Log Book Loans Again....

[Bigbear733]

Hi JonCris

I did state that the BOS was legally binding only if the correct procedure was followed. Part of that procedure is filing the BOS within seven days of execution at the High Court in London. There are a number of other procedural requirements such as ensuring that the affidavit attesting the BOS is sworn. If these procedures are not followed correctly then there could be a challenge. However, if all the procedures are correctly followed then it would be very difficult to challenge the validity of the BOS. In the case I reviewed LBL did follow the correct procedure. If a learned friend has an opinion that the actual BOS is defective and can be challenged then I would be interested to see that opinion.

I still don’t follow your argument that the BOS needs to be explained – they are signing a document which, albeit in somewhat arcane terminology, states that mortgagor is providing the chattel as security for a loan. If you are arguing that they imply other terms into the contract then you would have to rebut the Parol Evidence Rule. However, if you are saying that they purposefully mislead the customer, maybe by saying something like “oh don’t bother reading that, just sign it, it’s just a receipt to say we’ve given you the money” or the tell them that there is no way their vehicle can be taken without a court order, or something similar, then you may be able to challenge under the head of misrepresentation. However, in the case I looked at the person taking the loan said that they did understand that the vehicle was being provided as security for a loan and they understood that in the case of defaulting on the loan they may have their vehicle repossessed.

In my opinion, it would be extremely difficult to challenge a properly executed and filed BOS, where the correct procedure is followed.

However, as I have said, there may be an issued with not executing the agreement on trade premises. I would suggest this is the strongest line of enquiry.

I have also read on this site that apparently MM have abandoned using BOS’s and now use a purported buyback agreement. I cannot say if this is true or not, but if it is true then it could easily be challenged as a sham – ie a purported attempt to create a chattel mortgage without using a BOS.

If as many people as possible complain about the breach of the advertising regulations, as I previously explained, then this could result in both LBL and MM losing their consumer credit licences and would prevent them continuing to trade at all. This would seem to be a good way forward as it is easy to execute (if enough people participate) and could produces the best result.

[Fleeced73]

They DO misrepresent what the BOS is and what it does - a common finding amongst LBL victims is that the salesperson/underwriter who issues the loan paperwork etc does not explain the BOS in any way other than to downplay its importance and - to add insult to injury - tell the customers what a great understanding company LBL are, how they don't like to repo and seldom do and how they 'can't anyway once you've made a payment'. This does not just represent ignorance on the part of the agent for it is they who then hot-foot it to a solicitors and swear to an affadavit in registering the BOS. This is all part of common LBL practice and one of the reasons why their agents sign confidentialty clauses when they are taken on.

Generally no adequate explanation of the paperwork is given, you are just asked to sign and that each document means very little.

The practice of lying to the customer is part of every stage of LBL's business practice, the agent told me he lived at the Leeds address he gave on the paperwork and was chatting to me about life in Leeds - when in fact, as BOS affadavits proved we obtained later, he lived in a small market town 60-odd miles away from Leeds and the Leeds address was in fact a Cash Converters. Interesting, is it not, that their underwriters and their bailiffs both behave in such a similar way!

[JonCris]

BigBear I don't disagree with what you say but & it's a big but, by your own admission you have only looked at one matter involving LBL & I can tell you that some who have looked at many can say that LBL reps do not explain the purpose of the BOS & in fact it is alleged that their reps do underplay the significance of the BOS when asking the client to sign

 

Fleeced It's not the rep who swears the affidavit it's the solicitor for the firm which is worse if it's proven the BOS was presented for signature in a manner likely to mislead

[genipuss]

The Office of Fair Trading: Log Book Loans

 

can anyone tell me if thi can help?

[Joa]

I have posted about LBL before- in Debt Forum, this is the link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/129846-log-book-loans-mobile.html?highlight=log#post1366670

Sorry if you've already read it.

If you intend to go and speak to CAB about it, tell the adviser there to contact their internal specialist money advice consultancy, as they are very aware of the problem and quite advanced in dealing with it.

 

To get yourself assessed for legal aid and find a local, legally aided solicitor check out Can I get legal aid

Community Legal Advice doesn't seem to be dealing with it very well at the moment- but they would assess you for legal aid anyway.

[JonCris]

I understand that there is already a group action funded by legal help in progress with a law firm

[Oh Boy!]

Dear All,

 

Can i just say, that most people whilst they have had a terrible time with money and have been forced into the mouths of these people, that LBL are only using a very old, and obscure facility avaiable at the high court to register the title of the vehicle legally into their own name.

 

There is nothing that you can do, once the Bill Of Sale is signed and registered at the high court.

 

The posts i have read, are people just living in hope that they will get a the agreement overturned by some miracle, or by a mistake that has been made by LBL, the truth unless there is an error, you will lose that car, and if alot of people start resisting returning the car back to these people, then i can see bankruptcy proceedings taking place.

