Any news here? Can you be more specific about the help you received? We want to know about figures, percentages, payment plan or settlement!

Any news from anyone on these settlements? How have the banks responded? I wanted to warn people to read through the following case before attempting this and to post their opinions here: Inland Revenue Commissioners (IRC) v Fry It seems very likely that this case will be used against the debtor if they are not careful. The only point we may have in our favour is that Mr Fry does not appear to have written anything on the back of the cheque making the agreement easier to rebut. Also worth noting is that judges will almost never rule against the IRC due to the possible repercussions. It is one thing for the judges to make a decision negatively impacting a builder or merchant, but the IRC and banks may be a totally different kettle of fish... Useful link on the subject: http://www.bermans.co.uk/publications.php?5.articles.view.230 I just wanted to add that I in no way agree with the judgement in the case of IRC v Fry. I am sure that if the roles were reversed they would still rule in favour of the IRC, it is just another example of our corrupt legal system in action...

Have you investigated applying for a Time Order to block the Charging Order application? Both a Time Order and an Interim IVA Order can be used to block charging orders I believe.

I always feel extremely saddened when I hear of suicides contemplated over debts, and I really do wish you all the best with your case! I think we all have to think outside the box a little when it comes to dealing with these sleazebag lenders. An idea that I have been discussing recently with my friend (law student) is whether it might be possible to accept a voluntary charging order for a large sum to a friendly party BEFORE any hostile charging orders are approved. Charging orders work on a first come first served basis, so all the equity would be diverted to the friendly (first) charging order on the sale of the property! What do you all think of that idea? Wouldn't that trump the whole foolish process?

Yes this is exactly the information I was looking for, along with more up to date stats on orders applied for and orders passed. Seeing as how the lenders are now resorting to dirty tactics more regularly to secure unsecured debts, maybe we also need to start looking at more clever ways to block them. For example, what if you could prove that you owed money to people/businesses that would be willing to object to the order being passed? If you could get them to write to object? Do you think that it would be enough to sway the judgement against the lender applying for the order?

I thought this might be of interest to all of you. It is a set of statistics for the amount of charging orders applied for and granted over recent years: Table AP6 Charging orders, England and Wales Return to index Period Charging orders, England and Wales Applications Orders Made - Granted 2000 16,014 - 9,689 2001 21,870 - 15,487 2002 30,781 - 21,408 2003 35,052 - 25,217 2004 45,516 - 33,235 2005 65,780 - 49,218 2006 92,933 - 67,090 2007 131,637 - 97,026 Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Notes: 1. Charging orders allow a creditor for an unsecured loan which is in default to tie that loan to an asset owned by the debtor. In many cases this asset will be residential property but orders can also be granted against land, commercial property or other assets. However figures on charging orders split by type of asset are not available 2. Data for all years have been revised, and figures for 2007 are provisional. CML Research 9/9/2008

I thought this might be of interest to all of you. It is a set of statistics for the amount of charging orders applied for and granted over recent years: Table AP6 Charging orders, England and Wales Period Charging orders, England and Wales Applications Orders Made - Granted 2000 16,014 - 9,689 2001 21,870 - 15,487 2002 30,781 - 21,408 2003 35,052 - 25,217 2004 45,516 - 33,235 2005 65,780 - 49,218 2006 92,933 - 67,090 2007 131,637 - 97,026 Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Notes: 1. Charging orders allow a creditor for an unsecured loan which is in default to tie that loan to an asset owned by the debtor. In many cases this asset will be residential property but orders can also be granted against land, commercial property or other assets. However figures on charging orders split by type of asset are not available 2. Data for all years have been revised, and figures for 2007 are provisional. CML Research 9/9/2008

Hi all, I am trying to find out some information on charging orders and wondered if anyone knows the law in detail on this matter? 1. Is there is a limit to the term of a successful charging order? I know that some countries have a limit on the term, I think New Zealand has a 2 year limit for example. I am expecting that there is no limit in the UK (the table seams to be tilted in favour of the creditors on every other matter, so why not this?) but thought I may as well ask out of interest... 2. What is the equity slice threshold that is generally required for an 'Order of Sale' to be approved? If there was about 30K equity best case and the total debts amounted to 25k split between 5 creditors for example, would the order of sale be granted? Or would there be too much risk that the sale would produce too little equity to satisfy the debts? If the creditors all agreed to take a reduced slice of flesh so to speak, could it be approved in this way?

