lend anymore, so they effectively change into a collections agent only)

The second choice is sell up to someone who already has a licence so they can change name and ownership and carry on.

I too have heard rumours from relatively accurate sources the latter has happened. Loans2go are an American owned company and there is no doubt LBL they have changed their literature and head office greetings to “Hermes property services”. I suspect they have been bought out by the same parent company who will have no issues with the license and therefore mean the company can carry on operating under a different name with different directors. In other words they have bought the book, the staff, the market presence and bottom line a fast track to the UKS biggest logbook loan lender, in short a take over.

For those who say they will look stupid having bought a dead duck, I’m pretty sure a mega company of this size having paid mega bucks will have had pretty good lawyers look at the small print and legality before they handed a cheque over. This wouldn’t have been done and dusted in an afternoon.

For me I think it’s a victory but maybe a hollow one. Yes logbook loans have now gone, but I suspect the directors are sat in luxury yachts having sold the co may for millions and the staff and buildings etc. of logbook loans are all still there as they were. Working day to day but with a new name, years and years away from getting their license removed if it ever does as the logbook loans company is now put to bed.

Maybe I’m wrong, but for anyone who doubts it, go to your local cash converters and ask for a logbook loan. If they tell you they no longer operate then maybe they are dead and buried, but I suspect will be asked for your derails so they can call you back. Probably from the same person who would have called you 6 months ago but now working for a different company name.

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Guys

I agree with whats being said. We might have removed LBL but they have just really had a name change.

Every thing else seems to be the same. Only we are right back at the begining again.

One thing that has changed is how and who can witness the BOS.

A major point of law that had always been open to different interpretation and used incorrectly in court for so long by LBL.

LBL according to the Uper Tribunel judge said that LBL now are asking the borrower to supply the witness and no agent of the lender is to witness the BOS.

That leaves all those years of trading using the old witness method as described below on the BOS as unlawful and void on this basis.

LBL have an office full of these unexecuted documents thus in my book means those loans are unenforceable.

Under the OFT regs if the company knows they are not able to enforce a debt (and they do) then enforcment should not be attempted. But we all know they dont care about the rules.

9. It was not initially made one of the grounds for the withdrawal of the Appellants’ licences that this practice was illegal, the Adjudicator being “inclined to accept” that it complied with the 1882 Act though reaching no conclusion on the point: para. 16 of the Appellants’ grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and para. 61 of the OFT’s re-amended response. In that response, however, the OFT introduced the contention that the underwriter’s attestation was “attributable to NRL, with the result that NRL attests the bill of sale, contrary to the requirements of the 1882 Act”, with the further consequences that (a) the bills of sale were void (b) NRL’s agents had repossessed and sold consumers’ cars without a lawful justification and © because the underwriters earned commission “the Appellants have not afforded consumers the protection to which they are entitled, namely the independent attestation of their agreement to the bill of sale by a credible witness.”

So with all this on side what can we do about it.

One thing I ask of Site is to read this judgment to see if what I have taken from it as correct.

As Samuel20 has pointed out why would a big company with all its legal team buy LBL if what I have said is potentialy true..

What have they got up their sleeves to get around this point. I bet it isnt good what ever it is

Comments please

[caro]

Hi Nick

 

I've asked for input from the team and will also have a good read myself over the weekend.

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Guys,

 

If the BOS is void then this just stops them from taking the car that the BOS secures.

 

This in my case all I want to do. Because I didnt have a loan with LBL. Someone else did. The borrower put the loan on my car without my knowledge.

 

So removing the BOS is all I need to do. I think this is were the confussion has come from.

 

So I think the CA may still be in place still even if the BOS has gone. Im not sure

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Caro,

 

thanks for your reply.Its very difficulkt to understand from reading the Judgment.

 

I think we need as many heads looking at this because if the BOS is void because the witness process has been done incorrectly then this is a major tool to beat them with.

 

It will put cars that are at risk untouchable. This is what is needed.

[sillygirl1]

Just wondering if the new owners are an offshore based joint venture mob, and have been deluded by LBL, therefore if that is the case the sale of the debts should be null and void.

 

Also wondering if the new owners are American based and might use that (we all know what MBNA tried) but there aren't reciprocal debt agreements between EU and the USA, nor between the UK and USA that I am aware of (I may be wrong on this point).

[Nicky Bodmin]

I think we are in more of a mess at the minute than before. Has anyone had their car taken recently

[paul2012uk]

hi yesterday i went in cash converters and asked for a log book loans (as a joke) all the leafets still advertised nine regions .they had two log book loans advisers there from the company who brought them out.my question is do the new company still have the right to take the car .Or do they have to come to a fair arrangement with us ?.We where about to hand our car over to the auction house that sell the cars for lbl. do we or dont we ?

[cliocarl]

hello there,

 

i have read this thread with great interest and would like some form of clarification on what to do next.

i took out my logbook loan/nine regions on 02/10/2009, i have made payments ever since, reccently defaulting on the payments, i phoned them after receiving default notifications and it eventually being passed to repo department, on the morning i phoned them and had agreed to pay £50 per week, a recovery vheicle arrived outside my house and parked behind my vheicle blocking it in and demanded the keys for the vheicle, stating that my vheicle was due for recovery for sale at public auction, to cut a long story short after refusing to give her my keys,(red rose recoveries from preston) she put me on the phone to her boss whom i explained my position to as i had a disabled son and he needed to attend a heart scan appointment and explaining we were not in a position to use public transport due to my sons health care needs, he then phoned lbl on my behalf whom i was then passed onto to speak to, the terms he gave me were that the vheicle had to be reposessed, but if i had £100 to pay the recovery woman there and then he would withdraw the recovery.

i didnt have the funds at the time and this was explained to lbl that i would have the money on mon, so he told me that the car would be held untill mon and i had paid the £100, and then the car would be released back to me.

so i handed her the keys and she loaded my car onto the recovery truck, gave me the number to phone to pay the £100 and drove off.

monday came and i paid the £100 to red rose recoveries, they assured me my car would duly be returned.

two days later after several phone calls i was contacted by them and told my car was on its way to me.

the car arrived bak at 1;30 pm that day.

two days later i received a letter from logbook loans, detailing the £50 per week payment plan.

 

i have now received another letter from them stating the following,

 

notice of assignment from nine regions ltd in administration (nine regions)

to cc collections ltd (cc) in accordance with section 82a

of the consumer credit act 1974 and section 136 of the law of property act 1925

dear mr ****.

your agreement with nine regions

 

we are writing to inform you that your agreement was assigned to us on 13/02/2012. you are not required to do anything different as a result of this assignment. just continue to make payments as you have been doing and your payments will continue to be fully credited to your account.

please note that your bank or card statements may now reflect the name of our company on future payments.

 

nine regions have assigned to us its rights and interests under your credit agreement and bill of sale. this includes all money and interest now due or becoming payable on your loan or any judgement obtained in relation to your loan together with the security afforded by the bill of sale. any monies you owe under the agreement are now owed to us rather than to nine regions and that all your future dealings will be with our company.

 

if you have any questions or would like to discuss anything in this letter, please do not heasitate to contact us directly using the details at the head of this letter.

 

your faithfully,

cc collections

for and behalf of cc collections

 

cc collections ltd registered in englan wales; the white house, satwell, henley-on-thames,oxfordshire, rg9 4qz. registered company number; 6440621

 

now upon looking at the head of the letter the contact details are the same as i have allways used to contact logbook loans,; tel 0844 871 1567

whats going on and should i continue to pay this company who seem to have the same contact details as logbook loans.

i need some help and advice fast.

 

thanks

carl

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi

 

Well for a start they are not allowed to take a car without a court order thjis was instructions laid out in the Tribunel judgment. So they have already breeched this.

 

Call the OFT on Monday

[Nicky Bodmin]

hi yesterday i went in cash converters and asked for a log book loans (as a joke) all the leafets still advertised nine regions .they had two log book loans advisers there from the company who brought them out.my question is do the new company still have the right to take the car .Or do they have to come to a fair arrangement with us ?.We where about to hand our car over to the auction house that sell the cars for lbl. do we or dont we ?

 

 

Hi

 

Its a sjame you didnt attempt to take out a loan with LBL because they are not allowed to write any new business

 

they would be seriously in trouble possibly commiting a criminal offence.

 

We need to testy this if anyone knows of any new lending by LBL

[paul2012uk]

after seeing your letter from the new owners . i still want to know if they can take the car

[Nicky Bodmin]

Im still waiting confirmation on the Attestation issue but as far as I no if the same person that signed the CA witnesses the BOS then you can apply to have it void this should save the care and possibly the CA. But seeing they have taken the car anyway they have ignored the Tribunel and this is serious.