 

Lets face it, we have all had money probs and continue to do so, whilst it is not a good idea to take a loan out on the car, it is unfortunate that some people have no choice, and play into the hands of these people.

 

Would it not be better to just sell the vehicle your self, get something smaller, you can by a 1998 model citroen for 900.00, with air con.

 

In the meantime, i hope that those of us who are stuck get some recourse some how , but ill i be honest, for 98% of you it will be a waste of time. Currently i am not aware of any cases at court that have been in favour of either party, oh except the one above that has been listed.

 

Good luck to all.

 

P.s No point in applying to the court for more time to pay, and no point in applying to the court for anything at the early stage as this is not a court matter either at County level or High Crt level, somebody said that because the title bill of sale is registerd at the high court then there should be a high court order, no there will not be a high court order! nothing to do with courts, unless LBL bring a case against the debtor.

 

Good luck to all.

[JonCris]

Oh Boy Whilst your correct in theory you couldn't be more wrong in practice & many LBL victims already know it.

 

 

Also can I say litigation does not need to have yet reached the public arena for there to be litigation

 

Unfortunately for obvious reasons no one who's involved can't yet post on a public forum suffice to say watch this space.

[Fleeced73]

Oh Boy - what JonCris says is true. You are working on the theory that these companies act in some kind of 'proper' manner - you would be genuinely shocked by their behaviour in both the way they conduct their business and their behaviour once the court process has begun, which is verging on contempt. Of the cases I have heard about their methods, once they have been reluctantly dragged into proceedings, is to stretch and abuse the rules of the Civil Justice System as much as the can - and that the word of these antics has become well known amongst the circuit & district judges

[IS IT ME?]

People do NOT give up on these people, there are others on here who I think work for these companies LBL MOL and are just trying to get one over.

I KNOW that once court papers have been issued and served there is nothing LBL can do but wait for a hearing date which they WILL NOT WISH to have.

Interest rates

paperwork

explaining rates etc etc do I need to go on!

stick with it and hold on.

[calj1]

I took out a LBL loan at christmas last year. I was met by a representative at a paun brokers and I signed a credit agreement and a BOS. However he also took a photo of me at the side of my vehicle and told me that this was because in the past borrowers had stated that it was not themselves who had been given the loan. I requested monthly payments and heard nothibg until Feb 2008 when my mother rang me at 7am in the morning screaming that two bailiffs had turned up at her address at 6am waving a baton and demanding £750.00. The bailiffs were waving a piece of paper stating it was the Queens paper and that they had every right to take my vehicle If I did not pay up. The bailiffs stated that I was a fraud and did not live at the address I had given and if I did not pay up they would call the police and report my car as stolen!!!

 

I arrived at my mothers with my credit agreement and BOS and on further investigation found that both the BOS and credit agreement had been written up with an incorrect address on it.

 

I contacted LBL and was put through to a very rude woman who informed me that it mattered not that they had not set up the direct debit or that the default notice had been sent to someone elses address, I had to pay up.

 

I contacted the police and was informed that this was a civil matter and that LBL could not report my car as stolen, she even went as far as to place a note on the police computer outlining the dispute and stating that my car was not stolen if reported otherwise.

 

I rang LBL back and asked for the name of the bailliff company and was told by the same rude woman that they do not have to tell you who the bailiffs are and if the police want to know then they should contact them in writing!!! When I asked why their bailiffs were under the assumption that they could report my vehicle as stolen she informed me that what they actually meant was that If they placed a clamp on my vehicle and I removed it they were then legally allowed to ring the police!!! Does this not ring alarm bells that maybe the bailiffs LBL were using were infact part of LBL and not a seperate company who were operating within their offices and LBL were then billing borrowers for their work!!! If so this against the law!!!

 

I informed LBL that the money that they had not taken from my account was sat in their waiting for them to collect and that this was all I was prepeared to pay. She accepted this and then when I had made the payment over the telephone she informed me that the £400.00 bailiffs charges would be added to my account!!!

 

I contacted numerous people and was informed by a lovely man that if the BOS had not been registered with the Royal courts of Justice within the 7 day deadline it would in fact be void. I contacted the court and was told that I had to put my request in writing and pay a £40.00 fee. However I became rather upset over the phone and once I informed the operator of the trauma LBL had caused me he went away and located my file. when he came back to the phone he informed that the BOS was registered on a date which was 5 days after the 7 day deadline and was void. If the BOS is void then obviously LBL had no right to send bailiffs to my door and so Iwill not be paying their bailliffs fees!!

 

I have now had to send a letter direct to the courts FAO the master of the roll so that I can recieve confirmation of this. In the meantime I am also trying to locate a good solicitor to find out if this in any way may render the credit agreement void.

