Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[JonCris]

course not it's nobodies fault ................other than the fairies at the bottom of the garden

[Aequitas]

It's not the fairies - it's the gnomes.

[JR1]

Just emailed David Camreron. I wish this was reported yesterday.

[banker_rhymes_with]

It's not the fairies - it's the gnomes.

...whatever they are, they are all banking delusions.

The global failure we are seeing at the moment is a failure of that huge fairy story called banking. It was always a deeply distrusted fairy story but, somehow, we didn't heed the advice from our Ancestors who knew there is no such thing as a good banker.

Now we are seeing the very real harm, on a global scale, what really out of control bankers can really do.

I fear we have not seen the worst of it yet either.

The question is, which bankers do you vote for at the next election? The Yellow bankers, the Red bankers or the Blue bankers. Apart from the pretty colours, they are all firm converts to the discredited Cult of banking.

For the first time, we can now clearly see what makes them all so very similar...it's because they are all bankers at heart!

I think we need some new politicians.

What we really don't need, or want, is any more bankers infesting the Corridors of Power.

Cheers,
BRW

[angel_1]

Well hello guys and thanks again Funky Fox for starting the petition it ended with 339 -

and we are now at the end of the petition but remember this was only a little battle we must now win the War

we cant just give up now - we must keep up the momentum to whoever we can and make some noice

however, im still very stunned by the friends and people ive spoken to about this charging order information that they dont believe its going to affect them, well it is already being tried and sometimes being won already in court

however, who really is the best party to deal with the problems facing our country? i guess the whole world is at the same global party

i dont think we have seen the worst yet neither, so its about doing what we all can

keep positive ciao for now MAZ

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by FunkyFox

I even complained to the ASA about a Lombard TV advert for an unsecured loan which said '...and don't worry, you loan won't be secured against your property..' and they dismissed my complaint. Ho Hum.

Could the ASA be legally liable for the consequences of their actions, in the event that such a loan was to subsequently become secured?

And could this advert be used as evidence that Lombard had misled the customer?

[FunkyFox]

Originally Posted by mfpa

Could the ASA be legally liable for the consequences of their actions, in the event that such a loan was to subsequently become secured?

And could this advert be used as evidence that Lombard had misled the customer?

I somehow doubt it very much. They dismissed my compliant entirely and very quickly.

My frustration in trying to get the authorities see sense huge, yet I lack the time or the energy to do anything more about it.

The advert in question appeared to me to be wholey misleading yet those that manage/police the advertisers did not agree.

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by sequenci

What you should remember is that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment.

A previously unsecured debt becomes a debt secured against the individual's home. From that individual's perspective, what are the consequences of that debt being a "money judgment" instead of a "loan"?

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by Nightmare4banks

Hi All!

I think the next thing to tackle here should be to challenge the interest rate charged in the event of the charging order being being granted.
At the end of the day,the lender has the security that the lender will be paid but should NOT be allowed to charge the same interest rate as that on the original unsecured debt.

What do you think folks?

I see two possibly equitable alternatives:-

* s69 interest of 8% simple from the date of the judgment (if included in the judgment)

* the interest rate adjusted to the rate of a secured loan, backdated to the start of the loan. After all, you paid the higher rate in return for the security (sic) of not having the debt secured against your home. You got the "peace of mind" until things went wrong but have ended up with the lower-priced, secured debt at the price of an unsecured debt.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by mfpa

I see two possibly equitable alternatives:-

* s69 interest of 8% simple from the date of the judgment (if included in the judgment)

Statutory interest cannot be added to CCA regulated debts.

* the interest rate adjusted to the rate of a secured loan, backdated to the start of the loan. After all, you paid the higher rate in return for the security (sic) of not having the debt secured against your home. You got the "peace of mind" until things went wrong but have ended up with the lower-priced, secured debt at the price of an unsecured debt.

Since Charging Orders are the creatures of statute there are plenty of arguments to stop interest being added whatsoever.

[tosh1]

Hi

Someone sent me the link below -

Petition to: Stop banks from being allowed to place charge orders on unsecured loans. | Number10.gov.uk

Someone has started another petetion.

No harm in signing this one also.

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by sequenci

Statutory interest cannot be added to CCA regulated debts.

You previously said:-

Originally Posted by sequenci

What you should remember is that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment.

So, is a "money judgment" a CCA regulated debt?

Originally Posted by sequenci

Since Charging Orders are the creatures of statute there are plenty of arguments to stop interest being added whatsoever.

There probably are but recalculating the debt by re-pricing the interest from the start of the loan period to be the same rates as a secured loan would mean that when the creditor railroaded the consumer from having an unsecured debt to a secured debt they also pushed themselves into the lower income derived from a secured loan. This would discourage charging orders being sought willy-nilly and would assist the parties in seeking an equitable solution.


Thinking about it, another fair alternative is that the creditor should get no interest. Just their money at such time as the debtor sells their home - provided there is sufficient money left after paying off the mortgage etc. After all, the creditor went to court to enforce the charging order as their security for the debt. It should be their own look out if that security was insufficient.

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by tosh1

Hi

Someone sent me the link below -

Petition to: Stop banks from being allowed to place charge orders on unsecured loans. | Number10.gov.uk

Someone has started another petetion.

No harm in signing this one also.

Missed the previous one but have signed this one.

I notice the first person to join the petition creator gave their name as "Stop manipulating the law". Imagine the bother that person would have identifying themself to a police officer (-;

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by mfpa

Is a "money judgment" a CCA regulated debt?

A money judgment is a county court judgment for money, so it could be a CCA regulated debt for sure. The law is very clear that statutory interest cannot be claimed on a CCJ which has arisen from a CCA regulated agreement. Hope this makes sense!

[mfpa]

Originally Posted by sequenci

A money judgment is a county court judgment for money, so it could be a CCA regulated debt for sure. The law is very clear that statutory interest cannot be claimed on a CCJ which has arisen from a CCA regulated agreement. Hope this makes sense!

It does. Thanks.

I am still struggling to get my head around the distinction you drew previously "that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment"