What are the consequences to a creditor if they fail to provide sar information in the 40 day time scale. How, specifically, will this disadvantage them?

You know what I meant:p

Spot on, that's much better:-) I think it's a perfectly sensible and reasonable request in view of the lack of clarity on charging orders. If a particular debt collection solution seems to be outdated/flawed and in need of amending, registering your concern as above seems the best/only thing you can do:(. I will be thinking of you tomorrow, I hope it goes well mate. If you get to be in front of a judge, just imagine him/her oblivious of a massive black beard sticking out the back of their head at 45 degrees:D Works every time:).

Heres a link to my other attempt to get to the bottom of this question. Debt Questions • View topic - Is this correct? CBR600F I completely mirror your frame of mind, very similar story:( I wonder, is this a worth while suggestion??... Compose a note to the judge and creditor to the effect that you are very unsure that what is about to happen is actually legal and that you would like absolute proof that it is in fact legal and proper as per 'ALL' the appropriate law as it exists. If this proof cannot be provided, then you would like a condition/note attached to the charging order to the effect that should at some later date the legality of the charging order be proved to be flawed you will be compensated to the full extent of your time, cost emotional upset and have your asset restored to you. I don't know about anyone else but, the one thing that I found difficult to get my head around is that, in this situation, the credit card or whatever is gone, finished and over. All that is left is a debt, an amount of money owed. A charging order is nothing to do with the original debt/problem/correspondence/stress. It is just a method of getting a debt paid, regardless of how the debt was incurred. You have to put on a different hat when you try to understand the fairness of Charging Orders, they are a new problem, born out of, but nothing to do with all the crap of the original debt. They are not a mechanism for 'transforming' unsecured debt into a secured debt. It is no good saying "I would never have taken out that unsecured loan at that interest rate, if I had known it could later be secured anyway". I understand all that now, but initially I thought it was all just another disgusting kick in the nads from the banks etc and got all stressed and confused. Now I just want to know if I will be allowed a manageable timescale to clear my debts or whether they will bankrupt me, which I think they would were it not for the charging order option. I have a lot of debt, equity and ill health. Also... Here is my cunning plan/solution to a charging order leading to the sale of my house. I intend to sell the drive and front access plus the last ten feet of my back garden to three separate relatives. Let the bankstards try and sell it then;)

Bum p:)

Anyone hear the one about the blind skunk that fell in love with a fart?

Bump

Full and final solution? There have been enough debts sold to DCAs here and abroad to give an average ‘in the pound’ sale price of a debt. We have enough examples of how DCAs conduct themselves and that they are a **** poor solution choice for the debtor. The examples of them brown trouser pressuring people into repaying are everywhere. How about this… The government compulsorily purchases these debts from the original creditor at the now known typical ‘in the pound’ value. The Inland Revenue then calculate and add a collection percentage then collect the total, interest free, over an appropriate period, No more requirement for DCA to engage with the current consumer crisis No more bankruptcies. No more homes repossessed. The original creditor will be able to use these ‘in the pound’ sales to reduce their debt to the taxpayer and pay them straight back to the government perhaps. And /…..add more if you can Wojerfink

Owzabout that then guys and gals:) This relates to a hire purchase debt by the way, goods were damaged by collection agents and eventually sold at crap price, now they want the maximum 18k shortfall as per the agreement. I would rather cheese grate my three piece off than stand for that! so here we go... Will it do?? Its looking better to me. Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx (or multiple numbers if more than one account) Thank you for the copy of the agreement I requested in January which arrived 3rd March. Unfortunately this did not give me all the information I wanted. Therefore, please supply me with copies of all the data, correspondence and conversation copies which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time. Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire period of my dealings with you. The Subject Access is not limited to my transaction history. Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my business with you. If you are unable to supply this data because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10 and understand you have 40 days in which to comply. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable. Yours faithfully, [signature]

Thanks for that Enamae

Hi, I am just about to email this off and wondered if it is okay? Dear XXXXX Thank you for the copy of the agreement which I requested in January and arrived 3rd March. Unfortunately this did not give me all the information I wanted. Therefore could you please send me all the subject access information which I am entitled to under the Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible. If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this letter to your Data protection officer or another appropriate official. Yours faithfully Have I worded that right?? it's my first one.

Sorry I forgot to paste the text :-?

Hi guys,I just found this whilst sniffing around and wondered would it be a good idea to ask for an in depth illustration from creditors of how they have protected your personal details when outsourcing work abroad. The Data Protection Act prohibits the transfer of personal information from the UK to other countries unless those countries can ensure the same level of protection. Organisations can also set up contracts with overseas organisations receiving personal information. This ensures that a higher standard of protection is in place than there might have been in the receiving country. Organisations in the UK which have personal information processed on their behalf overseas are responsible for the security of your information. The UK organisation is required to make sure the company overseas complies fully with the UK Data Protection Act. Did we agree to our personal info being shared with overseas operations?? How can we be absolutely sure that our details are safe and properly protected? Etc.. Are there any graspable straws sticking out of this?? Just a thought.