 

I dont know if you are also aware that LBL place your vehicle on a website that car insurers look at when your car is written off just incase you have outstanding HP or finance. LBL is a personal loan agreement and so insurance companies cannot send them any or all of your money owed if your car is written off, they only repay for HP and Finance. Please please ask your insurance to check If LBL have placed an interest in your car on this website and inform your insurance that it is a personal loan. You can email your LBL documentation over as evidence of this. Dont let these robbing b******s! get your car.

 

Will let you all know what happens when I get my letter from the courts.

[Fleeced73]

Actually, if the BOS is void then the security on the loan is void too - which means they have no right to the car and can have no legal interest in your car.

Everything about this bunch is rotten, from the way their agents tell customers how they 'never go for repo and can't' whilst simultaneously giving their address as a Cash Converters and failing to explain what the BOS means, their rip-off methods on the phone when customers attempt to sort any problems out, the illegal methods used by their 'bailiffs' to take cars and the bent solicitor they use when forced to defend their disgraceful methods

Beware though the police who have frequently shown they are trained to dismiss disputes of this kind as 'civil' and aid these companies by failing to act adequately

[v_j_r]

Greetings to all loooooooooong time:eek: but i see LBL are still acting in there usual usual ways!, now lets see what happens next?.

 

 

 

Best Regards.

[Fleeced73]

WHOOPS! More bad press

 

Steer clear of borrowing against your car | Money | The Observer

[JonCris]

I especially liked the bit that reads "our staff are always courteous" Yes Mr. Foster & pigs have wings

[rugsrus************]

Bigbear,

 

Wouldnt these loans have to be signed on a premises with a valid Consumer Credit Licence to make them enforceable.

 

I was signing loans in car parks and in peoples homes on behalf of this company and as you now know i did work for these muppets for a short while a couple of years back.

 

I tried to drop hints when i posted a while back about what customer's could do if they didnt sign their papers on a premises that owned a CCL.

 

Im open for questions if anyone would like any advice.

 

Dont really want to get back at the company but im sick of seeing innocent people being ripped off.

 

Rugmuncher

 

 

 

Hi Everyone

 

I have a way to get back at Log Book Loans (“LBL”) and Mobile Money (“MM”). I assure you, this will work - I am a lawyer.

 

I have read the various threads with some horror at the tactics used by LBL and MM and this is my reason for posting.

 

Unfortunately, first some bad new – the loans they issue, and the way they secure their interest over a vehicle, via a Bill of Sale (“BOS”), is completely legal, if they follow the correct procedure. I have reviewed a LBL case and they seem to be doing everything correctly; I have not looked a MM, but I would presume they are also following the correct procedure. Furthermore, despite some posts that suggest the contrary, they can take possession of goods which are secured by way of a BOS without a court order.

 

Sorry, it gets worse before it gets better – if you are unfortunate enough to purchase a vehicle which has a chattel mortgage (what the BOS effectively creates) attached to it then, even though you are an innocent party, the vehicle can still legally be taken off you without a court order.

 

I am surprised that I have seen another lawyer in a press article suggest that this is illegal – he referrers to innocent parties purchasing vehicles with outstanding hire purchase (“HP”) agreements and, what he refers to as “other loans” (although he does not elaborate on what other loans are), and states that the an innocent purchaser obtain the goods with good legal tile. He is completely correct in relation to HP agreements as s27 Hire Purchase Act 1964, as substituted by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, provides that an innocent purchaser without notice (ie in non legal speak - a private individual who buys something not knowing that the item was subject to a HP agreement) takes the goods purchased with good legal title. However, there is no such provision for security taken by way of a BOS. In fact, the common law position was amended by s27 and a good analogy to explain why the law works this way is to consider stolen property. If your car was stolen and sold to an innocent party do you think that if the police managed to locate the vehicle you should not be able to re-claim the car – obviously I would think most of you would think that if something is stolen from you then you can take it back once located – and this is exactly the legal position. The general rule in law is that someone can only give good legal title if they themselves posses it, and, unless there is some legislative exception, this rules applies to the sale and purchase of all chattels (in simple terms, chattels is legal speak for property which is not land and buildings – sorry if I sound patronising but I know there are some reader who are not as legally conversant as other and I just want them to understand what I am saying).

 

I have read a number of other posts that incorrectly state the law and give false hope but I don’t have the time to deal with each issue raised.

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion it will be very difficult to legally challenge LGL or MM based on the BOS.

 

However, now for the good news. To operate within the law lenders require a consumer credit licence. This is issued by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) and recent legislative changes have given the OFT significantly more discretion and powers in who to issue consumer credit licences to and, where appropriate, to revoke such licences.

