Log Book Loans Again....

[nathian]

Hi all,

we had a log book loan on our car in July of this year. After losing my job we fell behind with payments, and after numerous letters costing me £20 each, we had a visit from a "recovery agent" today, who came to remove our car. After being sympathetic to our problem and seeming a nice guy, we let him come in while we tried to resolve the situation with Lbl ltd. On the phone they basically said that if we didnt pay £970 right now, that the guy will take the car.

 

So, i accidently locked the guy in the house while my partner decided it was a good idea to just drive off in the car for a bit, until we had time to find out where we stood....Thinking the car had gone, i managed to find the keys and let him out the house, but the missus hadnt driven off yet, he had parked his van on the road, which was kinda blocking our route away, and the missus managed to squeeze the car safely between his van and some bins. Unfortunatly the agent thought he could stop my partner from reversing by pushing against the car while she did this careful manouvre...and very slowly she drove off down the road leaving a frustrated agent shouting to me that he was getting the police involved.

 

After around an hour of us just driving around thinking what to do, i thought it best for me to go back home to see if the agent was still parked outside our house, only to find the local police parked up with him.

 

Now the guy is saying that my partner badly hurt his leg, and tried to run him over, and he's doing her for ABH!!!!

 

Its obvious that she didnt do any damage, as he was only limping AFTER he came out of the police car. Well, we have just got back from the police station, after they let my girlfriend out on bail... and i have been reading some of the threads on here. I have phoned up log book loans and told them that the contract is not legally binding and that we will be in touch with the Trading Standards about the high APR etc etc.

 

Whta i want to know is, where do we stand now? what can we do if anything to stop this car being taken (not that the agent will be coming back...) do we have a leg to stand on???

 

Please help!!

[hagenuk]

Not in the road behind any car with your girlfriend at the wheel I'd suggest!

 

I'm sure someone with knowledge of Log Book Loans will be back to you about this - regarding the ABH charge, it would be difficult to substantiate unless there was some real injury that could be demonstrated and linked to the actions of your girlfriend.

[nathian]

Thanks for your reply's, i appreciate them all. I now know not to go with ANY loan company at all, it was just a rash decision made at a very hard time for us. The Recovery Agent had a bit of a red mark on his leg, and considering there was only me as a witness, i can't see anything coming of it.

 

As far as i am aware, the case is going to the CPS (crown prosection service?) Will it be thrown out for lack of evidence, or will she have to go to court still? As far as i can see, my statment, although will be taken... will not be any good due to the fact that it could be leaning in my partners favour. Its obvious that the guy gets paid per car seized and due to the fact that he wasn't getting ours...was a bit p****d off...and needed some way of getting us back.:?

[meggyweggy]

Hopefully it will be thrown out and yeah from what i can gather they are paid by the car. The best thing to do is if they do take it to court make sure you get a solicitor as they will rip through everything

[actionblusox]

Iwill also team up.

these **** are thinking this is a game...

and if possible i will sue the directors in whatever way i can, to bring criminal charges for discrimination, harrassment and breach of human rights. and hopefully they will get a nice warm cell to b*m each other......... so the more posted info the better..

[nellie75]

Hiya

nathian

 

Any updates regarding LBL? Did you go to CAB? Take it LBL ignoring your request for proof of bill of sale etc?

 

Keep us informed of your progress, if i can help in anyway i will be happy to

 

Nellie xx

[Guest DEATHLORD]

GO ONE BETTER ANS ISSUE A CLAIM FOR EXTORTINATE INTEREST AND UNFAIR CREDIT TERMS, I HAVE AND LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS NOW.

I have asked that the car be part or a court order and that no action should be taken without the courts prom.

[v_j_r]

QUOTE: "GO ONE BETTER ANS ISSUE A CLAIM FOR EXTORTINATE INTEREST AND UNFAIR CREDIT TERMS, I HAVE AND LETS SEE WHAT HAPPENS NOW" END QUOTE DEATHLORD MUMBLED.

 

Yep we will have no fear, will come back this time next year se how yer doin?.

[JonCris]

bump

[lookinforinfo]

To those of you who have not seen the Consumer Cedit Act relating to

extortionate agreements.......

 

Extortionate credit bargains

137.—(l) If the court finds a credit bargain extortionate it may reopen the credit

agreement so as to do justice between the parties.