Yes it is Bradfordlad BUT, is it correct, I cannot seem to get this info confirmed. This is an answer I got on another forum which is being further clarified by the author. It is quite true that the INTERIM charging order places only a restriction on the property at the land registry in the name of the debtor. And if the property is sold before the order is made final - or the creditor doesn't carry on to make the order final - then that is what it remains - a restriction. Providing the creditor does not get his order made final before it is sold and the letter is sent - it can be sold. However the interim order can and most probably will be made FINAL. The moment it is made final the joint tenancy on the property, if that is what it is, is irrevocably severed and the owners become tenants in common. The charge is then on the equitable interest of the debtor not on the beneficial interest. It is therefore a charge and secured on the property whatever the poster on the forum says. It is only if it is not made final that it is a restriction. So, I am still in the dark and a bit...:confused: I then found this on another forum... http://www.bllaw.co.uk/pdf/financeandrecoveries_0806_charging%20orders%20on%20property.pdf Sorry about the lack of copy and paste skill but here it is.... CCR The growth in personal debt, together with property prices, has meant that charging orders have become a popular debt recovery tool. A creditor obtains a judgment against a debtor and then a charging order on the debtor’s property. A number of creditors, particularly in the finance and debt purchase sectors, having converted an unsecured debt to one with some security, sit back and wait for the debtor to pay the debt off as and when the debtor tries to sell the property. Unfortunately, sitting back and waiting for payment carries a number of risks: A mortgagee with an earlier charge on the property might repossess and sell the property at a time when there is insufficient equity in the property to pay all or even part of the debt to the creditor. Property prices might go down, wiping out any equity in the property. If the original judgment does not attract interest – as could be the case for debts less than £5,000 or given in proceedings relating to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – the value of the debt will be eroded over time by inflation. Some creditors will perhaps apply for an order to sell the property rather than wait and take the risks. However there is another, more fundamental, risk which creditors are beginning to come across in respect of charging orders obtained after April 2003. Where a debtor owns property with another person, for example husband and wife, the debtor and the other person can, despite the charging order, easily sell the property and pay nothing to the creditor. Before April 2003 Once a charging order was obtained against a debtor over his interest in a property, whether he owned it solely or jointly, the charging order was registered as a caution at the Land Registry. This meant that the creditor or his solicitors would get 14 days’ notice from the Land Registry that the debtor and other owner or owners were trying to get rid of the caution, probably with the aim of selling the property. The fact that such notice had to be given meant that a debtor knew he could not sell the property before the creditor knew about it and took steps to prevent the sale. So the debtor would usually pay the creditor before selling the property. Cautions which were registered prior to April 2003 still remain effective and the creditor will get 14 days’ notice of any attempt to get rid of the caution. April 2003 and afterwards The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA) and Land Registration Rules 2003 (LRR) introduced significant changes to land registration procedures. Cautions were no longer to be used. Instead when a creditor obtained a charging order against a debtor: If the property was solely owned by the debtor, or all owners of the property were debtors, for example husband and wife owning the property jointly and being joint debtors, then an ‘agreed notice’ was to be filed at the Land Registry by the creditor. Effectively this was almost as good as having a mortgage. The debtor could not realistically sell the property without repaying the debt to the creditor. However, if the property was jointly owned by the debtor with other non- debtors, for example husband and wife owning the property and only one of them being the actual debtor, the creditor was not entitled to enter an agreed notice. Instead the creditor could only file a ‘restriction’ at the Land Registry in the following terms: “No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [creditor...] being the person with the benefit of an interim/final charging order on the beneficial interest of [name of... debtor].” This restriction was, and remains, practically useless. The effect of the restriction The debtor and his joint owner’s freedom to sell the property is not affected by such a restriction. They could sell the property as if there was no charging order against the debtor. All that was required was that the new buyers or their solicitor write to the creditor informing them that they now owned the property and then confirm to the Land Registry that they had given that notice. Then the buyers could register the property with no further complications. The creditor, who is sitting back, waiting to get paid, instead just receives a letter confirming that a sale has already taken place, typically a week or two after the sale so there is little they can do to get the debt paid. In theory the creditor could apply for a freezing order against the debtor to try and obtain the cash from the sale proceeds. However, most creditors will never make such an application: The cost of applying for such a freezing order would run into thousands of pounds. The debtor might have spent the cash from the sale of the property before the freezing order was obtained so there is little, if anything, for the freezing order to bite on. An effective restriction A restriction worded as follows would provide a creditor with sufficient COLLECTIONS Are your charging orders worth waiting on? What to ask your DCA Look-a-like collection letters Effective debt collection US debt purchase warning In association with CCR COLLECTIONS CCR protection: “No disposition of the registered estate is to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by [name the creditor with the benefit of the charging order and their address], being the person with the benefit of an interim/final charging order on the beneficial interest of [name of judgment debtor], or his solicitor that he was given written notice of the disposition at least 14 days prior to the disposition or without an order of the court which granted the interim/final charging order.” If the wording suggested above were to be allowed, a creditor would have the right to be notified before a sale. The fact that such notice has to be given would mean that a debtor will know he cannot sell the property before the creditor finds out about the potential sale – and of course takes steps to prevent the sale until the debt is paid. So the debtor will pay the creditor before selling the property. Perhaps at some stage, the LRA will be amended to allow such an effectively worded restriction. In the meantime, a that the Land Registry must allow that wording. Application to the Land Registry The Land Registry may approve an application to allow a restriction in non-standard wording if it appears: That the terms of the proposed restriction are reasonable, and That applying the proposed restriction would be straightforward, and not place an unreasonable burden on him. In our view, the Land Registry should allow a restriction which actually gives some protection to creditors. However, we have yet to make such an application and suspect that the Land Registry will not readily allow such non-standard wording. Applications to the court If the Land Registry refuses to allow a non-standard word restriction, then a creditor may wish to consider making an application to the court. Inevitably there are risks with this: Creditors should bear in mind that WHEN IS A CHARGE NOT A CHARGE? Charging orders on property made since April 2003 may well be useless, following on from changes to Land Registry procedures allowing debtors to sell their houses without paying anything to their creditors By Sadak Miah and James Britton CCR What is the final verdict on these bloody charging orders?? Fecking Banks :-x

How is all this going??

I just became aware of 'Credit Unions' and I am looking into them. Anyone know anything about them? Or of any other alternatives to banks... Other than good old bangers and mash of course:)

Is this correct?? MoneySaving Convert Join Date: May 2009 Post Count: 70 Thanked 43 Times in 24 Posts Charging Order? The myth I feel that this is so important that I thought a new thread should be made to highlight the importance of understanding the law on Charging Orders and how many people are stuck with their property in the false believe that they have had a Charging Order put on their property. In particular the thousands of Northern Rock customers that have had unsecured debt turned into secured debt by their tactics. If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction. The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor. However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to decieve you believing you are stuck with a CO. However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them Quote: Restriction The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :- No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…). You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer. If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered. So I hope I have provided benefit to everyone who has had a restriction entered against them (especially NORTHERN ROCK CUSTOMERS) who believe wrongly that they are Charging Orders. You now have the freedom to go and sell your houses with the knowledge that the vultures can do nothing If it is.... Bliss. BUT... What about all the 'But then they can/will' blah blah

No, when it was passed to the dca last summer, I had a right go about what the goods had been sold for and asked them over the phone for a copy of the agreement as I wanted to check it out (not, by the way, to see if it was un/enforceable). I heard nothing for about six months then they wrote to me in Jan this year with a statement. etc. I told them to only contact me in writing and sent the email at the same time. They then wrote back and confirmed receipt of the email and noted its contents, confirmed they had requested the agreement copy, and that the account was now placed on hold. I am still waiting.

Thanks for the quick reply Alf, the annoying thing with this debt is that all that I owe is interest and that is after they sold the goods at auction at a stupid value:mad: I will give them another week or so then do as scottyboy recommends and send the proper letter.

Thanks for those replies guys. If the debt is unenforceable to what extent and can/do they pursue you? What are the best and worst case scenarios likely to be. As no higher authority such as a court will be taking a view either way, what mechanisms are available for the creditor to collect.

Hi all, my first post... I requested via email, a copy of a hire purchase agreement (2005) for which I am being pursued for a large balance. The goods were repossessed and sold at auction well below value. The dca confirmed receipt of the email by return and that they had referred the account back to the original creditor with a request for a copy of the agreement under the consumers act 1974. They said they will chase for the agreement but warned me that they are limited in the number of requests that they can send. I received this initial reply fifteen days ago. Have I messed up by not sending them the request via recorded delivery with £1.00 fee?? What I want to know is, is whether acknowledgment of an 'email' that requests a copy of an agreement is the same as sending a recorded delivery letter and £1.00. I just didn't think at the time. If not, should I now do that? Also, if an email is as good as a letter, and that as I have been waiting over fourteen days for the agreement, can they now 'not' pursue the debt via the courts?