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. 
  • Our picks

Salisburyowl V Halifax ***WON***


salisburyowl
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5290 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 233
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

CONGRATULATIONS OWL

:D :D :D:p :p :p

[COLOR=royalblue]Halifax......WON 16/7/07 :D [/COLOR] [COLOR=red]Nationwide...WON 16/7/07 :D [/COLOR] [CENTER][URL="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/sections187and45/"][B][SIZE=4]Please sign this Downing Street petition on Bank Charges and Benefits[/SIZE][/B][/URL][/CENTER]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning Owl - I am so pleased for you - at least you can go back to school happy and extremely relieved that's over - last 7 weeks are exhausting.

 

MANY MANY CONGRATS - :D :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Owl

 

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! I had to look twice at your thread title cos last time I looked you were still waiting - its fantastic news!!

And WOW !! Halifax seem to be paying out a lot lately.

Am really really hoping I have same outcome - I could do with all this being over!

Halifax have til 20th June to file defence - I'll be watching my account!!

 

Debbie :-)

12th March 2007 - sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and £10 to Halifax.

 

3rd May 2007 - LBA sent to Halifax.

 

15th May 2007 - £2,500 offered over phone (full amount asked for is £5,300) - OFFER DECLINED.

 

17th May 2007 - Filed claim via MCOL.

18th May 2007 - Claim request issued.

 

Notice of Issue received from Court - 22/5/07.

Claim deemed to have been served as of 23/5/07.

Notice of Acknowledgement received from Court - 31/5/07.

Halifax now have until 20th June to file defence or whatever......

Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL DONE OWL, FAN-BLINKIN-TASTIC NEWS, HUN:D

 

HAD ABSOLUTLEY NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT IT'D COME GOOD FOR YOU IN THE END.

I GUESS A VISIT TO SALISBURY SHOPPING IS ON THE CARDS?:):)

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...