 

They where told they can carry on business till end of appeal process No cars where to be taken without a court order. No repross were to take place at all without court order. You need to call OFT on Monday because they have ignored the Tribunel and that is a criminal offence

[cliocarl]

ok thanks for the heads up, so without sounding stupid what exactly do i need to ring them and say, also should i consult a solicitor or cab on this matter?.

do i still need to pay the £50 per week as i have received a paying in book this morning from logbook loans, using the same nat west account. on the paying in slip it states nine regions limited payment reference 10056662 my payments are due every monday and i owe £1900 currently.

i was under the impression as per the letter i received all further communications would be with cc collections, but it just seems as though im dealing with logbook loans as normal.

 

carl

[samuel20]

I must admit I find the whole witnessing of the bill of sale very confusing. Some facts seem clear.

 

1) Logbook loans used their own staff, i.e. the rep to witness the documents

2) It was raised through the courts this may be illegal making the document unenforceable, conclusion to be reached via a court hearing

3) Logbook loans immediately stopped using the rep as a witness and starts using a third party

4) Logbook loans STOPS repossessing cars subject to the court hearing for several months

5) The court hearing happens and a ruling is made

6) Logbook loans start repossessing the loans witnessed by their own staff again saying they won the ruling and referring anyone to the content if they doubt it

7) Many people on this site dispute the fact they won

 

What confuses me is surely they either won or they didn’t and the ruling must be clear on that? This happened almost a year ago now and they have been repossessing again for months and no one has stopped them. While I read many posts about it being illegal, contact the police, the oft, your solicitor, iron man or anyone else who will listen, surely if it was illegal they would have been stopped by now, how come the only posts are advising that they are breaking the law but yet a year on no one is stopping them?

 

Can the site team get clarity from anyone who can decipher clearly this document because what worries me is they say they won the court hearing, started reprocessing again and no one in any position of authority has an issue with this. Are they right, because without a definitive conclusion on this ruling, based on the evidence of their actions and the lack of action and interest from the same authorities who told them to stop at one point, this all indicates they did?

Edited February 19, 2012 by samuel20

[caro]

Please bear in mind that the site team aren't experts, but we are trying to get it deciphered.

 

In the meantime, I would suggest phoning the OFT to see if they can clarify the situation.

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Guys Sute Team,

 

I have been reading this and it seems that LBL not only failed on the attestatuion issue not in just one way but several points.

 

I have listed them below.

 

1. They cant use the rep to witness the BOS that signs the CA

 

2 LBL now say they underwritter can no longer witness the BOS but another member of staff can.

 

Both 1. and point 2 also void the BOS if having used the rep or an unrelated staff member as witness

because the BOS has to be completed with correct details of the witness

 

Witness name

 

witness description ie address

 

witness occupation

 

Now the address used for the witness is the company address there for incorrect.

 

He has to witness the BOS and affidavit in his personal capacity hence only using his home address.

 

QUOTE

 

“The attestation clause is an essential part of the statutory form of a security bill of sale and must be meticulously completed. The name, address and description of the attesting witness or witnesses are required by the statutory form to be stated.”

 

This is only done correctly on the affidavit

 

There are a few more points in the link below.

 

But the 2 above seem to be common practise for most on site ref BOS

 

The address issue cant be argued even by LBL because their witnesses dont live with their families at the Putney address.

(Can you imagine all the witnesses with kids living there it would be hell even for LBL standards.) lol

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/280.html&query=nine+and+regions+and+v+and+oft&method=boolean

 

 

4. The Attestation Issue was framed as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

“Is a bill of sale rendered void under sections 8 and 10 of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act 1882 in circumstances where its execution by the Appellants’ customer, i.e. the grantor, is attested by the employee of the Appellants who negotiates, agrees and signs on behalf of the Appellants, the credit agreement between the customer and the Appellants?”

 

 

 

JUDGE LEVENSON

 

 

 

94. I would not allow this appeal but would confirm the decision of the First-tier Tribunal on this limited preliminary point, although not necessarily for all of the same reasons. My answer to the attestation question as cited in paragraph 4 above would be “yes”.

