Hmm, I wonder why the link wont work in your post mike ?

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48464

 

We call on the government to stick to the original promise to raise the threshold of Charging Orders (CO's) to £25,000. Justice Minister Helen Grant reckons by increasing the threshold it would lead to more Bankruptcy (BR) petitions being presented so we also call on the BR threshold to be raised to £25,000 as well.

 

The problem we have is that allowing DCA's to go for a charge on an unsecured debt is tantamount to mis-selling as all unsecured credit must therefore come with a warning that it could become secured and thus you could be in a much worse financial position. Additionally, higher APR's for unsecured lending should be abolished as all lending would technically become secured meaning lower rates should be offered across the board.

 

 

is this the one, Mike ?

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48464

 

 

 

 

 

is this the one, Mike ?

Yes Thanks CB

I have been looking at this issue recently. Could one of our legal friends look at Part 2 of the UFTR 2008 Prohibitions (6)misleading omissions which are an offence under Part 3 (12).

As I read it any trader that omits anything from a contract that would otherwise cause a reasonable person not to make a transaction, commits an offence. So it would be reasonable to assume that if you took out an unsecured loan your home would [not be at risk) by way of a bankruptcy petition/charging order. from the creditor should you be unable to keep up the payments on the said loan.

Quite clearly no reasonable person would contemplate such an action in light of the much higher rates charged for so called unsecured loans and the risks therein. This is the test of reasonableness as per the act (more or less, please read if you are unsure.)

Since the OFT is responsible for enforcing the act, they should be the first port of call. They after all insist that loan companies et alia should state " Your Home is at risk if you don't keep up payments on a loan secured on it" I think a complaint by every person affected by this should be sent to the DG of the OFT. Lets not be fobbed of to use the local trading standards as they are hopeless and no little of the legislation ( in my experience ) and are any way understaffed.

This needs to be done by April next year when the local bods take over. Unfortunately the terms of the act do not provide for recession of the contract.

Remember the OFT must act since there is an alleged offence.

This might also provide grounds for an action under CCA 1974 sec 140 Unfair relationships ( cheaper fee by way of an application). Please note, as you might of guessed I am a barrack room lawyer, not a real one. Regards Pavi

I have been looking at this issue recently.

 

 

Could one of our legal friends look at Part 2 of the UFTR 2008 Prohibitions (6)misleading omissions which are an offence under Part 3 (12).

 

 

As I read it any trader that omits anything from a contract that would otherwise cause a reasonable person not to make a transaction, commits an offence. So it would be reasonable to assume that if you took out an unsecured loan your home would [not be at risk) by way of a bankruptcy petition/charging order. from the creditor should you be unable to keep up the payments on the said loan.

 

 

Quite clearly no reasonable person would contemplate such an action in light of the much higher rates charged for so called unsecured loans and the risks therein. This is the test of reasonableness as per the act (more or less, please read if you are unsure.) Since the OFT is responsible for enforcing the act, they should be the first port of call. They after all insist that loan companies et alia should state " Your Home is at risk if you don't keep up payments on a loan secured on it" I think a complaint by every person affected by this should be sent to the DG of the OFT.

 

 

Lets not be fobbed of to use the local trading standards as they are hopeless and no little of the legislation ( in my experience ) and are any way understaffed. This needs to be done by April next year when the local bods take over. Unfortunately the terms of the act do not provide for recession of the contract. Remember the OFT must act since there is an alleged offence.

 

 

This might also provide grounds for an action under CCA 1974 sec 140 Unfair relationships ( cheaper fee by way of an application).

 

 

Please note, as you might of guessed I am a barrack room lawyer, not a real one. Regards Pavi

could when posting show as paragraphs?

Wilco

Regards Pavi

Close to broke and retired but still fighting the B******s

popped in some paragraphs

Pavi, this has always been my argument.. At no point are consumers advised that creditors can, regardless of the fact that the loan is unsecured and they charge higher interest rates to cover that risk, that credit cards/unsecured loans can eventually be made "secured".

No one actually enters into a credit agreement believing they are not going to be able to pay because of circumstances.. but I am sure they would certainly have thought twice about doing so if they believed their home was at risk.