(2) In this section and sections 138 to 140,—

(a) “ credit agreement “ means any agreement between an individual (the “ debtor

“) and any other person (the “ creditor “) by which the creditor provides the

debtor with credit of any amount, and

(b) “ credit bargain “—

(i) where no transaction other than the credit agreement is to be taken into

account in computing the total charge for credit, means the credit agreement,

or

(ii) where one or more other transactions are to be so taken into account,

means the credit agreement and those other transactions, take together.

138.—(1) A credit bargain is extortionate if it—

(a) requires the debtor or a relative of his to make payments (whether

unconditionally, or on certain contingencies) which are grossly exorbitant, or

(b) otherwise grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

(2) In determining whether a credit bargain is extortionate, regard shall be had to such

evidence as is adduced concerning—

(a) interest rates prevailing at the time it was made,

(b) the factors mentioned in subsection (3) to (5), and

© any other relevant considerations.

(3) Factors applicable under subsection (2) in relation to the debtor include—

(a) his age, experience, business capacity and state of health; and

(b) the degree to which, at the time of making the credit bargain, he was under

financial pressure, and the nature of that pressure.

(4) Factors applicable under subsection (2) in relation to the creditor include—

(a) the degree of risk accepted by him, having regard to the value of any security

provided;

(b) his relationship to the debtor; and

© whether or not a colourable cash price was quoted for any goods or services

included in the credit bargain.

(5) Factors applicable under subsection (2) in relation to a linked transaction include

the question how far the transaction was reasonably required for the protection of

debtor or creditor, or was in the interest of the debtor.

73

139.—(l) A credit agreement may, if the court thinks just, be reopened on the ground

that the credit bargain is extortionate—

(a) on an application for the purpose made by the debtor or any surety to the High

Court, county court or sheriff court; or

(b) at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings to which the debtor

and creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the credit agreement, any

security relating to it, or any linked transition; or

© at the insistence of the debtor or a surety in other proceedings in any court where

the amount paid or payable under the credit agreement is relevant.

(2) In reopening the agreement, the court may, for the purpose of relieving the debtor

or a surety from payment of any sum in excess of that fairly due and reasonable, by

order—

(a) direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between

any persons,

(b) set aside the whole or part of any obligation imposed on the debtor or a surety

by the credit bargain or any related agreement,

© require the creditor to repay the whole or part of any sum paid under the credit

bargain or any related agreement by the debtor or a surety, whether paid to the

creditor or any other person,

(d) direct the return to the surety of any property provided for the purposes of the

security, or

(e) alter the terms of the credit agreement or any security instrument.

(3) An order may be made under subsection (2) notwithstanding that its effect is to

place a burden on the creditor in respect of an advantage unfairly enjoyed by

another person who is a party to a linked transaction.

(4) An order under subsection (2) shall not alter the effect of any judgement.

(5) In England and Wales an application under subsection (l)(a) shall be brought only

in the county court in the case of—

(a) a regulated agreement, or

(b) an agreement (not being a regulated agreement) under which the creditor

provides the debtor with fixed-sum credit not exceeding £750 or runningaccount

credit on which the credit limit does not exceed £750.

(6) In Scotland an application under subsection (l)(a) may be brought in the sheriff

court for the district in which the debtor or surety resides or carries on business.

(7) In Northern Ireland an application under subsection (l)(a) - may be brought in the

county court in the case of—

(a) a regulated agreement, or

(b) an agreement (not being a regulated agreement) under which the creditor

provides the debtor with fixed-sum credit not exceeding £300 or runningaccount

credit on which the credit limit does not exceed £300.

74

140. Where the credit agreement is not a regulated agreement, expressions used in

sections 137 to 139 which, apart from this section, apply only to regulated

agreements, shall be construed as nearly as may be as if the credit agreement were a

regulated agreement.

[JonCris]

hi lookinforifo

 

Yes great in theory but not in practice.

When the OFT was asked why they hadn't capped the likes of Provident (1200%pa) they stated that it would be denying poor people access to money. Get the logic of that do you Charge the poor the highest rates cos they is poor Wot!

[lookinforinfo]

I hear what you sat JonCris. And obviously those who have a poor credit

record [and yes they will probably come from the poorest section of the

public] will be unable to benefit from the kind of rates that are on offer to

those of good standing.

 

However, Judges are a totally different kettle of fish [if they will forgive the analogy] from the OFT.

For here we have a company that holds ones logbook as security, which

should not only mean that a lower rate of interest is on offer, but in view

of the security the logbook offers, a less draconian response should be

expected. The combination of ever escalating penalties and over zealous

collectors should be condemned by the Courts and appropriate action taken.

It is almost axiomatic I suppose that many of the most financially challenged

are also the most vulnerable in terms of their knowledge [or lack ] of the Law,

and I would expect a Judge to also take that into effect when it occurs.

[JonCris]

lookinforinfo

 

I DO agree with your comments but we need judges who are prepared to stand up & be counted because any judge who rules an agreement unenforcable on the basis of interest rates/security etc: will know that their decision will almost certainly be appealed to a higher court.

 

Something which I can assure you they hate & will have in mind when making a judgement. Lower court judges don't like what they will see as setting new precedents.

[Guest DEATHLORD]

JC,

yes I agree a little with your point but then again it works both ways as I think it will. If you dont stand up now when will you?.

Its becuase these companys have got away with it for so long that it has set a 'PRECEDENT' and thats why.

But time will only tell.

[JonCris]

Hi DEATHLORD

I do agree that we MUST fight our corner

However to set a precedent will be of great expense to the litigant meaning that, like all previous precedents, it may be many years for the case law to emerge

[meggyweggy]

Having read what has been written here and having had dealing with LBL i agree with you that we dd need to fight our corner, but the problem we will have as welll as getting a judge to stand up and say YES they are takking the mikey with there interest rates, you also need to get a solictor to take the case on and the money to do it, which from previous posts IE NELLIE OR BOOBABY sorry can't rememeber which one, has had extreme problems getting a solictor to take their case on

[Guest DEATHLORD]

no. it only takes one case and then its as good as law.

yes its heard before D/J and then C/J and then may be appeled but its got to start some were.

I asked for a 'fair settlement figure' and was given a hoilday rate and this is for some thing like 6 months interest!.

No its about time some thing is done.

The OFC does f--- all as always and these companies know it.

Look back the PM even said he was doing some thing about it some 11 years ago, but hee he didnt want to lose out on a directorship some where:rolleyes:

[1970]

Interesting thread.

 

I've just put together a spreadsheet of charges totalling £200 applied to my account with them over 6 months.

 

With compounded interest at their rate of 285% the total amount I am going to try and claim from them is £27k !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

1970.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Wonderful 1970 & now's the time to go for it

[girlpower4]

Hi my name is Angela.

i'am currently in a similiar situation with LBL and today i have contacted the ferret at ferret@htv-wales .co.uk suggest we all do the same to fight this

[nealem1]

Hi everyone. After reading all your views and opinions i thought i would like to inform you that two cases have now been to the high court and both occasions going in favour of Log book Loans as they are doing a favour to people who can not find credit elsewhere. He concluded this was the customers resposiblities to make sure they know what they are entering into before signing whatever the finacial reason is. Hope this helps even if not what we would all like to hear.

[sequenci]

Hi everyone. After reading all your views and opinions i thought i would like to inform you that two cases have now been to the high court and both occasions going in favour of Log book Loans as they are doing a favour to people who can not find credit elsewhere. He concluded this was the customers resposiblities to make sure they know what they are entering into before signing whatever the finacial reason is. Hope this helps even if not what we would all like to hear.

 

Can you please supply evidence of these cases and if you know please advise why they went to the high court rather than the county court. If you also know if these cases were defended I would be obliged.

[actionblusox]

nealem1 vbmenu_register("postmenu_1174679", true);

 

this is music to my ears!!!!

 

let me explain.....I think your info is crap and secondly your probably a logbook employee knowing that your coming to the end of your con...unlucky...unless you supply case numbers and proof that is...

[fightforjustice]

I am currently dealing with log book loans. On Tuesday they tried to repossess my car. I was lucky enough to have somebody to bail me out so I still have it. I am currently dealing with a lawyer to try and stop them. i would be more than interested to join your group.

[JonCris]

nealam me being a member, as some here will be well aware, who is well informed about exactly what is going on regarding LBL & the courts it's clear your post is complete & utter tosh

 

PS I think I know your name - reside in Yorkshire do we.

 

faunush please PM me as I am aware of a possible group action against LBL the details of which I can't disclose on this open forum

 

In answer to your question.

 

Although they like to call themselves bailiffs They are not, they use unlicensed debt collectors.

 

They don't need a court order provided the 'Bill of Sale' was registered & sworn by a solicitor with the Court within 7 days of your signing.

 

It's also VERY important that before signing the significance of your signing such a document was explained to you in FULL & if it wasn't it could well be invalid.

 

There are other matters which, it is alledged, may fall foul of regulation & which may make their agreement enforceable.