This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

i was looking into this also got some very good advice from a company called prize home try emailing them on [email protected] i did have a number, but cant find it

this was my point exactly. This thread seems to make out that this "loophole" was another nail in the coffin of consumer rights. When in fact the point had been totally missed and most had read the sensationalist headline in the tabloids and over exaggerated. I will say it again, this is method of enforcing judgments, not securing unsecured debt, Although this is a possible use of a charging order, Its nothing new, and its nothing to got up in arms about as it could have been used by credit card companies for years, When it hasnt other than as a last resort and in only a very few cases. Trust me there are new rules of enforcement that you lot should be more worried about than this change to charging orders. I would suggest reading the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act

But the courts do take this into account, they will only make a debtor pay what they can afford. And from my experiance creditors would rather make a payment plan with a debtor, than getting a CCJ. You have got this all wrong, charging orders are not a method or securing unsecured loans, they are a method of securing a county court judgment against a asset, as a last resort. how many ccj do you think relate to unsecured loans? Now how many do you think relate to other issues, such as unpaid invoices, Civil disputes, unpaid tax etc. Charging orders have been around for ages and the only change is that now you don't have fall into arrears with your payments But if you are meeting your payment plan why would your creditor go to the expense of actually registering the charging order. so why is it an issue, unless you want to sit in your 200k house, while owing thousands in unpaid ccjs. without making any payments to clear these debts, it shouldnt be an issue? Why has no one even mentioned it on this site, before this newspaper article, Its even given as advice as a method of enforcing unpaid ccj on this forum My main point is the argument you have just does not stand, these changes have nothing to do with unsecured loans becoming secured loans, its just a change to enforcing county court judgments Tell me why why a small company owner who has not been paid for tens of thousands of pounds of invoices for genuine honest work should be in a position that they may go bankrupt and lose their house or assets, just to protect some individuals who will not pay them , despite having a county court judgment made against them. Why should the small business owner have to be in a position to lose their house just so the non paying debtor doesn't have a charge register on their property. Which in nearly all cases will only be paid off if the house is sold yours views on this issue are very specific to one type of use for a charging order, and these changes are very unlikely to make any difference to anyone on this forum Even if you did end up with a charge on your property, so what, the courts rarely make an order for sale unless it is for a considerable amount and you are making no effort to pay it off. Otherwise it wouldn't even effect you untill you sold your property, at which time, you should really pay off your debts before taking an another even bigger debt of a mortgage

Look there is nothing different that is going to happen, instead of getting a ccj then, applying for a charging order when the ccj is not paid Now the charging order will be automatic What about all the small businesses in the UK which are due thousands of pounds in unpaid consumer debts, Should they not be allowed to secure this debt, on an unpaying debtors assets The argument seems to be that why should a unsecurred debt become a secured debt. Its rubbish, all debts are secured, The only difference, is when loan providers give you a securred load they know you have assets to cover this loan and as such you get a preferential rate of interest You cant pick and choose what parts of the law you like Just as in bank charges are unlawful, not paying a county court judgment is unlawful and this is a accepted method of enforcement. You wouldnt like it if you won a case against you bank and they just didnt pay up, and you had no real means of enforcing the debt and no just because i have a difference of opinion does not mean i am a troll I just believe that if you borrow money you should pay it back

There is an easy way to avoid this happening to you Make sure you pay your loans off, as per the credit agreement why should charging orders not be made if you fail to pay your debts loans are not free money, they have to be paid back

i would have broken the terms if i bought 2, but i bought 1, Please explain how i have broken the terms. Or why you define all users of an ip address to be an individual. The loss is due to the fact that i have now bought the print for £2000, £1500 more than it should have cost me had the shop met their contractual obligations Is this contract law not right

I was revisiting this subject as last time i did not really get any definate answer, just alot of unhelpful feedback so i thought i would simplify the issue to try and explain the situation better, so someone might be able to give me help i didnt expect the unhelpfull feedback again, I thought this site was here to help people like me, I have read some other thread on loss of bargain, and non of the other users have got this type of negative feedback, they have has usefull information that probably helped them If no one is willing to give any genuine help, please dont respond, i would rather you let this post die, and end up in the archives. I had thought i had put enough info in the first post, regarding the fact that i had only purchased one print, so why do i get a response stating i have breached the terms as i bought more than 1. If you went into a shop with your partner and they had a special offer, only 1 per person, is that one per person, or one per couple, or is it one per group of people you come in with It clearly stated on the site, "one per person", i only bought 1, so how have i breached the contract? Please explain if you are right in your assumption Regarding the first part, i was just simplifying the issue, so it was easier to understand, weather it was my partner, mate, dad, brother or sister the facts remain the same Again the second statment was to simplify it, it was diferent persons, usining diferent computers i didnt want to complicate the matter, but adding that my dad also bought one, the simple matters are, each person that bought one, was a diferent person, living at a diferent address paying with theior own credit card. The only similarity was that they all were helping me in my office at the time, so all came from the same ip. IP addresses are not specific to individuals, the same ip can be used by hundreds of people at the same time. How could this determine as a matter of fact that i breached the terms and coonditions, If there any evidence at all to suggest catagoricallyt that i bought more than 1 for myself?? No there isnt because i didnt so how couldhere be

