at site team request, threading some recent-ish info

re charging orders and orders for sale

in short, the government seems committed (the 'co response' below was just recently signed by the MoJ) to bringing in to force s93 TCE Act soon this year (which was previously 'postponed') which basically 'introduces' ('introduces'. so technically not yet applicable! despite some current orders to the contrary! but soon will be) the ability for the courts to grant a charging order along side an instalment order currently in place despite that inst order not being in arrears. (eg s86 county courts act)

and, to 'streamline' the co application.

also, consideration of a threshold re orders for sale.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/..._ministers.pdf

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/..._ministers.pdf

charging-orders-response-ia[1].pdf

I have to be honest, from what I have seen on the forums.. I understood that charging orders went hand in hand with the installment plan. As long as the payments were maintained the charging order was never finalised.

So if I understand what is now planned is that the charging order will be finalised along with the installment order. However a sale cannot be forced whilst the installments are being maintained. Is that correct ?

I know there are one or two people who believe that charging orders are a good thing and that orders for sale are very rarely made.

I find it disgraceful that an unsecured debt, where there was never any mention of loss of home incorporated into the original agreement, can be made secured. And that the creditor who shouts the loudest and starts litigation is able to take priority over other unsecured debts.

Interest rates on unsecured borrowing has always been higher because of that risk.

technically, currently, there should not be a co if there is an inst order and that order is not in arrears. the MoJ confirm this themselves. (but as has been seen on cag, this is not necessarily the case ie 'hybrid' orders)

when though there is a co, following interim, then it is final. (unless appealed)

once there is a final co, then cred will ordinarily have the option to apply for an order for sale (despite the instalments being up to date?). but, as mentioned in the links, the grant of an order for sale would depend on a no. of factors to be taken into account (one of which may be that instalments are up to date?).

Thanks for that, Ford

..........

I find it disgraceful that an unsecured debt, where there was never any mention of loss of home incorporated into the original agreement, can be made secured. And that the creditor who shouts the loudest and starts litigation is able to take priority over other unsecured debts.

 

Interest rates on unsecured borrowing has always been higher because of that risk.

absolutely. one reason for the objections to s93 from CAB etc (and why it was postponed initially) ie a supposedly unsecured debt being easily secured, even despite an uptodate instalment order. the gov't seems intent on s93. the creds have got their way! unsurprisingly! one solace is perhaps the poss restrictions on an order for sale!

This is a serious one that has been played out for years now, certainly since 2008. The law seems to be have no clarity and a DJ seems to apply them even if certain accepted principles have been adhered to.

The facts are that CO should be a last resort, when all other avenues are exhausted.

Creditors have realised that a CO is a means to intimidate and realise maximum payment, and also have settlements upon sale.The moj have looked at limits for CO & decided to change nothing,I doubt if any thing will change with OFS either,these are very rare though. The public need to realise that a co will not mean repossession, and in most cases are a restriction only. Meaning the whole process by a creditor is a pointless exercise anyway as a sale may proceed without settlement.

The law needs clarification & amendment, and no one under threat for a credit card debt in there house.

Cad

cadbury

yes, it has been an issue for a while under consultation. but, it is now 'final', and s93 will be in force soon (last pdf in #1). seemingly giving licence for creds to apply for a co regardless?

yes, as mentioned, an order for sale will hopefully be subject to strict provisos. but, that may not stop them from applying for one! give a dog a bone! as they say!

Indeed Ford, another worrying example of unfair behaviour.

I have to be honest, from what I have seen on the forums.. I understood that charging orders went hand in hand with the installment plan. As long as the payments were maintained the charging order was never finalised.

 

So if I understand what is now planned is that the charging order will be finalised along with the installment order. However a sale cannot be forced whilst the installments are being maintained. Is that correct ?

 

I know there are one or two people who believe that charging orders are a good thing and that orders for sale are very rarely made.

 

I find it disgraceful that an unsecured debt, where there was never any mention of loss of home incorporated into the original agreement, can be made secured. And that the creditor who shouts the loudest and starts litigation is able to take priority over other unsecured debts.

 

Interest rates on unsecured borrowing has always been higher because of that risk.

The Claimant is not securing the 'debt' but is securing the CCJ. Technically not the same.

see what you mean. but, pedantics? ....still secured on ppty! esp given the ease in which a co may now (soon) be given. might as well make it a secured loan/cr card, and reduce the interest !

But as a method of enforcing a CCJ it is, in my opinion, easily the least invasive. I would much prefer a CO than bailiffs, bankruptcy, attachment of earnings etc

I have to agree with whoever stated this is already taking place. I had an ico granted WITHOUT missing any payment on my installment order & WITHOUT a hearing. My only time in front of a dj was for the final co hearing, in which it was granted. This was in 2010. AND the dj allowed interest to be added although I fought that & lost & interest was granted...shameful the way djs clearly do not adhere to the law.