 

 

 

 

(9) Mr Snowden’s contention could lead to substantial uncertainty as to whether a bill is void by reason of non-compliance with s.10. It would be necessary to examine the relationship between a company grantee and the attesting witness, and the part which the witness had played in the transaction, in order to determine whether the witness’s attestation should be attributed to the company. Unless it were clear that there was no sufficiently close connection, there would be a risk of the bill being void, to the potential prejudice of third parties. It might in many cases be difficult for a third party to ascertain the position. In the present case, for example, NRL have changed their instructions to underwriters in relation to attestation, and the bills are now attested by an employee of the agent in the store. There might be uncertainty as to whether such a person’s action in routinely witnessing bills of sale ought to be attributed to NRL.

 

 

 

 

This uncertainty would not necessarily be limited to a risk of invalidity by reason of the witness’s attestation being attributed to the grantee company. If the witness is employed by some other company (as the witnesses under NRL’s new practice are), and witnesses the bill in the course of his employment by that company, consistency might well require that the witness’s attestation be attributed to the employer company. The bill would then seem to be void, not because the attestation was by a party to the bill, but because the name and description of the attesting witness will have been incorrectly stated. The form of bill of sale in the Schedule to the 1882 Act gives an instruction to “add witness’ name, address and description”. The decided cases show that that requirement must be strictly complied with. They are collected in the footnotes to the following text at para. 1745 of Halsbury’s Laws, 5th ed. (2008), Vol. 50:

 

 

 

 

 

“The attestation clause is an essential part of the statutory form of a security bill of sale and must be meticulously completed. The name, address and description of the attesting witness or witnesses are required by the statutory form to be stated.”

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, the affidavit which is presented to and filed with the registrar pursuant to s.10(2) of the 1878 Act (which was not repealed by the 1882 Act) must contain a “description of the residence and occupation of …….. every attesting witness”. If, under the practice which is now adopted by NRL, the attestation by the agent’s employee is to be attributed to the agent company, the bill of sale might well be void for that reason.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

By the sounds of this even the Affidavit has not been witnessed correctly because if the rep is not allowed to witness the BOS then in turn cant be the witness to the affidavit

or the incorrect details are not on affidavit ie the correct address.

 

My god what firm of solicitors are advising LBL Id sack them by now lol

BAD BAD BOYS

 

so anyone being told by LBL or like that they won the attestation issue click the link above and send oit to them

 

Oh one final point LBL are still sending letters from their Legal Administrators.under the LBL letterheaded paper and PUTNEY address. They obviously need the holiday that will be at HMP up to 2 years in prison for impersonating a solicitor or other legal.

 

AND oh my was that not what TOOK their license

Dont panic guys we just have to be strong and use the Judgments that we have before us that are personal to LBL and not just ref other cases in past.

 

Print out the Judgments and take them to your solicitors and start fighting in court because it has been proven now what they have done wrong. Dont let them bully you.

 

Good luck

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2012 by Nicky Bodmin
spelling

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi again,

 

 

Right who has a BOS that looks like this

 

“IN WITNESS whereof this Bill of Sale has been executed as a Deed by the Borrower on the above date.

 

 

SCHEDULE

 

 

[Details of the vehicle are then required to be inserted]

 

 

 

SIGNED and delivered as a deed by the Borrower:

 

 

…………………………………………..

 

Borrower’s signature [borrower’s name typed]

 

 

In the presence of:

 

 

……………………………………………..

 

Signature of witness

 

 

……………………………………………..

 

Name of witness (printed)

 

 

 

Bridge Studios

 

34a Deodar Road

 

Putney

 

London SW15 2NN

 

 

Address of witness

 

 

…………………………

 

Description of witness”

 

if so its VOID because the address shouldnt be the company address.

If the rep or agent that signed the CA has signed the BOS it is also VOID

If the witness is just another employee of LBL but not signed the CA but has used the company address as their witnessing address it is also VOID

All witnesses on all documents have to be their own home address or it has not complied with the requirement of the act THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

If the Affidavit has the company address as the witnesses address it is also VOID

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Guys

 

Have been in contact today with the OFT went crazy at them for not adviing the consumer of state of play with LBL.

 

I raised all point mentioned on here.

 

I have demanded clarification on how the attestation has been left

 

also when they have to end company trading . In fact every thing to do with them as it stands today.

 

I will post the reply when I recieve it today or tomorrow.

 

They are fully aware of what they are still doing so dont panic.

