Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

eggboxy1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by eggboxy1

  1. Unless there is something I've missed you are saying this is a creditor chasing your husband for a Charging Order on an unsecured loan that was taken out in his name only? It is not a creditor chasing an Order for Sale? I'm asking as the Court does seem to want a lot more info than is usually requested to grant a CO? Also, (if we leave the whether or not the 8% interest should be added or not) they would normally only be adding that if a CO had already been granted? So it's a little confusing what's happening to you? However, it does, to me, look like this creditor has gone to extreme lengths to get a higher repayment than your OH originally offered and has now seen the light that wasn't possible. And if you are in near Neg Equity with your personal circumstances as described, then it knows it will have zero chance of an OFS which is why you need to see their threats of going for one as pure bluff. I presume you are still making payments to the creditor with the SPO and, if you are, I would simply tell them that has to take priority. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it would seem that yours is a case where a creditor is allowed to go further with his actions because the debtor tries to do the decent thing and stays in contact with them. The minute this stops they are reduced to making evermore meaningless threats and would be extremely foolish to waste any more money chasing you for repayment. This is simply because no Enforcement method available to them is going to realise the debt they are chasing. Or another example of why, when a creditor goes after a CO they are a busted flush in trying to obtain repayments from people armed with the information of how limited they are when in that position.
  2. Hi shazzyball Just to clarify your situation; you originally stated your OH had an Interim CO, so was this latest Court Hearing to make the CO Final or relating to another matter regarding the debt. Also is this the same creditor to whom the Suspended Possession Order in 2008 relates to?
  3. A very worthwhile read from a District Judge on the current "feeling" of Courts regarding Charging Orders and why Orders for Sale are so hard to obtain, http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/benchmarks/proportionate-orders-sale Especially the end Paragraph regarding how much the creditor is really out of pocket.
  4. Hi shazzyball Thanks for the update and please keep us informed! Have you contacted the Solicitors Sequenci suggested in Brum?
  5. Hi sparkly At the end of the day it's a numbers game to them so they are going to try with everyone and they, most likely, do scare enough people into paying up more. But sit tight and you will see they go away. And, yes Miss Tipping, has a certain reputation but they can only be as "vile" as you let them. If they are ignored it's difficult for them to be that way. And Mr Woof? You gotta be joking
  6. Very interesting information! Have you any examples where this had been challenged and what happens when it is?
  7. Robbie2009 has given the correct reply but, just to clarify, I am not saying the debt can't be sold over to a DCA as I don't know that info? Hopefully someone like Sequenci will clarify the facts.
  8. Sequenci will probably know the answer to this (sorry I don't) However, I can't see why you would be as DCA's only offer lower settlements because they have bought the debt at a fraction of it's value for the risk they take in getting anything back. Logically, given the reduced certainty Restrictions give creditors, I would have thought the OC would have wanted to have got shot of these even faster (and therefore sold off cheaper to a DCA) Only my opinion though!
  9. sparkly It's just further intimidation to get you to pay more. Ignore them and they will stop contacting you (was it a Mr Bell by any chance)
  10. Thankfully they cannot now do that on jointly owned property where the debt is only in one name
  11. shazzyball Was anything uncovered about the Equitable Charge that shouldn't have been on your LR details? (and let me know about the Law Centre ok as only up the road)
  12. I'm just pointing out the reality that if you don't play ball with a creditor after receiving a CO then there is very little a creditor can do. This is given the debt is for consumer credit and not, say, because you haven't paid your Council Tax as that would be a very different matter. My objection is based on the unfairness of creditors being allowed to have charged high "unsecured" rates of interest and then, when problems occur, they have recourse to any form of "security" on a person's property. It's both immoral and unfair, in my opinion, as the creditor has already been provided for on the "risk" element of non repayment in those high rates interest rates it charges ALL people who they provide credit for. The creditor is wanting it's cake and to eat it and the Government is weak to allow it to persist.
  13. That is correct, but I'm trying to press home the reality that the creditor really has no where to go (certainly for consumer credit debt) after stealing this march over other creditors. Therefore, people who have had a CO placed against them shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that an OFS will automatically follow if they don't play ball and offer a repayment. As the stats confirm, its virtually zero any are pursued which is not a coincidence. It's because the creditor knows he has so little chance of getting one. Where is the "merit" if, as you previously stated, a Judge won't totally bar an OFS? But you are right that about the confusion on what a CO actually is. Once that confusion is dispelled, however, then the debtor can have a better perspective on what is best for them and not what is best for the creditor. Or more evidence why it is not in the interests of a debtor to be duped into making payments I totally agree, that's why debtors need to understand their options better and do what is best for them to relieve stress. That being coerced into making repayments to creditors, on the false premise they will lose their home if they don't, is probably the first thing they should read up on and understand the facts about. Now that really is priceless.
  14. A further reason, then, not to offer an instalment plan. I take your point on this; but isn't this where we have to remind ourselves it is only the Judgement that is secured not the actual debt itself? A CO confers no guarantee of repayment and a Restriction no guarantee or priority either. So, in my opinion and bearing in mind how a lot of these debts are made up of obscenely high and compounded interest rates and massively absurd legal fees, I think we need to do a bit of fighting back to redress the very wrong that is going on here. I think its fair to say other Enforcement methods are seen as useless by the creditor who goes after a CO. Therefore, they put themselves in weaker position to reclaim repayments. But it's only weaker if people understand that fact and don't feel pressured by the situation.