I am thinking about making a claim for loss of bargain for a banksy art print i bought I would like to find some case law regarding loss of bargain and if i would be successful Story in short 1 I bought, paid for, received email confirmation for a limited edition art print by banksy. The print was limited to an edition of 500 and the online gallery i bought the print from assigned a specific print number after i paid. the price paid was 500 gbp The prints were only available for about a min or 2, online, before they all sold out, the gallery only sold 500 as each print is assigned a number and that number is on the order, so they only sell what they have (500), At the same time i also got a print for my friend who was with me, he paid separately on another order and also received full confirmation and his specific print number 2 after full confirmation of the order i checked my accoun a few days later and the money had been refunded, I contacted the gallery and they advised that they canceled the order as it was 1 per person and 2 orders had been made from my IP, this was as i was using my pc, and my mate was using his laptop through my internet connection. The fact is the orders were made separately, on different computer, by different people, with separate order details like name and address, the only reason they canceled is due to the ip being the same. i queried this and suggested that i send full confirmation of the id's of me and my mate so they could verify that the orders were not for the same person, they were not interested in speaking to me and had since put the print back on the gallery site and sold to another customer. 3 I have tried to get the print on the secondary market but the cheapest i could find was 2000, some have sold for over 3500. So as i wanted this print i paid 2000 4 as the gallery was contracted to suply the print and i have incurred a loss due to their breach of contract i feel i should be able to claim for loss of bargain. Some details, The contract was formed due to the email confirmation being taken The gallery site had no terms and conditions, it was only open for 20 days to promote a special gallery event for banksy, the galleries normal site does state they have a right to cancel order, but there was no link from the site i purchased to the normal site or any mention of any terms, and i had not visited the normal site so was not aware of the terms, so can not for part of the contract They did not sell out when i purchased as they have a system in Place to assign prints by number so that they do not over sell items The reason the galley canceled the order is they thought i was buying to sell for profit, But i am a collector of art and have everything i own on my walls, my friend is also a collector and would not sell for profit I want to build a case for loss of bargain as i believe they had no right to cancel my order and i have now suffered a loss as a result of their breach of contract Can any one help with any details of case law, or references of contract law, or just any thing that can help

so when do we hear about this then?? when do they normally release the information?

If i can do the same as these companies for free myself, what is the simplified process? Why can i find no simple guides on how to do this anywhere? because each case is different and will require different approaches depending on what is wrong with the agreement and what arguments the other side use. but would a simplified guide not be a good starting point rather than reading through the many many case studies? why is no one talking about the unfair relation ships? Are you serious? I thought you said you had searched the site for a few hours. Go to the "Search" button and enter "Unfair Credit Agreements" and over 600 examples will come up. I said Unfair Relationships, not unfair credit agreements http://www.fisa.co.uk/downloads/oft854.pdf http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/word-banks/23435-oft-unfair-relationships.html there is only one reference on this site from 06 as in link above, the company in the link from daily mail is the only company i see ofering the service of unfair relationships claims. but they have not disclosed their process or can i find any case history or any sucessfull claims using this method some more info here Creditcardkiller - implications [Archive] - Consumer Credit Support Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? | Mail Online The Company they quote are mentioned in this forum "http://www.[problem].com/showthread.php?t=35395 ok, but the unfair relationship legislation they rely upon, is what i wanted more info, not the company itself

from advice guide regarding unfair relationshipd Unfair credit agreements If you take out a loan, or enter into any other type of credit agreement, you can make a complaint if you think any aspect of the agreement is unfair. For example, you might think your credit agreement is unfair because: * you have been charged interest at an exceptionally high rate * the creditor gave you wrong or misleading information, or didn't give you enough information when you were deciding whether to take out the loan * the creditor failed to make a proper assessment of whether the loan was suitable for you * the creditor didn't fully take into account how your age, experience, physical or mental health would affect your ability to enter into a credit agreement or to keep up with payments. In this case the creditor gave misleading advice, my partner was advised that the load was the same, just over a longer period so the payment were lower, however the loan was at a higher rate and would cost alot more. She would have been better off getting another loan in addition to the first loan to help with the monthly payments, as it would have been cheeper The basis was that the premium was reduced because the period was extended. also she lost the 1.5k that she had already paid into the first loan, as the second loan was for the fiull amount of the original loan

is there a summery thread, regarding the process? i have looked but can not find the basic process i could read all 600 odd pages , but it would be useful for other members also to have a sumery of the process thanks for the help i did try calling that company as o n their site it states "How much does it cost We work on a no win no fee basis, even if you win it will cost you nothing." this implies that they do not take a percentage

Just wanted a consumer of what the situation is with unfair credit agreements I have been searching for info on this site for a few hours and and a bit confused as what the current situation is Just a few questions would help If a credit agreement is technically unenforceable, is it required to get a judge to confirm this? I have seen companies offering free no win no fee services to do this, why should i not just use one of these companies? these companies do not charge a penny, i recieve 100%, will not link site but they are in uk Real Claims If i can do the same as these companies for free myself, what is the simplified process? Why can i find no simple guides on how to do this anywhere? why is no one talking about the unfair relation ships? Can you REALLY cut credit card debt? | Mail Online please dont reply asking me to search and find these answers as i have spent ages and am just more confused than when i started any help would be greatly appreciated

this company say thay will do it for free on a no win no fee basis is it worth using them?? Real Claims: Wipe clean PPI, Miss Sold and Unenforceable Loans, Credit Cards if i have not got to pay a penny and they have to do all the work it win win, isnt it has anyone used them all other companies i have found charge a fee of arount 200-500 just to look at your claim am a bit unsure though as unless it goes to court how do they get paid???