Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hopefully I’m able to help someone else out with a future post however this particular subject I’m completely at a loss and ever so anxious regarding! I’ll get the letter out when my police officer husband is asleep to see what the company is whom will be writing to me. I know parking companies now seek compensation so I’m expecting these too as they have advised. 
    • You're welcome. Lots of people aren't sure where to post when they arrive but you'll get used to the forum. HB
    • I’m so sorry for posting in the wrong place and I am so thankful you have replied to me thank you.
    • Hello, welcome to CAG. I've moved your thread to our Retail Loss Prevention subforum for further advice. It sounds as if you may get letters from people like DWF solicitors or a company called Retail Loss Prevention but we always recommend to ignore them. If the police weren't called on the day you aren't going to hear from them. Ask us any questions you want to and keep in touch but I don't think this will go anywhere. Best, HB
    • Hello, firstly thank you for reading this. I know no one wants a long winded back story. So I’ll be breif. I entered a local store to buy some paint (which I did pay for) I am honestly not a bad person or a theif.   Didn’t have a basket or trolly as was on my lunch break. Whilst picking up the three tubs of paint placed some masking tape in my pocket (it was hanging out of so I had every intention to pay) just didn’t have a hand free. Paid for my goods (forgot about the £4.39 masking tape) I’ve got so much going on and im not well at all (like I say no one cares I get that) also have autism so wasn’t thinking particularly like others do maybe (who knows my minds going around and around) I left the store after paying, was pulled back in by security. Asked for the tape which I gave immediately  shook up. Gave them my ID and details. I was given some paper and told to expect a large fine in the post for their time and the tape and sent on my way. my questions are: I hardly ever go out without support so the ban I guess I can’t go there now for anything (their loss) - ok but is my photo going to be all over with my name? how much am I expecting in the post as a fine? I have sent them cash in the post recorded signed for delivery to arrive tomorrow (incident happened today) for my error. Their Address was on the bit of paper. i have read two posts on this page but they were from many many years ago so I hoped for updated advise please? 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Log Book Loans !!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5185 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

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...