chiefmegawatty
-
Posts
400 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by chiefmegawatty
-
Yes it is or more correctly was my Natwest account.
-
Yes it is or was.
-
Hi Fletch, yes indeed I ignored the default from the bank because I had no intention of paying back money I have never had. The default didn't cause me any loss apart from loss of sleep worrying about the possibility of being taken to court. I have never worried about my CRA report damaging my chances of obtaining credit because I have never taken out any credit. I have never had a credit card and have always saved up for things and bought them using unborrowed cash. I am of the old school belief that if you can't afford to save up for something, then go without it. Live within your means and if things get tough then cut your cloth to suit the situation. Sorry to sound like an old fart but I am getting uncomfortably close to 60 so I guess I am an old fart or very nearly.
-
When Capquest placed the default on my CRA report it showed a default date that was four years and nine months old. Fifteen months later the default disappeared from my CRA report when it became six years old. I therefore assume that Capquest placed the default when they bought the debt. The original debt purely consisted of bank charges built up from a bounced direct debit. The direct debit was unknown to me as I never arranged any direct debits with the bank that caused all this trouble. The bank account was an ordinary current account with no overdraft or credit facilities.
-
Hi Brig, I realise that it's not the CRA at fault for the reasons you stated which I completely agree with. However, it seems strange that the OC and the first few DCA's in the chain don't place a default on the CRA report. Eventually when the fourth DCA buys the debt they place a default on the CRA report which is displayed in a table showing the debt only existing from the date they bought it. The default also shows the original default date as 4 years and 9 months before plonking it on my CRA report. I therefore think that the OC should place the default on your CRA report right from the beginning so you know where you stand rather than finding out nearly 5 years later.
-
OK thanks Brig. Not having a default placed on your CRA record until nearly five years after the default date gives me the impression that CRA reports are worth very little. You could therefore check your report for years and find no defaults and think you have a clean credit record. Then suddenly a DCA plonks a default on there which should have been on there five years before and your credit record is ruined. I therefore suggest that a CRA report isn't worth the paper it's written on.
-
Capquest entered a default on my credit report 4 years and 9 months after the default date.
-
OK thanks for your advice. I therefore assume that the water company stating that the charge order prevents me selling my house is a lie. You say that the debt is joint however, if I offer to pay half the debt the water company won't accept it because the CCJ is in my name only. I therefore assume that the debt isn't joint. I asked the water company how they would recover the debt if my house was sold due to a divorce. They said that the charge order debt would be taken from my half of the proceeds as the CCJ was in my name only. I therefore don't understand how this can be a joint debt.
-
My flat bed scanner won't work with this computer so here goes as I copy type my letter from Bristol & Wessex Water. Dear Mr Smith and Mrs Smith, We have a charging order secured against your property. The charge order prevents you from re-mortgaging, taking out a secured loan or selling the property. If you pay in full we will remove the restriction. We may take further enforcement action if you do not pay. Please contact us to arrange payment. Yours, Sincerely, xxxx A payment slip is attached to the bottom of the letter for payment of the full amount. I don't know why they addressed the letter to Mr & Mrs because the CCJ is in my name only. Also I have a charge order and not a restriction because the house is in my name only. The water company seem to have their legal wires crossed. Surely if the water company force the sale of my house my wife would know nothing about it because she hasn't registered an interest in the property at the land registry. Therefore a forced or unforced sale would only require my signature on the sale contract agreement. I cant possibly see why my wife's signature would be required under these conditions. Also you imply that my wife ownes half the house but me being the sole owner is responsible for all the debt. Surely if she ownes half the house she must therefore own half the debt. You can't own half of something and not own half of the same thing simultaneously. You either own half or you don't.
-
The house in my name so how have my wife and I become equally liable? I have a letter from Bristol & Wessex Water clearly stating that I am not allowed to sell my house until the full amount is paid. Small monthly amounts does not release my equity. Why don't the water company demand half of the debt from my wife as you say we are equally liable? Small monthly payments will not get rid of the charge order and allow me to use the equity. Therefore why do you consider my comments as silly?