Oh yes, from ccj - full co it took 6 weeks - quicker than their 9 week stats they give in the above docs.

shameful the way djs clearly do not adhere to the law.

Out of pure curiosity, in what way did the DJ not follow the law in your case? On what basis did you challenge the application of interest?

Out of pure curiosity, in what way did the DJ not follow the law in your case? On what basis did you challenge the application of interest?

1. I never missed a payment as per my installment order - which should have prevented the charging order being granted

2. I explained to her (dj) that as per a cca debt, interest cannot be added. Never knew at the time I needed to bring in the case law to explain & back me up, I was under the false impression that djs were well aware of what was/was not allowed to be granted.

This was my first time ever in court - I have now learned...

I see, thanks for that.

But as a method of enforcing a CCJ it is, in my opinion, easily the least invasive. I would much prefer a CO than bailiffs, bankruptcy, attachment of earnings etc

I agree.

I can see both sides. I really appreciate that a judgment debtor needs a degree of protection from an overly aggressive creditor BUT I can also appreciate the needs for a creditor to seek security from those that are perhaps asset rich and income poor. Perhaps there should be a rule that if an instalment arrangement can clear the debt in a reasonable period of time (e.g. less than 7 years) a charging order shouldn't, on the face of it, become final.

My beef isn't with charging orders per se, it's the abuse of process by overzealous creditors acting unreasonably.

That's a good proposal but it would be wide open to abuse. A debtor could easily convince a court that the debt can be repaid in a reasonable period thus defeating the CO application only to immediately divest himself of his assets and stop paying; the creditor has then lost the chance to enforce by way of CO.

Having said that though such an approach would leave the debtor open to bankruptcy etc so they may well be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I think it'll be difficult to find the middle ground for sure. I know many people are massively anti charging orders but if we didn't have them we would see way, way more bankruptcies.

Exactly. I think the prospect of a CO is far worse than the reality. At the end of the day no-one knows about it and the debtor needs to just keep paying what is affordable/ordered and that's that.

I think personally that a far bigger issue is the bankruptcy limit being a paltry £750!

I think personally that a far bigger issue is the bankruptcy limit being a paltry £750!

For sure, the sooner that goes up to at least £5,000 the better!

There were also other 'initiatives' out for consultation among which was the ability for a 'recognised' DMP provider like Payplan or CCCS to be able to IMPOSE DMP's upon creditors and also having the power to freeze interest. The banks involved in the consultation, as you can imagine, kicked-off big time about this. It went hand in hand with making it easy for a creditor to secure a debt - the sibject of this thread. Anyone out there got any more info on this?

........

My beef isn't with charging orders per se, it's the abuse of process by overzealous creditors acting unreasonably.

quite. the MoJ accept that there will be more co's. more co's = poss more orders for sale (or applications), if a debtor has a bad month or two on a concurrent inst order. so long as the provisos and reasonableness are maintained, then a concurrent co as you say may not be seen as too much of an issue? but, as said before, give a dog a bone!

This is a very serious issue, and I have looked at this for a few years now. Ford, has highlighted a important change however there has been many examples of C/o being granted with instalments or the creditor applys to the court

To change the the amount to forthwith.

Ok I take the point that a c/o is preferable to bankruptcy, but the majority of debts a credit cards loans etc. Which were originally described a " unsecured", and both should be a last resort and this should be be the law.

The reality is that most C/O are meant to intimidate and cause stress, to extract maximum payment,and payment upon sale. The actual fact is that most C/O are restrictions,which do not secure the debt at all, and the security is a myth, property can be sold without payment to the creditor. If more people, solicitors etc were to take this route upon sale, creditors may be less likely to persue this illusion. They could I suppose use bankruptcy as an alternative, I doubt this though, as they are using the threat of a c/o to get there own money, and not distribute it to all creditors.

A clarity needs to be made in regard to these and a campaign against them.

Cad

I have to say that I don't understand why a charging order causes *maximum* pressure on a debtor; I would imagine that regular bailiff visits or the threat of an AoE, which could jeopardise employment, would be far more pressurising that an extra entry being made at the Land Registry. But, there's no doubting it does cause a lot of stress and pressure.

I have to say that I don't understand why a charging order causes *maximum* pressure on a debtor; I would imagine that regular bailiff visits or the threat of an AoE, which could jeopardise employment, would be far more pressurising that an extra entry being made at the Land Registry. But, there's no doubting it does cause a lot of stress and pressure.

A aoe or baliffs can only happen you fail pay the amount orderd by the court on a CCJ, a c/o is usually granted, and then a installment order is granted afterwards. That's what happened to me, and alot of others.

The whole scenario is a specific method of debt collection to intimidate the vast majority of the public, who are ignorant of the facts.