  15. I actually agree with you on this but I still think the main goal for the creditor in pursuing CO's is priority over other creditors for the debts owed. Given the stats Sequenci posted on creditors pursuing OFS it cannot be to pursue debtors to the bone in getting repayment quickly. I have no insight into Clynite's current personal current finances, however, what concerns me is suggesting an instalment arrangement on the basis of no OFS being pursued. If he defaults on that then a creditor, possibly, could smell blood and may well see a much easier time pursuing the OFS in those circumstances. My feeling is if offering the instalments doesn't prevent the CO then he should forget about offering them one to prevent an OFS. This is for three reasons 1. He can ask the Judge for a no OFS, due to his circumstances, without offering any instalment plan to be linked. 2. Given his circumstances he is stratospherically unlikely to be in the 0.3% range who are pursued for an OFS, anyway. (Especially if we take your second point on "reputation issues" when you explained why creditors infinitesimally pursue OFS's ). 3. If Hell does happen to get chilly and he is pursued for an OFS; then an instalment offer can be made then to ward off the OFS (in the event the creditor loses his mind and forgets the retired and disabled element) As I've stated before; pursuing a CO, in my opinion, weakens the creditors ability to demand or collect payments so don't offer what you don't have to.
  16. You have to do what feels best for you on this one, Clynite, but if the fact you having been voluntarily making repayments hasn't dissuaded the creditor from pursuing a CO and, as is most likely, a Court also granting the CO then (certainly as far as I would be concerned) I'd be extremely reluctant to continue paying anything above a token repayment afterwards. You can, though, realistically forget an OFS ever proceeding as in your position it just isn't going to happen.
  17. Thanks Clynite! As you will see I contributed to that thread towards the end but I missed bluback's reference to NR at the beginning.
  18. Let me know if they turn out to be any good shazzy as I'm only up the road in Wolves
  19. Other creditors don't seem to object to another creditor going for a CO and (from my experience) it's not something the Court tends to worry about too much, either, if the other creditors have been notified (so I wouldn't be too concerned about opening a can of worms.) And whilst I would have to concede its an awfully long shot; the Judge may decline Natwest their CO until they have notified other creditors and they may not return to Court? (I wouldn't hold my breath but sometimes delays stop things going ahead completely?) And it's always worth attending Court to put in an objection to try and limit what the creditor gets away with (eg: not getting done like Sparklyfairly did who had interest incorrectly added to her debt!)
  20. Hi Sparkly! I wish you well too. I've just been notified on another thread to have a look into what was termed the "Northern Rock Fiddle"? Apparently NR aggressively pursued CO's and OFS when it fell into trouble and (so the contributor states) hundreds of people found a way out of their problem? I'm assuming it's what we are talking about on here but anyone else heard of it?
  21. For my part; I'm not prepared to stand by and see another contributor trying to diminish the hope of people genuinely reading this thread (perhaps recently like Clynite) looking for help with their situation when that person is using inaccurate and highly dubious information to support their views. Anyone using statements like; "why bother when you owe the money anyway" (in response to not paying a CO when you sell you house) and it's "unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order" cannot pretend to be unconcerned either way over CO's. Once people understand that they can then put into context from which side of the fence the information given is coming from. It's also naive for anyone to think the only people reading and using this thread are those trying to help people in debt.
  22. Gaston Nobody has stumbled on anything "fabulous" and the possibility of resistance from conveyancers has been stated. I'm merely helping spread the word of what the law states and helping support people who want to help themselves using the law (which is not "exploiting" it by the way!) But please don't be coy about your true feelings on debtors using the law to their advantage in this situation as your proclivity towards the negative on this thread shines like a beacon. Your pretence to be not bothered one way or the other is, also, both insulting and fatuous to the many people in a desperate situation who read this thread and are looking for help. And you say you haven't been educated? Then please, educate me, and explain how you can purport to "have no interest whatsoever in the effectiveness or otherwise of protecting charging orders" yet you tell people "it's "unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order" when you, now, say you have known all along about Restrictions? I'll quite happily wait and listen to be educated on that one.
  23. Sequenci The 0.3% figure comes from the Shergroup which is a debt enforcement organisation and is definitely pro creditor (so hardly likely to underestimate the figure). And whilst Gaston is still giving it a good go on here to dampen the spirits of those on here looking for encouragement, his 50% figure of OFS being granted is very reassuring. Reassuring because if only 0.3% of CO's are ever progressed to OFS status then those chosen must be thought of as dead certs by creditors. That HALF of these still fail, too, means an OFS really is almost impossible to obtain.
  24. Sequenci wrote; "I don't know what the official stats are but in my day job I help 2/3 people a day with potential CO applications. I might get a handful a year that are facing an OFS - and must of those can be stopped in their tracks." Thank you for highlighting the reality of what actually happens rather than the slanted ramblings by another contributor.
  25. Gaston You are quite correct that I did originally quote the 0.3% figure wrongly but I did correct it in my last post on a re-read. I think most concerned parties on here, however, will have read the original link that explained this in more detail. (So don't worry yourself too much, ok) But the pick up is a bit rich coming from someone who incorrectly stated; "Unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order" As you are fully aware now, both a Solicitor at the Land Registry and the Inland Revenue have confirmed (which I'm sure you would have to agree are a little more knowledgeable on the matter than yourself), there is no obligation when the CO can only be registered as a "Restriction". I know you wish it was true but, thankfully for an awful lot of people in trouble on here, it is not.
×
×
  • Create New...