 

My proposal is that we work together to get the consumer credit licences of LBL and MM removed and this is how to do it:

 

The law in relation to credit advertising was changed recently by the Consumer Credit (Advertising) Regulation 2004 (the “Regulations”). I will not bore you with the details but the OFT have issued guidance to lenders on the interpretation of these regulations. Basically a lender must publish a typical APR where, amongst other things, they offer credit to people with a poor credit history or where they offer an incentive.

 

The OFT have stated that terms such as “No Credit Checks” or “Super Fast Loans”, or similar, will trigger the requirements to publish a typical APR. See para 8.16 of the following guidance: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft746.pdf

 

I have seen advertisement placed by both MM and LBL that contravene the Regulations by not stating a typical APR. I saw one today – they are not difficult to find.

 

This is what I propose that everyone does – look out for MM and LBL adverts. If they say anything like “fast loans”, “no credit checks”, “CCJ’s - no problem”, “Cash Loans within 30 minutes” etc then they must quote a typical APR. If they don’t then they have broken the law.

 

Report every breach of these regulations to your local trading standards (a letter or e-mail is best, but phone if you don’t have time). If enough complaints are received then the OFT will have to consider revoking their consumer credit licences. What’s even better, the directors of LBL and MM will face criminal prosecutions and convictions as breaching the Regulations is actually a criminal offence.

 

If enough people take action, as I have suggested, then LBL and MM will lose their consumer credit licences and this will stop them trading – in short, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

 

I hope this has been helpful and I wish you all luck.

[Sev]

I'v read this thread with interest..

 

Why don't all of you just ring the newsdesk of a major newspaper and tell them about what this company has done. Surely in light of the credit crunch, for the media this is a very easy win to stike up the public.

 

Also as the post above says, it's our duty to badger the OFT silly - sure you'll get a letter blowing you off, but with enough weight from constant and numerous complaints we might all get somewhere.

[JonCris]

The media both radio & press have already reported on this......& I strongly suspect there will be more to come:)

[Fleeced73]

The car you say was in poor condition was my capri , I can assure you that was not the case I have the trophies to prove it she won them at some classic car shows a few months before it was taken from outside my house (not hidden)

 

They may have been talking about that other case that was in the paper - the one were they duped the guy with bull****, and then one day basically turned up & helped themselves to everything in his storage unit whether or not it was involved in any Log Book Loan. I understand that is theft.

[h755bpx]

Just thought I would let anyone know that is involved with Stephensons solicitors. LBL have gone back on their promise to "not" reposess cars of Stephensons clients until the Test Case has been resolved, therefore everyones car is now at risk.

[genipuss]

How do you know this h755bpx what has happened?

[h755bpx]

I was told in an email update about my case. It's not Stephensons fault. I personally think they have realised they will lose and have decided to recoup as much money in the here and now as possible.

[genipuss]

And what about the fact that LBL were operating national multiple franchises without consumer credit licenses between 1998/9-2004/5!!, i see that don't mention that?.:o

 

And the fact they were reported to the trading standards and were investigated for operating as such and as such would be on record, i wonder how many void agreements (Unenforceable) they had then nationally!!. :grin:

 

Perhaps thats why they settled without going to court by way of a signed NDA Agreement between myself and them........and which has only just been reported very recently that another person had done the same as if it were the first time this had happened...........i don't think so?.

 

Honestly there's enough evidence past and present to put into question there fitness to hold any type of CCL even now!.

 

Best Regards.

 

Have you got any evidence of this that we could use in a court case.

[sweetnsexyenglish]

Log book Loans started to use local bailliffs on my case after I successfully stopped 3 other companies taking my car (By sitting in it and not allowing them on my land, They are not allowed to trespass on private land that does not belong to the owner of the vehicle = Trading Standards) I spoke to the Bailliff company and explained everything and they dropped the case as well. It has now been about six months since we have had a visit, I have paid within 11 months £120 more than the originally agreed figure for 12 months and they were still chasing for another 1600 pounds.

Does anyone know what I should do next?

 

Have you contacted Stephensons? They are handling my case and from the looks of it a load more customers too, and there was something said about a test case going through the courts which my solicitor promised to issue out details to all his LBL customers. They do everything over the phone, you can email all your documents and the solicitor will look through them, contact you and contact LBL on your behalf...he will tell you were you stand and what to do and he will post out any required documents you need to sign!!

 

If you want the number let me know

Edited May 15, 2008 by sweetnsexyenglish
finishing a sentance

[sweetnsexyenglish]

I was told in an email update about my case. It's not Stephensons fault. I personally think they have realised they will lose and have decided to recoup as much money in the here and now as possible.

 

Lets just hope your right cause I will be rolling with glee should that be the case! So howdy partner I guess you are another Stephensons groupee like me:D