Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ah good. changes things then. but you must reply to them within 30days. we'll deal with that later.   now why are you getting this letter if the agreement you said earlier is in your brothers name? should be in his name its also not on that they did that, it was obvious you could not get the credit , so can you clarify please who's name is on the agreement too?   what is also not very nice either is they scammed you into handing the car back under i would assume voluntary surrender, whereby you owe everything, rather than telling you you could voluntary terminate only owing to the 50% mark.   can you expand upon the how the handback came about and what they did and didn't say?   all of the above if true bodes well to p'haps buffing this debt away .   dx
    • Hi dx,   The letter does not have any title but, it does have attached to it a reply pack with an income and expenditure form included.   No problem, I'll scan and upload the agreement tomorrow so you can have a browse. Just as an aside, the agreement does say on the top of the page hire agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. So I was wrong.   Thanks!
    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim.   1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied.   2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists.   3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document.   4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either.   5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided.   6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2488 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

My car was stolen from my driveway 10 days after a judge ordered Logbook loans to return my car to me.


Two men, one with an Irish accent knocked on my neighbours door and asked if the owner of the car was a black woman.

That made me realise that this was not an ordinary car theft and that it was done by somebody who had had dealings with me.


The car was stolen in 2011 and the police have not been able to do anything except place the car details on the missing car register.


However, I came across the following on an old thread on this forum.

I would be interested in finding out about the two men Laurie and Simon mentioned in the following passage.


Also all attempts to track someone who seems to be their previous boss Graham Poulter have proved futile.


My reasons for tracking the thieves are two fold,


one because they had no right to steal it and have left me without a car.


2 Logbook loans,

the old Logbook loans have registered against my property at the land registry

and once I sell I will have to pay a substantial amount of money.


I have been informed that even though the old Logbook Loans went into receivership

that I will still have to pay the administrators the money registered against my property.


"Gemini International UK Ltd acted as Specialist Recovery Agents for Logbook Loans for approximately 3 years.


Initially we were brought in to trace, locate and recover vehicles which were the subject of accounts

where customers had been in default for some time and that other recovery agents had failed to find.


We continued working as agents on their behalf until such time as their continuing expansion raised certain issues

and practices that we were not happy to be a party to and we subsequently terminated our working relationship in October 2007.


As we are currently in court action against Logbook Loans we would like to keep our comments brief, but would like to clarify a few points.


We would like to make it clear that any repossession undertaken by us has been carried out as agents on the instructions of,

and with the full authority of Logbook Loans.


In certain cases we were permitted to arrange payment plans thereby giving customers another chance to avoid repossession.

If the customer failed again to make the agreed payments,

overdue letters were issued but ultimately our instructions were that the vehicle be repossessed.

Once at the stage of repossession the customers were given the opportunity to pay the account in full.


In other cases where the customer had been in default for some time (and in some cases for several unpaid loans)

and where other agents had failed to locate the vehicles because they had been hidden,

we were instructed to locate and repossess immediately.


Any subsequent action or sale of a vehicle has been at the request of Logbook Loans for their own reasons;

on the whole vehicles repossessed were taken to auction sites.


In one particular case a vehicle was sold as it was in poor condition and would not have reached a satisfactory amount at auction.


In other cases it has been on the instructions of, and with the authority of, Logbook Loans for reasons known by them.


We are not in the business of 'stealing cars' and any claims indicating this will be strongly refuted.


Customers we have dealt with have been given every chance by us to avoid repossession taking place

and we continue to hold all paperwork, notes and correspondence to support this.


We have already dealt with members of the press, certain financial authorities and legal bodies in regards to certain issues concerning Logbook Loans

(including issues made on this site) and are happy to continue to do so.


As reference has been made to employees using first names only

this is because a portion of our work has involved a criminal element

and has been for our staff's own safety.


As for the self-employed agent referred to (Simon) he was dismissed by our company,

along with another former self - employed agent (Laurie) for theft and deception.


Despite warnings that these two individuals should not be working in an industry where vunerable people are involved

they continue to be able to work indirectly for Logbook Loans.


We would like to add that should anyone we have dealt with in the past have any ongoing issues regarding Logbook Loans

and would like any help or advice please feel free to contact us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the best will in the world, we don't understand what the story is or what you are asking.


Could you try and explain it all again please - but just the facts - in chronological order and without all of the quoted stuff.


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi alice


so when was you car repo'd by these two then?


tell us more please



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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote which is from this forum is very important as

I have a belief that these are the men that might (and I stress the might) have taken my car.


My car was repossessed by log book loans circa 2008.


I protested very strongly to Log Book Loans that they had no right to take my car after I had paid them a substantial amount of money.

They gave my car back to me.


I was again not able to keep up with the payments and it was taken away again.


So far 2 repossessions which I witnessed myself and was asked by those taking the car away to contact the Log book loans office.


I took Logbook loans to court and the judge quoted a 19th century law that states

that once goods have been taken away and given back to a consumer that the lender has lost their rights to the goods.


Logbook loans were not best pleased.


10 days after my car was put back on my driveway it was stolen,

not repossessed

by two men one of whom had asked my neighbour if the owner was black.


Prior to that Logbook loans had placed an interim charging order against my property which is registered with The Land registry.


Can I also use this opportunity to ask if xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx etc all still work for Log Book loans,

that is the newly formed one or have they moved on to greener pastures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

unknown and we wont know employee info

try facebook





as for the stolen car

WHEN and ofcourse you informed the police?

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...