Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[FunkyFox]

Regarding your point, if so, and you have the choice of both where the penanlty is similar, why not just take a secured loan in the first place and a far lower interest rate. It makes no sense.

And Mr.Shed, it is also illegal for a bank to seek to recover credit where an account is in dispute due to incomplete or missing credit agreements, inacurrate default notices, failure to provide documentation, lack of proper assignment and so on.....but clearly you think thats ok.

And you know what, I'm not sure I've ever heard of marriages breaking up, people becoming clincally depressed or someone commiting suicide because of the despair caused by penalty charges or PPI miselling. But it happens all the time becasue of the stress casued by debt and their treatment by a creditor or DCA. You could argue that they could have chosen not to get into debt but conversly if you follow your arguement through people should be educated about PPI's and not get overdrawn and incurr charges. It is a total contradiction and its up to you if you ignore that fact (as you have most of my other points).

[MrShed]

FF - I would ask that you withdraw that comment. I consider it quite offensive that because my opinion differs with yours, I am automatically a "troll".

FYI, the only reason I have ignored most of your points is because I am at work currently. I plan to do a full reply later.

I am disappointed - I thought I may finally be able to have an intellectual debate with someone on this forum regarding debt management. Instead, it would appear that as usual, I am wrong because my opinion differs with the majority on these forums(although, I dare say, not the majority of the populace) and I am a "troll". Never mind.

[FunkyFox]

This is getting tiresome. Please can people at least read the original post and the text of the petition before assuming that this is some crusade to get charging orders banned. I'm not sure how relevant these current arguments are to the original discussion?

I agree almost entirely with sequenci and the point is that I wanted to stimulate discussion about the reasonable use on a charging order as form of enforcement and to inform borrowers before they take out borrowing that a charging order may result if you default.

If you look back at previous posts it would seem that bot HMCS and the OFT agree with both these points.

This petition is for people who feel that they would like to see fairer and more proportionate use of charging orders and consumers advised as to the consequences of there borrowing.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by FunkyFox

And Mr.Shed, it is also illegal for a bank to seek to recover credit where an account is in dispute due to incomplete or missing credit agreements, inacurrate default notices, failure to provide documentation, lack of proper assignment and so on.....but clearly you think thats ok.

would you mind showing me the statute or case law that backs this up? The creditor can take the action, it would be down to the debtor to raise these issues. The whole 'dispute' thing isn't law at all, it's just under s2.8k of The OFT Guidance as far as I was aware.

And you know what, I'm not sure I've ever heard of marriages breaking up, people becoming clincally depressed or someone commiting suicide because of the despair caused by penalty charges or PPI miselling. But it happens all the time becasue of the stress casued by debt and their treatment by a creditor or DCA.

This is more to do with malpractices employed by the debt collection industry rather than the utilisation of court court enforcement procedures. I think the whole industry needs to act in a more reasonable way, but it works both ways.

I fully appreciate that the UK debt collection industry is a shambolic affair with most firms involved causing a great deal of pain for thousands of people. Hopefully with the help of sites like this and other worthwhile organisations we can help educate people into what their rights are and how to go about enforcing them.

[MrShed]

Originally Posted by FunkyFox

This is getting tiresome. Please can people at least read the original post and the text of the petition before assuming that this is some crusade to get charging orders banned. I'm not sure how relevant these current arguments are to the original discussion?

I agree almost entirely with sequenci and the point is that I wanted to stimulate discussion about the reasonable use on a charging order as form of enforcement and to inform borrowers before they take out borrowing that a charging order may result if you default.

If you look back at previous posts it would seem that bot HMCS and the OFT agree with both these points.

This petition is for people who feel that they would like to see fairer and more proportionate use of charging orders and consumers advised as to the consequences of there borrowing.

Well I am entitled to disagree with that. I am not disagreeing with a point that was never made to get charging orders banned. I disagree that there is any "unfairness" in the current system, or the way they are used.

You have still failed to respond to the fact that COs are basically a bit of paper that says you owe them money - it is VERY rare that property is forced to be sold. If people getting COs are scared of them because they dont know this, I dont think that that is the banks/DCAs fault....

By the way, due to the nature of your petition, I feel that discussing debt management generally is key to the point, and not off topic. It is a massive underlying factor.

