Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear xxxxx   complaint about Logbook Money Limited   The complaint Xxxxxx took out a logbook loan with Logbook Money. Xxxx told us Logbook Money didn’t carry out any affordability checks prior to the loan. Xxx said they have missed information on requesting evidence i.e. payslips and they have conflicting information about a utility bill xxxx provided them.   Xxxxxx told us xxxxx had several large payday loans which all had defaulted including a large guarantor loan to amigo, and Logbook Money should have seen this when carrying out a soft credit checks as told. Xxxxxxxx also told us Logbook Money have applied £884 in charges to an initial loan of £1000.     Details of the agreements (Logbook Loans)   Loan number Start date Capital amount Total repayable Weekly repayment Duration 31 August 2019 £1,000 £2,800.20 £35.90 18months   My understanding is the loan isn’t settled yet. Findings Our approach to considering complaints about unaffordable and irresponsible lending is set out on our website. I’ve had this approach in mind when considering what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.   Did Logbook Money complete reasonable and proportionate checks to satisfy itself that xxxxxxx would be able to repay the agreement in a sustainable way?   Logbook Money have provided us with the documents they have relied on which includes customer information, income, and outgoings, driving licence, copy of the agreement and bill of sale. They told us they used xxxxxx bank statement to complete the income and expenditure at the time, however due to the lapse of time they don’t hold the statement any longer.   The income and expenditure from the time of sale shows net income was around £2,300, this includes private rent, child tax credit and DWP and her monthly expenditure was £764. This left xxxxx with a disposable income of £1,536 of which she would be expected to make a weekly payment of £35.90.     Considering everything, I think Logbook Money completed reasonable and proportionate checks based on the size of the loan, the interest charged, the monthly repayments and length of the agreement.   Did Logbook Money make a fair lending decision?   As I think Logbook Money carried out a reasonable and proportionate checks, I have gone onto consider whether it made a fair lending decision based on the information it obtained about xxxxxxx circumstances at the time.   Since Logbook Money said they don’t hold the bank statements any longer, I asked xxxxxxx to provide me with the statements. From what I’ve seen, xxxx monthly income across the xxxxx and xxxxxxx account appear to broadly support her income of £2,333 which reflects in the income and expenditure from the time. However, the bank statement I received from xxxxxxx shows outgoings were higher at around £1,344, which indicated a monthly disposal income of around £937 from which xxxxxxx would be expected to make the £35.90 weekly loan repayment. This indicates xxxx still had enough disposable income to be able to sustainably afford the monthly payments towards the agreement.   The screen shot of the credit report xxxxxxxxx sent to me shows Vodaphone, Three and Vanquis account has worsened in August 2019, however this information isn’t enough for me to understand what the credit report reflected at the time -  for e.g. if there were any large balances outstanding, defaults, CCJ’s, accounts in arrears, or missed payments   I asked for further information on 17 November 2021 – a full credit report from the time, including the statement of the account number xxxxxx and statements for all other active account +/-3months the loan start date. Since I haven’t receive the information, I can’t say what this would’ve looked like.   I don’t think there was anything in the information Logbook Money gathered that ought to have highlighted any concerns about xxxxxxx being able to sustainably afford the agreement. I therefore don’t think Logbook Money acted unfairly in approving the finance.   Did business act unfairly in any other way   Xxxxxx told Logbook Money xxxx is unhappy the way the vehicle was repossessed and how the debt was pursued. Logbook Money told us there were two attempts made to repossess the car prior to the actual repossession on 1 August 2021. The first attempt was made on 10 June and the second one was on 5 July 2021, however both attempts were unsuccessful. This would mean xxxxxxx was aware that the vehicle was at risk of repossession. Logbook Money provided us a copy of the default notice that was sent to xxxxxx in December 2020, which outlines the importance of clearing any arrears outstanding and the risk of repossession.   From the information Logbook Money provided us, it shows the vehicle was released to xxxxxxx after xxxxx made a payment.   Regarding the personal belongings xxxxxx said she had in the car at the time the vehicle was repossessed - Logbook Money told us the recovery agent left a message for xxxxxx to contact them to arrange to collect belongings.   In reviewing this case I’ve thought very carefully about the way the business pursued the outstanding debt and considered whether I felt that business fell short of its obligations in responding to xxxxxxx situation.   While I’m sure that this situation may have caused distress and/or inconvenience, I don’t think that this stemmed from Logbook Money making a mistake or acting unfairly or unreasonably. So, I haven’t made any recommendation in relation to this.  Next steps I think this is a fair outcome in the circumstances, for the reasons I’ve explained. But if xxxxxx decides that xxx doesn't accept what I’ve said, then please let me know by 10 December 2021. If I can’t resolve things then an ombudsman here can look at everything again and make a final decision. If I don’t hear from you by that date we might not be able to look at xxxxxxxxx 
    • god this is frustrating for you.   i'll ping @Andyorch p'haps he has an idea, not one of our past history strengths that i can find.   dx  
    • In 2015 I invested £45,200 in a SIPP operated by Guinness Mahon, which is linked to Dolphin, later German Property Group. GPG went into administration to Feb 2020. My SIPP was due to mature in April 2020.   I first took my claim to FSCS. They rejected my claim, I appealed and still got rejected. Their reason was that Wellington CFS signatures were involved in my pension transfer into the SIPP. This was a surprise to me.    I then emailed and called Wellington, several times, eventually receiving an email stating I did not exist in their records.   I then opened a case with FOS. My case has not yet been assigned a case handler.  From what I learned from others caught up in GPG. Wellington are stating their signatures were used fraudulently. Yet there is evidence of them taking fees.    If you want to read more there is a GPG creditors association Facebook site. You will find others on there in the same position. I did write to Wellington CFS and never got a reply.   If you call their Ireland number you get an answer machine. Their office in Devon, does pick up but this is just a receptionist, takes a message and alas no one gets back to you.   I also heard Wellington CFS is linked to Spain. I think the best outcome is that Wellington go into administration, at this point FSCS will be the last resort. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2828 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that givehimamask has pointed out the only part were we could fail and that needs to be taken on broad.