 

Any one with issues call OFT as soon as it happens

[mark1711]

Hi

On my BOS is,

Schedule, and then van details,

then signed by me then in presence of the rep signed by him

signature of witness also signed by one of the staff at cash converters,

then name of witness,cash con blpoo,which i think should mean cash converters blackpool,

address of witness,staff

description of witness, empty

hope you can understand this and is it void or not

PLEASE HELP

[mark1711]

I also received a letter today from cc collection ltd saying that my agreement is still the same and keep paying in to the same account as before.

Notice of assignment from Nine Regions Ltd in administration {Nine Regions}

to CC Collections Ltd {CC} in accordance with section 82A

of the consumer act 1974 and section 136 of the law of property act 1925.

[Nicky Bodmin]

Hi Guys ,

Well I promised you the email recieved from OFT. Well likle I said before we are in deeper **** than ever. The email is as follows.

Thank you for calling earlier, as agreed I will attempt to give you an update on the Attestation issue and I can update you with our present legal position in relation to the Consumer Credit Licences of Log Book Loans and Nine Regions. I regret to inform you I can’t advise you any further in respect to your individual case against Log Book Loans and Nine Regions and would strongly advise you to seek independent Legal advice.

I regret this may not be the answer you were hoping for however the Upper Tier Tribunal overruled the First Tier Tribunal’s decision in relation to the attestation issue in July. The Upper Tribunal decided that the attestation of a borrower’s signature on a Bill of Sale by a corporate lender’s employee does not itself make the bill void.

I would point out that the issue of whether an employee of a corporate lender can properly attest a bill of sale is not free from doubt. The OFT has not yet decided whether or not to appeal the ruling of the Upper Tribunal, this remains a decision for the OFT’s legal team to make. Even if the OFT doesn’t appeal the decision a borrower may take the point through courts and could, in effect, successfully challenge the Upper Tribunal’s ruling. Accordingly, individual lenders will no doubt take advice on the implications of continuing to have their bills of sale witnessed by employees in the event that the decision of the Upper Tribunal is eventually deemed to have been wrong.

In short, the OFT hasn’t won the issue of Attestation on Bills of Sale and it is advised you take you own independent Legal Advice on how this effects your case.

You asked the question of whether Log Book Loans and Nine Regions Limited are able to continue trading, in short, they are allowed to continue trading under their licence (including new lending and repossession) until their Appeal process is exhausted. On 3RD February 2012, the First-Tier Tribunal refused Log Book Loans Limited’s request for permission to appeal against its previous determination to the Upper Tier Tribunal and the OFT has received no information to suggest Log Book Loans or Nine Regions Limited will appeal that decision to date. Both companies will be afforded 28 days from the day of this decision to make an appeal so in effect if we do not receive an appeal by the Start of March both Consumer Credit Licenses will be officially terminated and they can no longer trade under their current licenses.

Unfortunatley I can’t make any comments in respect to our investigation and can only comment on information which is publicly available however please be assured that we retain an interest in the case and particularly the future of Log Book Loan’s Limited’s ‘Loan Book’.

I hope this email is of use to you.

Regards

Adrian.

Adrian Dixon| Secured Lending Team| Corporate Services | Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House | 2-6 Salisbury Square | London EC4Y 8JX | T: 0 20 7211 8527 | F: 020 7211 8429 | www.oft.gov.uk

[Nicky Bodmin]

Im sorry but this is all a load of bullux

 

So back to the drawing board.

 

Mu only other suggestion is that the details that should be on the BOS shou;ld be the address of the rep and not the company. I have ref it above

[samuel20]

So in short ….

Logbook loans CAN repossess car witnessed by their own staff, the OFT are at best “thinking about” contesting this decision but say any individuals are welcome to try and appeal the decision themselves instead! Thanks OFT, we all have the money in our back pocket that would be required to take that through the courts!

Also LBL haven’t appealed their license decision, but we now know they won’t and that’s because they’ve sold their lending book to another company with a license so they can carry on trading under a new name, while nine regions looks after the bad debt (hence the administrators being involved as otherwise this would have to be part of the purchase and hence they the old and new company operate from the same address)

Great. Makes you wonder why we bothered. Ok they’ve lost their license but they can carry on repossessing and the owners have made a wod by selling their lending arm on to someone else. Not sure what the moral of the story has been in all of this