If you dont want discussion of points you make, or disagreements, I would suggest you dont post them on a PUBLIC forum....

[FunkyFox]

Originally Posted by MrShed

FF - I would ask that you withdraw that comment. I consider it quite offensive that because my opinion differs with yours, I am automatically a "troll".

FYI, the only reason I have ignored most of your points is because I am at work currently. I plan to do a full reply later.

I am disappointed - I thought I may finally be able to have an intellectual debate with someone on this forum regarding debt management. Instead, it would appear that as usual, I am wrong because my opinion differs with the majority on these forums(although, I dare say, not the majority of the populace) and I am a "troll". Never mind.

Done, I was actually refering really to debtmonkey (see previous posts too) rather than yourself. It is a highly emotive subject (for me especially at the moment) and not always easy to keep it detached. Sorry if I offended you.

[MrShed]

Fair enough FF - obviously misunderstood sorry! It isnt so much offensive - just I think the debate is needed TBH, and so being branded a troll for differing in opinion I take umbrage to. Anyway, apology accepted lol

[FunkyFox]

Originally Posted by sequenci

would you mind showing me the statute or case law that backs this up? The creditor can take the action, it would be down to the debtor to raise these issues. The whole 'dispute' thing isn't law at all, it's just under s2.8k of The OFT Guidance as far as I was aware.

I fully appreciate that the UK debt collection industry is a shambolic affair with most firms involved causing a great deal of pain for thousands of people. Hopefully with the help of sites like this and other worthwhile organisations we can help educate people into what their rights are and how to go about enforcing them.

Well maybe I am just showing my ignorance here but you read all over this forum about the 12+30 day thing for producing a CCA and a 'summary criminal offence' being committed. I have to admit to making assumptions about what this actually means. Either way there are lots of things not being done which either morally, legally or for the sake of good practice that are not and at least we are agreed the sector is a shambles.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by FunkyFox

Well maybe I am just showing my ignorance here but you read all over this forum about the 12+30 day thing for producing a CCA and a 'summary criminal offence' being committed.

Aha, I got you. I don't think the whole criminal offence thing is really bothered about, I'm sure that it is going to be removed by some European directive too.

Are you aware of the forthcoming changes regarding charging orders and the ease that the creditors will be able to get them? As things currently stand there needs to be a defaulted CCJ (or forthwith order) to allow the creditor to then go on and use enforcement. This is set to change, new legislation will allow a creditor to go for the charge even if there is no default on an instalment order on the CCJ. now THIS is scary.

Take a look:

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (c. 15) - Statute Law Database

For the record I think this is a very useful thread, I appreciate I have a tendancy to 'sit on the line' and hope my viewpoints are not in favour of either the debtor or creditor. I kinda like the role of devil's advocate.

[FunkyFox]

Originally Posted by sequenci

. I kinda like the role of devil's advocate.

You do it very well.....

[debt monkey]

Originally Posted by FunkyFox

I agree almost entirely with sequenci and the point is that I wanted to stimulate discussion about the reasonable use on a charging order as form of enforcement and to inform borrowers before they take out borrowing that a charging order may result if you default.

Should people also be warned about bankruptcy, bailifs and other debt recovery procedures before taking out a credit card?

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by debt monkey

Should people also be warned about bankruptcy, bailifs and other debt recovery procedures before taking out a credit card?

I'm sure the application may refer to possible action if payments are breached.

[roni08]

I am in a Debt Management Plan that has only been running a short time. I have just one creditor who won't accept the payment offer, although they are taking the money being sent to them each month and deducting it off what I owe. It is an unsecured loan and the Company in question is only interested in applying for a CCJ and Charging Order. This is their criteria will all debtors.

In light of the information contained in this thread, I'm interested to know how things will evolve when other legislation that is due to come in is put in place. As this other legislation gives Debt Management Companies the whip hand in that they will tell creditors what they have to accept in payments, plus the power to write off some debts, if it will take too long for the debtor to pay all the money off, I really don't see how it will all work. It seems to be two sets of rules pulling in different directions.

In case there is anyone who wonders what I am talking about, here is the link.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/dealing-wi ... page_id=62

As far as I can see, the creditors will have far less power than before, not more.

[FunkyFox]

Hi, the link does not seem to be working is this the one you were refering to?

Debtors to have their borrowing written off | This is Money