-
Hi dx. Yes we were living together during the time this debt accumulated. During this period my wife was the only earner and the water account was in her name only. Unknowingly to me she wasn't paying the water and sewerage bills. The water company then put my name on the account and slammed a CCJ on me. I didn't know anything about the CCJ until 8 months after it was issued. My wife was obviously intercepting my post to hide her deception. Shortly after my wife running away I was informed that the water company were applying for a charge order against my house. I have a letter here from Bristol & Wessex water that clearly states that I am not allowed to sell my house. I therefore assume that my house is worth nothing as I have no equity due to the charge order. The charge order clearly states that I am not allowed to borrow money against my house as equity. Therefore the charge order means I have no equity. Before the charge order I owned my house outright with no mortgage or any debts. Now it appears that the court and the water company own my house due to a relatively small debt. I am astonished that the law has now allowed a creditor with a 2% ownership of a house to have power over the owner and reduce his equity to zero. I think that this would still apply if a creditor only owned 1% of my property due to a charge order. Therefore according to the law, 1% is greater than 99%. Forty years ago my dad said the law was an ass. I think he has been proved right.
-
No replies therefore I assume that bankrupcy is the best solution to my situation. I thought so in the first place. How can I get my water supplier to abandon the charge order and apply for bankrupcy instead?
-
Thanks Sequenci for your superb and clear explanation. Now I understand. My charge order clearly states that I cannot use the equity in my house as security against any loan. Therefore the charge order implies that I have no equity until the charge order is paid off. My house is owned outright and solely in my name. I have no other debts or loans. Regarding paying off the charge order, my situation is complicated. Thirty months ago my wife disappeared and left me with the debt that led to the charge order. My wife is legally entitled to half the value of this house when she files for divorce. My wife was responsible for the debt that caused the charge order to come about. Now if I pay off the charge order that will result in my wife receiving more money when the house is sold. Last year I had a free half hour with a solicitor who told me that because the house is solely in my name I can legally sell it without my wife's knowledge. However, the solicitor said that any solicitor acting for my wife under divorce proceedings would track me down for selling the house to deliberately deprive my wife of her half the value and then award my wife more than 50%. I therefore assume that an order for sale against my wishes would make it impossible for my wife's solicitor to accuse me of selling the house with intent to deprive my wife of her half of the value. Her solicitor would have to blame the water supplier and the county court judge who forced the sale. I cannot be blamed for selling the house if the selling is forced by the court. Under these complicated circumstances I don't know which is best, a forced sale or bankrupcy. A CCJ screws you up for six years satisfied or not. Bankruptcy removes CCJ's and screws you up for one year.
-
I know a woman who lives fairly near here who has been made bankrupt. She told me that she can only borrow money up to £500 due to her bankrupcy status. I have been told that due to my CCJ and a charge order on my house that I can't borrow any money at all. I can't even use the equity in my house to secure a loan. I therefore assume that I would be better off bankrupt and therefore loan worthy. I also therefore assume that due to the charge order that the equity in my house is worth nothing. Thirty years work all down the drain. So a £1000 debt that ends up with a charge order makes your house worth nothing.
-
Sorry but I have been misled regarding the definition of bankruptcy. I found the definition in the second paragraph on this web page: http://www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Bankruptcy/Whatisbankruptcy.aspx I therefore assume that the stepchange definition of bankrupcy is incorrect. This being the case I assume a person could be bankrupt and extremely rich simultaneously. Yes but you must have a CCJ for £1000 before a creditor can apply for a charge order. Therefore that sets the debt level for a charge order at £1000.
-
Now tell me again that there is no threshold on charging orders and prove your point before you post please. I have posted and proved my point. Please stop using opinions and use proven facts before you post.
