I know you've been doing great work, helping people get set asides....well on all aspects really, no argument there ;-) It is purely that it DOES all need change, you are right there haha! And to think that £750 Bankruptcy threshold, the debt buyer would have paid under £75, (no point in guessing how much lower) and so the law presently lets them take your home/possessions even though they only paid out way under, hence a big part of my dispute, I want to see how much they paid, I expect the judge to view this figure. I don't think it is unreasonable. I argue that what was unsecured should never be changed to secured as that wasn't what was applied for from offset.

The latter is interesting (boom boom)....no seriously, some interest rates were raised and raised. The FOS occasionally look at whether there was good cause in the raises, paperwork and explaination. To think some started at maybe 14% and went to 29% especially if people miss a payment or so. (Just example).

Judges need a heads up on everything.

I may seem like I want the impossible, but I am trying to do this for everyone's sake, a lot of thought and experience has led to this petition.

Yes, I did mean the title of the thread, storm.. not the petition. Although I believe there have been many other petitions in respect of this particular issue.

 

 

 

I think the courts are waking up to the fact that many Debt purchasers are using Stat Demands innapropriately, so they arent all getting away with it. We have seen many SDs set aside on this forum and others.

 

What is so frustrating is that often the amounts are just over the BR limit of £750.00 which is crazy.

 

There really needs to be a total overhaul of the way debt is sold - pursued - collected.

 

I also believe that creditors should be forced to advise in their advertising and on their credit agreements that ALL debt, even unsecured debt can, if not repaid, land a person with a charge on their home or B/R

 

Please note that those Debt purchasers who use the Insolvency process to collect debt, tend to target home owners - there is little point in targetting someone who doesnt have any assets !

 

I think it should also be made clear that unsecured debt usually has a higher interest rate, so if they do manage to get a charge on a property, there should be some relief from the very high interest rates previously paid to the creditor.

Signed and will post a link on Facebook. (To my 2 friends)

Signed and will post a link on Facebook. (To my 2 friends)

Thank you sooooo much....

I have run out of ideas.... did send to newspapers...and they didn't respond...too scared hahah. It is on various sites....but anyone is welcome to try any avenues they can think of.

COME ON CAGGERS.... GET SIGNING LOL (This is FOR YOUUUU)!!

REMINDER 100,000 signatures needed - please can you assist in trying to obtain.... to enable this to go to House Of Commons... potentially.

Every single person that is having trouble with DCAs or Debt buyers should be signing.... no pressure, as the choice is yours of course.... but it would help.

Thanks everyone

Signed

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

Signed

 

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

 

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

I know what you are saying. It should lead to a major overhaul....the Gov should surely be interested in the Tax Relief claimed by banks etc.... hmmm... (no comment)...

Sadly, there is no access to change the petition, it has been checked and authorised by Gov. personnel.

Thank you

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

Pre-contractual explanations etc

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

Fantastic news, keep up the great work...

s55a introduced 2/11, as per eu directives. (not retrospective)

cld be worth a try.

they usually now state in writing prior (the small print/ads), as required, that home cld be at risk, which wld prob cover the CO aspect. whether how they advertise that though is enough?

ss3 - orally or in writing. so, if given in writing doesnt need to be oral. but if oral, then ss4

Your argument is very interesting. Wouldn't arguing this in court be prohibitively expensive though?

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

 

 

 

 

Pre-contractual explanations etc

 

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

I have just received a decision from the FOS that said the Nationwide are treating me fairly by going to court to get a charging order, because of debt arrears, when I was sick in 2012. It said the nationwide cannot be expected to keep on accepting a token payment, and they are within their rights to go to court. must ask them where did it say on my agreement that they are entitled to my home.

That's the problem isn't it. They justify high interest rates on the basis that the credit is unsecured therefore more financial risk for them and than are allowed to turn it into a secured loan/debt (and despite no warning in the original paperwork). Totally wrong.