Yes they are able now to re-construct an agreement now, Judge Waksman threw out a load of cases recently and made a statement along the lines that it was acceptable for them to supply a re-constructed copy to satisfy a s78 request, and that we should consider that a 'true copy'! He went as far as to say that it did not need the signature on it and that the address could be added at a later date. What they cannot do with such an agreement is enforce it in court to get a charging order etc. Judge Waxman was basically reinforcing the oppinion that a s78 request is more to satisfy the publics right to information, rather than for them to speculatively request the agreement and then to refuse to pay if the creditor cannot produce it. The problem we are facing with our agreements is that the law had changed by this date to allow ticks on a website box to be a valid signature. This means that it becomes very hard for us to contest whether they have the original agreement, because the original agreement was just a digital page on a website with a checkbox! If you had signed an agreement by hand, and they cannot produce that agreement, then you can claim the account is in dispute until they do produce it. Or you could wait for them to take you to court, and then low and behold produce a valid signed agreement just in time! This has already happened to a few unlucky souls... If you signed up online, then I am not sure what you can do. You might have to go down the route of offering them token payments of £1 a month and requesting that they freeze any interest and charges. If you have a property in your name, or are a joint owner, they may decide to just push for a charging order and basically treat your debt as your responsibility and that you are entirely to blame. The reason they will be far more likely to accept token payments of £1 than to accept no payment at all for a long period of time is due to the Statute of Limitations. If a long period passes with no payment or acknowledgement of debt, creditors start to become worried that you will just dodge paying it entirely. After 6 years have passed they will be unable to recover anything and it will be written off, so they want you to pay them something as it is almost like them keeping a tube in place to drain your blood at a later stage! The more I read about the law in the UK, the more I want to emigrate. The more Judges there are limiting our options through morally corrupt means and protecting the large corporations of bankers, the more I want to leave and never return!!! Take a look at this link: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article6995381.ece

Bonjourno TinkerPink! I am in the same boat with regards to not being sure what was presented to me when I signed up. Unfortunately I am beginning to feel that there is not much I can do due to the changes in the law allowing tick boxes as signatures, and re-constituted copies of an agreement being acceptable as a 'true copy' of an agreement. In my oppinion the law has been so shifted recently in favour of lenders that I find it very worrying! Another reason to emigrate if you ask me... Remember that even if you cannot challenge this agreement you can still make an offer for a full and final settlement. The closer you get to defaulting, the more desperate the creditor will be to recover at least some of the debt. If you apply knowledge of the fractional banking system here (that lenders only actually have approx 10% of reserves to cover all credit issued) it is no surprise when ex-employees of banks like MBNA post information on forums stating that creditors generally sell defaulted debts to DCAs at around 10p-12p per pound! The debt was conjoured up out of thin air, and in reality the creditor never had the funds to lend in the first place! This all means that if you play the long game and make them believe that they will not recover anything, and then out of the blue make them an offer of about 20%-25% of the total debt as a FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT they will most likely accept it, as it is roughly double what they would get from selling the debt. There are many pitfalls to this approach to watch out for though, especially in the wording of the offers they make. They will often make offers of 'partial settlement' and then chase the remaining debt at a later stage or even sell it to a debt collection agency. Always remember that you are dealing with the lowest and sneakiest forms of businesses in existence, they will always try to mislead you if they have the option available and it will benefit them to do so. MBNA for example will try to make you believe they have sold the debt to a collector as a final scare tactic, but this bogus DCA is actually part of MBNA and their employees work in the same office as the MBNA collections department! There are some interesting posts on here about all this, so try to read through as many as possible to get some idea of how to tackle this. You are always in a stronger position to negotiate when you own no properties (either completely or partially) and have little or no goods of value in your name, as the lender will not have the option of chasing a charging order etc. I wish I could help more, but I am relatively new to this and up to my ears in debt from different lenders. Two of the three have bad agreements, but this MBNA one is proving a little more tricky. All my time and energy is being spent on my financial problems and it is screwing up the rest of my life. I will still try to post more on this forum, if/when I learn anything new that is relevant to this agreement. Good luck and please report any developments.

Hi TinkerPink, did they send you the same documents as they sent me? Please check my thread here to compare: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mbna/251104-virgin-mbna-mastercard-credit.html I am interested to see if anyone else has contested this agreement.

Thanks for the quick reply! I have been reading through the forum quite a lot regarding my credit agreements and did beging to think this MBNA one might be the only one to be pretty much airtight. Is there anything other than the tick/signature that might be wrong, for example prescribed terms, interest rates, charges etc?

Hi all, just wanted to start a new thread for advice on my credit agreement. I recently sent a CCA request and the obligatory £1 postal order to MBNA and received the following documents just within the 12+2 timeframe: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Does anything appear wrong with this agreement? Or does it look enforceable? Thanks in advance.