-
Then read ths: http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/1000-debt-could-force-you-to-sell-your-home-8562606.html
-
Sorry andyyorch, you are completely wrong. Read this: http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/15044/online-news/threshold-introduced-for-charging-orders
-
I don't understand how a person can be made bankrupt with a debt of £750 if the he has assets of £250,000. I have a charge order registered against my house for just under £2000. Mr Cameron set the charge order threshold at £1000 in order to reduce bankrupcy. I therefore don't understand what he meant. Did he mean that he wanted charge orders placed on peoples houses to prevent them being made bankrupt or was he trying to keep people in their houses to prevent eviction.
-
I understand that the Government set the charge order threshold at £750 in order to reduce the number of people being made bankrupt. Could anyone explain what the Government meant by this? What happens if you owe a debt of £750 to a creditor and you own a house outright thats worth £250,000 and the creditor files for bankrupcy? I assume you end up homeless with a bank balance of just under £250,000. I have read that you can only be made bankrupt when your debts equal or exceed your assets. Therefore how can there be a threshold of £750 without taking into account any assets?
-
OK thanks for that information. I never filled out any valuation form. I simply took my copy of the deeds to the council office. They photocopied the deeds and a few weeks later they wrote to me stating the value to be £6,850. The BBC article says that farm land hasn't yet reached £10,000 per acre but according to the council valuation the land I own is worth £14,891 per acre. I therefore strongly suspect that the council are telling porkies. The PBC, whoops sorry I meant the BBC are very good at telling porkies and covering them up for over 50 years. Therefore I have no idea who to believe. My local council and the BBC are both funded by public money so I suspect they are both telling porkies. Seems to me that it's very easy to tell porkies when you are funded by compulsory public funding. I am of the impression that it's a form of legalised "demanding money with menaces". What a sad and bent country we live in.
-
Just another thought. Back in 2011 my local Council valued my land asset at £6850 and hence my loss of council tax reduction based on the council valuation. However, I have found a BBC information page regarding the value of farm land that was published in August 2013. Here is the link to the news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23792583 Now the article states that farmland is only worth £7,440 per acre. Therefore how did my local council value my 0.46 acre of farm land at £6,850? I assume they valued it at that price to dishonestly extort money from me. Should I send my local council a link to the BBC report and ask them to re-value my land correctly? Or will they claim that their valuation was correct and ignore me?
-
The Government have been saying that you should save for your retirement and build up a nest egg of money by private means. I have done this by investing in land. Now the Government reduce funding to local councils that results in me being financially punished for trying to invest for my retirement. I wish Governments would stop contradicting them selves and stop telling obvious lies. Due to my huge increase in Council Tax I will probably have to get rid of my car. The Government will then loose all the tax I pay on the petrol and the vehicle excise licence. They will also loose the VAT I pay on my car insurance and the VAT I pay on spare parts, MOT and servicing. I am of the impression that we are governed by financially incompetent buffoons.
-
Thanks for your help and comments chaps. I strongly suspect that Capquest are the owners of the debt. Capquest are the company who put a default on my CRA report back in March 2012. The entry on my CRA report showed the default date as 23 May 2007 therefore I assume that Capquest must know that the debt is now statute barred.
-
OK thanks for that advice. Well my debt is secured against my house as a charge order. I have shown the Council my court charge order and they said it didn't count towards reducing my assets. they are saying that owning property or land assets doesn't count against charge orders placed on those assets. I am confused. I have told the Council that I have to sell my asset to pay my debt so I don't understand how this can be considered as disposing of capital to obtain benefits. Surely it's selling capital to pay debts. How can the Council blame a person for selling assets to pay debts? What's legally wrong with selling assets to pay debts? I am very confused. Thinking about this more deeply, as I now don't receive any Council tax reduction benefit then surely I must be entitled to sell any asset I have at any time I wish. Now if that's not the case then a person with a full time job cannot sell an asset just in case he looses his job and has to sign on in the future. Some years ago I spent huge amounts of redundancy money on improving and extending my house. When the money ran out I signed on and had no problem because I had spent my money before I signed on. I wasn't questioned about my spending habbits before I signed on.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS