Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[JonCris]

IMHO the ONLY way they can sell ANY form of finance is to describe it as secured as true unsecured borrowing will no longer exist.

This being the case then the level of % needs to reflect this otherwise the agreement would be open to challenge as being an unfair bargain

[MAGDA]

Originally Posted by sequenci

The creditor could choose to apply either contractual or statutory interest before court but only contractual (providing there is a contractual provision) once a judgment has been entered.

Many thanks sequenci, magda

[JonCris]

my question

Sir
I would like to know why the the banks have been given much more leeway under soon to be applied consumer law to recover from defaulting debtors ie Able to apply for a charging order without a CCJ in place. Able to add contractual interest AFTER judgment. Removal of section 127 CCA 1974 which allows lenders to write documents of THEIR choosing.

Also bailiffs given the power to force entry & to physically restrain the occupants in the collection of CIVIL debt which is on the increase

As more & more of both working and middle classes fall foul of the credit crunch and repossessions grow I should like to know how this will impact on the population at large and what powers the Chancellor will seek, if any, to negate the problem or will he again rely on market forces to bring about change in the conduct of lenders

Regards JonCris

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Able to apply for a charging order without a CCJ in place.

there still needs to be a ccj in place, the law simply allows a creditor the right to apply for a charge even if there is a non-defaulted instalment order.

Able to add contractual interest AFTER judgment.

This has been allowed for about a decade.

[JonCris]

BUT only if it is within the T&C of the agreement re OFT v First National

[tosh1]

SOMEONE HAS ORGANISED A NEW PETETION AGAINST CHARGING ORDERS -

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

[JonCris]

Signed

[sequenci]

I know this is probably just aside but surely people should be just as concerned (if not more) about that the fact that the new bill will very likely give a bailiff the right to force entry for ccjs.

[JonCris]

It will as I understand it provided they have the approval of the court However we ALL know how often the courts rubber stamp such applications

[paulwlton]

Originally Posted by sequenci

I know this is probably just aside but surely people should be just as concerned (if not more) about that the fact that the new bill will very likely give a bailiff the right to force entry for ccjs.

Could you eleborate?

[angel_1]

signed ciao maz

[bish]

If you take out an unsecured loan and then find that you default on the loan and they apply a term which is secured on your property, then it is not a unsecured loan and is in breach of some kind of consumer regulation. It is a blatent misuse of legislation, you can not sell something that contradicts the law. the problem lies with the very people set up to police such contradictions, the OFT. They are useless, do they actualy prosecute anyone. the only reason they have a case in the high court regarding bank charges is because of media coverage of the issue. An inept bunch of early retirement seeking civil servants that do not serve the public, who pay their wages and over inflated pension claims. I see no difference from 2006 when they came to the conclusion that we were being riped off by the banks, nothing has changed in two and a half years, where is the policing, where is the protection from unscrupulouse business practices, there is none, what is the point of these very expensive bodies that do nothing.

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by bish

If you take out an unsecured loan and then find that you default on the loan and they apply a term which is secured on your property, then it is not a unsecured loan and is in breach of some kind of consumer regulation.

Why is it?

It is a blatent misuse of legislation, you can not sell something that contradicts the law.

how does it?

the problem lies with the very people set up to police such contradictions, the OFT. They are useless, do they actualy prosecute anyone. the only reason they have a case in the high court regarding bank charges is because of media coverage of the issue. An inept bunch of early retirement seeking civil servants that do not serve the public, who pay their wages and over inflated pension claims. I see no difference from 2006 when they came to the conclusion that we were being riped off by the banks, nothing has changed in two and a half years, where is the policing, where is the protection from unscrupulouse business practices, there is none, what is the point of these very expensive bodies that do nothing.

When a debtor breaches an agreement it terminates. The whole sum would then be called in. The original terms of the loan are no longer valid. The lender has every right to use legal action although I agree it needs to be used in a reasonable way. Having said that I think Charging orders can be a reasonable option if applied in reasonable and proportionate way.

[Aequitas]

Originally Posted by bish

If you take out an unsecured loan and then find that you default on the loan and they apply a term which is secured on your property, then it is not a unsecured loan and is in breach of some kind of consumer regulation. It is a blatent misuse of legislation, you can not sell something that contradicts the law.

A bit of devil's advocacy:

1. If you comply with the terms of the loan it will never become secured.

2. If a creditor gets judgment against you, it is not the loan that is secured by a charging order, but the judgment debt. There is no breach of any legislation. Any judgment creditor is entitled to apply for a charging order. Why should those who offer unsecured loans be excluded? What difference is there between ordering goods or services you do not pay for and borrowing money on an agreement that you do not keep to? How many contracts for the supply of goods and services have in them a warning that if you do not pay the supplier may get judgment and obtain a charging order?

3. Although the amount owed may be secured, the security is in practice unenforceable. It is not a mortgage. It does not carry with it a power of sale. The creditor needs to apply to the court if he wants to sell and the court will rarely grant the power.

4. Charging orders often make a creditor "go away". They know they will be paid in the end and do not need to keep chasing.

5. What harm does having a charging order on your property actually do if the property is not really at risk?

6. What action do you think is reasonable for a judgment creditor to take if you have assets? Would you prefer to be made bankrupt? What assurance can you give the creditor that he will be paid that he can rely on?