I also think that we have to make sure the oal is as good as the document, which I have been going over and re reading the thread to make sure there is NO way out lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple hi,

 

Give me a day I am in work tomorrow so will ask the IT team and my contacts to get posted up on various sites :-)

Iam going to contact all the TV stations as well :-)

 

Thank you so much Alisono......I'm sure many borrowers who view this thread won't mind copying and pasting the link to the e-petition on face book or their twitter accounts...it is the best way to get the message out......

 

TV will be good too...... you are a Gem ; )

 

BTW...have you contacted that phone number you were given as yet......the direct 'contact' at the Chamber who is supposed to know who appears to have ordered the "lamb" case to all

applicants?

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that givehimamask has pointed out the only part were we could fail and that needs to be taken on broad.

I also think that we have to make sure the oal is as good as the document, which I have been going over and re reading the thread to make sure there is NO way out lol.

 

I hear you....

 

So, you suggest that we put on the CaG 'grounds'....that include everything?.... you do realise....such a document could be 30+ pages.....???

 

Lenders are already panicking....and we only put in a 'draft' ... it was only 7 pages....what say they get to see a document running to 30+ pages??

 

Imagine...they are relying on 'lamb'......even when...it is an un-reported case...and at Paragraph 13 the Judge made it clear.... it is no 'authority' and should not be relied upon by any 'litigant'...this is what he said:

 

....I think it appropriate to remind those who may become aware of this Judgment of the the following matters.

 

Firstly, the County Court is not a superior court of record and the decisions of county court judges do not constitute authorities binding on other judges at the same level, although depending on the identity and status of the particular Judge and the nature of the case, a Judgment might be considered persuasive in other county courts by District Judges or Deputy District Judges.....

 

In the absence of a decision of a Higher Court whose Judgment would represent an authority binding on circuit judges, district judges or deputy district judges sitting in all county courts; any decision of mine may prove of limited value to other litigants.....

 

The Lender is, like the Borrower a 'litigant'......the decision in 'lamb' will be of 'limited' value to them......and certainly of no use whatsoever to us.....and we accept and acknowledge that... it is just for the Lender now to catch up with us....and see that This case will not assist them.....THERE IS NO DEFENCE....

 

WE are off to the Chamber.....thier decision will be binding on 'all circuit judges, district judges, or deputy district judges sitting in any county court'......

 

The Lender has not 'assumed' the deed...he did not execute it.....The DEED IS VOID....NO DEFENCE...so a decision... when it comes will be.....Just what the Doctor Ordered ; )

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please accept this advice in the spirit it's intended, because I fully accept that everything needs to be covered but ....

 

I have seen many times on cag that judges have gone into court and not read all the information provided. They have also said that they don't have time to read long defences, witness statements etc.

 

I have also seen many times that they aren't impressed by "armchair lawyers" presenting complicated cases and quoting the law at them, especially if they turn up in court and clearly don't understand what their documentation says.

 

I'm not suggesting that anyone on this thread doesn't understand the theory btw.

 

I suggest that all submissions are as simple and concise as possible. The more complex information you provide, the more ammunition there is for solicitors or barristers to ask complex legal questions that the untrained LIP may struggle to answer.

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE 'E-PETITION' IS NOW LIVE

.......:whoo:

 

Notably they have amended/Changed the desired "Responsible Department" to: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.....ummmmm

 

Alisono..... Face Book.... Twitter.... Watchdog....etc, etc please ; )

 

oh...and before you all start surmising.....no, Applecart did not set it up.... I simply provided the detail to someone else to do so on our behalf ; )

 

 

Apple

 

 

I have contributed on this thread where I can.....admittedly alot of this thread is over my head. What I am really surprised at the amount of views and watchers have been massive so far, BUT only 5 people have signed the e petition?????

 

Following those statistics there is little faith in the arguments put forward.....and that shocks me! I thought there would be more support.

 

?????

 

LL

Edited by lesterlass
Spelling as usual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Give it a chance, it has only been live for a matter of hours . More will sign in time

 

Thanks for this Ben.... your right - the e-petition is early days... set up to run over a 12 mth period..... : )

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I thought the support would be quicker..... nice to see Ben supporting the petition.

 

IT'S LIKE THE X=Factor.... if you don't do your bit...why should you win.... if you want it to move faster... all you have to do is promote it....and if everbody does the same...it will get the desired effect.....

 

Sitting back ....and doing nothing..... does not assist the objective...

 

Have you signed it yet??

 

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]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple/IS IT ME

I agree there are far too many scenarios out there and there can be no template.... but we do have a common factor.... however, we also have contributors to the thread who seek something more than to have the Deed set aside, now I have the greatest respect for these Caggers and their contributions.... and understand their frustrations with their Lenders..... and also those who remain silent as viewers who may be contemplating similar application action..... but they should be reminded at every turn that this thread is not about revenge.... for as Confucius says.... ‘ he who seeks revenge should first dig two graves’.

I believe that having read this thread many times now.... and setting aside caggers own individual problems and issues.... there is a basis through your work and that of IS IT ME.... that there now exists a fundamental common factor....that is available to all who wish to follow this route.... and that is the original draft for IS IT MEs friend.... if this is adopted then the many scenarios will fall away.... then you will be able to keep everyone focused and on message

GiveHimaMask

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I thought the support would be quicker..... nice to see Ben supporting the petition.

 

Hello LL

 

I don't support it. At best I think it is misleading and factually incorrect. The use of terminology is also wrong.

 

The point I was making was that the e-petition will be live for 12 months (not much help to those with a hearing in January). It will take more than just a few hours for people to even become aware that it exists.

 

The link to it has already become lost in this thread and that is in the space of hours. The supporters of the cause should include a link to it in their signatures. At least that way it will increase the chances of people finding it.

 

However, I do share your surprise that still only 5 people have signed it. Especially given the strength of feeling of some of the contributors to this thread.

Edited by bhall

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am really surprised at the amount of views and watchers have been massive so far, BUT only 5 people have signed the e petition?????

 

 

That is because:

 

A) Relatively few people have contributed to the thread

B) The VAST majority of the 'views' are not by humans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

Fair play to you.... your observation is correct.... thing do tend to get buried very quickly.

Like your suggestion to add link to contributors signature.... how do you do it?

 

GiveHimaMask

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

Fair play to you.... your observation is correct.... thing do tend to get buried very quickly.

Like your suggestion to add link to contributors signature.... how do you do it?

 

GiveHimaMask

 

 

Hi giveHIMamask go to user cp at top of page click on it look to your left go to edit signature...

 

pj

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks p.j

 

Do you think we should standardise the message and add some formating to make it stand out???

 

yes GiveHimaMask make it shout very loud to people the link needs posting everywhere too

 

pj

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, that sort of thing.

 

As at least three of us have already said within the thread, it's better to judge a thread by the number of unique contributors.

 

morning sequenchi no way is that all bots,just because all those numbers have not joined does not mean those views are not human

come on now unless you can show otherwise then i shall zip it....

 

pj

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then p.j perhaps it is only right that we allow input form IS IT ME and Apple as to what it should be,

Give it some 'corporate identity' with the epetition its self.... what do you think???

 

GiveHimaMask

STOP UNLAWFUL REPOSSESSIONS - SIGN THE PETITION NOW

Link to post
Share on other sites

morning sequenchi no way is that all bots,just because all those numbers have not joined does not mean those views are not human

come on now unless you can show otherwise then i shall zip it....

 

pj

 

You're welcome to your views and opinions, of course you are. I think the best thing to do is to agree to disagree. I'm not overly web savvy, I don't deal with the technical stuff. I'm just passing on what I've been told. And to be fair, anyone with even the slimmest iota of common sense should be able to understand the correlation between popularity, interest and unique posters within a forum thread. Have a look at some other threads, you'll see what I mean :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then p.j perhaps it is only right that we allow input form IS IT ME and Apple as to what it should be,

Give it some 'corporate identity' with the epetition its self.... what do you think???

 

GiveHimaMask

 

yes yes the starter of this thread mr IS IT ME and the threads e-petition starter Apple should put their corporate input in give it some real corporate identity .

 

pj

e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2828 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...