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

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[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.

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[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?

[bish]

I see where you are all coming from and agree that in some cases it may be necessary to request such an order, however just recently I had an unsecured loan come to the end of the agreement after 5 years. I had paid all the borrowings and interest, I then found that I had £640.00 lumped on the end for, wait for it, late payment charges. 8 @ £30.00 and 16 @ £25.00, this was in September 2008. I will not go into detail here as bit complecated but ignored the request for good reason. When the letter from a debt collector arrived with the threat of one of these orders being placed on my property I was gob smacked and a wee bit peeved. I think all I want to say is that to believe that you are dealing with people who care about rules and regulations would be some what nieve. I am quite sure that once one of these orders have been obtained against your property they can force sale. In my case they are threatening to apply one of these orders, along with other options, to secure charges that are in fact unlawful. You must agree that I have a point, I apologise for running off regarding this without giving a bit more detail, after a few glasses of wine I just get on my soap box. I am fortunate to be able to question and fight my corner, there will be many that do not. I question the whole system and those responsible for it be they banks or the regulators. I am still fighting for justice a full two and a half years after the OFT statement on unfair charges. Concidering that, I have to question everything. So in my case I breached my contract but reached the end and paid it all, but found unfair charges applied and the threat of one of these orders hanging over me. The simple fact is that two wrongs do not make a right. What do you think people.

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[B3rty]

One issue thats not been raised are the DCAs who are buying debt with this sole purpose in mind...its part of their business plan...Marlin spring to mind as one.

When this ledgislation was drawn up I expect most involved saw the OC's as the one chasing the debt and not DCA's...

We need to get this message accros and make the powers that be realise what power they are giving to scum.....what next charging orders for wheel clampers?

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

[sequenci]

Originally Posted by B3rty

what next charging orders for wheel clampers?

In theory you could have a charging order for certain traffic offences already.

[MAGDA]

The problem with charging orders is that most people, when they take out a loan or credit card, are not aware that if they default on the repayments, an option for the creditor is to seek a forthwith judgement and ultimately, a charge on their property. The loan is unsecured when taken out and this is usually reflected in the interest rate as the creditor has greater risk than he would for example with a secured loan. OCs and DCAs often seek to obtain charges even when the debtor is making regular repayments and trying their best to clear the debt. I have first hand experience of this with an elderly relative. Fortunately we managed to stop the creditor from obtaining the charge, but not before it caused considerable distress to the person concerned. Far from making it easier to obtain charges, I think it should be much harder and something that is only possible as a very last resort. However, as things stand, this is certainly not the case. As for bankruptcy, most creditors are reluctant to initiate bankruptcy proceedings as they know that they will be at the very end of the queue, when any money is being paid out. They have far more chance of getting their money if they accept regular repayments, and they know this. So if charging orders were not a readily available option, I do not think bankruptcy would become the alternative choice. Magda

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.

[Aequitas]

The most important thing is this:

A court will rarely make an order for sale under a charging order

If you do not believe this then Google "charging order".

The point of a charging order is to ensure that the creditor is paid when the property is sold, not to require the property to be sold to pay the debt.

[MAGDA]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

The most important thing is this:

A court will rarely make an order for sale under a charging order

If you do not believe this then Google "charging order".

The point of a charging order is to ensure that the creditor is paid when the property is sold, not to require the property to be sold to pay the debt.

Yes, but a charge can still cause problems for people wishing to sell their home and move (maybe due to work commitments, etc) who are relying on the full proceeds of the sale to be able to do so. In the case of elderly people especially it does take away their sense of security also, as they are always concerned that the creditor will at some point try to force a sale. In addition, if the loan was unsecured, why, even if the agreement is terminated, should a creditor have the right to secure a charge. We actually went to court in response to a creditor's attempt to obtain a charge after a forthwith had been granted and fortunately, the judge on this occasion changed the forthwith to an instalment order. He actually stated that the creditor had charged interest at a higher rate reflecting the unsecured aspect of the loan and did not see any reason why the situation should now change. Most people do endeavour to make payments following default, and the creditor still pursues a charge despite this. This happens frequently. If you consider that the DCA has in fact purchased a debt for a tiny fraction of the original value, it is sheer greed that motivates their attempt to secure a charge and they cause immense distress to those involved. Magda

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

	Are you letting your bank keep your money Are you giving away thousands of pounds?? Many people aren't claiming all of the money they are entitled to when they make their bank charges claims. You have been forced to pay unfair bank charges. Have you forgotten that your bank has charged you inteest on those charges? If you are overdrawn and the bank owes you charges - then your overdraft is made up of charges - money which you bank owes you. Yet you are paying interest to the bank - on your own money!!! Follow this link to see the discussions on this. You might even double th size of your claim.