Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[debt monkey]

I agree almost entirely with sequenci and the point is that I wanted to stimulate discussion about the reasonable use on a charging order as form of enforcement and to inform borrowers before they take out borrowing that a charging order may result if you default.

 

Should people also be warned about bankruptcy, bailifs and other debt recovery procedures before taking out a credit card?

[sequenci]

Should people also be warned about bankruptcy, bailifs and other debt recovery procedures before taking out a credit card?

 

I'm sure the application may refer to possible action if payments are breached.

[roni08]

I am in a Debt Management Plan that has only been running a short time. I have just one creditor who won't accept the payment offer, although they are taking the money being sent to them each month and deducting it off what I owe. It is an unsecured loan and the Company in question is only interested in applying for a CCJ and Charging Order. This is their criteria will all debtors.

 

In light of the information contained in this thread, I'm interested to know how things will evolve when other legislation that is due to come in is put in place. As this other legislation gives Debt Management Companies the whip hand in that they will tell creditors what they have to accept in payments, plus the power to write off some debts, if it will take too long for the debtor to pay all the money off, I really don't see how it will all work. It seems to be two sets of rules pulling in different directions.

 

In case there is anyone who wonders what I am talking about, here is the link.

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/dealing-wi ... page_id=62

 

As far as I can see, the creditors will have far less power than before, not more.

[FunkyFox]

Hi, the link does not seem to be working is this the one you were refering to?

 

Debtors to have their borrowing written off | This is Money

Edited June 10, 2008 by FunkyFox

[roni08]

Hi, the link does not seem to be working is this the one you were refering to?

 

Debtors to have their borrowing written off | This is Money

 

 

Hi, Yes that's the one. I don't know what I did, but obviously not the right thing in regard to the link!

 

I must say that this does seem a step in the right direction in my opinion. Well, at least it seems fairer on those of us who are trying to put our finances back in order.

 

The legislation which this thread is about seems to put debt back in the dark ages as far as I'm concerned. If there starts to be a swathe of creditors placing charging orders on debtors property it would be counter productive as, in some cases at least, there would be the potential for a debtor to release equity from their house at some stage to try and bring the monies owed to creditors down and that might effectively prevent this happening.

 

Once a property is tied up then no-one will receive anything other than the agreed payments set by the court. After all, a charging order, whilst it might turn an unsecured debt into a secured one, has little use apart from interest the creditor might accrue. Should the property owner be not intending to sell then it could be a high number of years before the charging order reaped any benefit. The likelihood of Sale of Property being enforced would still be a rarity in my opinion.

[sequenci]

 

Once a property is tied up then no-one will receive anything other than the agreed payments set by the court. After all, a charging order, whilst it might turn an unsecured debt into a secured one, has little use apart from interest the creditor might accrue. Should the property owner be not intending to sell then it could be a high number of years before the charging order reaped any benefit. The likelihood of Sale of Property being enforced would still be a rarity in my opinion.

 

MANY creditors are now going for an Order for sale as a matter of course.

[MrShed]

MANY creditors are now going for an Order for sale as a matter of course.

 

Yes, but how many are getting them? Only an extremely small percentage I would have thought.

[roni08]

Yes, but how many are getting them? Only an extremely small percentage I would have thought.

 

I would agree with you.

 

Whilst there is every possibility of Charging Orders being granted, I really find the reality of Order for Sale less so.

[FunkyFox]

Yes, but how many are getting them? Only an extremely small percentage I would have thought.

 

I'm afraid you are are wrong Mr Shed. As you admitted in a previous post you are ignorant of the extent of the problem yet make a statement like this.

 

The reality is that I have only heard of ONE case of someone succesfully managing to defend a charging order. And the arguement that you have to default on a judgement first (at the momement) is complete red herring as creditors are now regualry seeking redetermination for judgement forthwith as a matter of course. I had a £500 per month shortfall each month and both judgements were orginally for £1 per month. Both were redetermined to forthwith payment which I had no chance of paying so immediately defaulted.

 

From the stories on here courts are not considering peoples circumstances and are allowing charging orders to be granted as a matter of course. If there are loads of people that have managed to defend this method of enforcement then I am happy to be proved wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

[MrShed]

FF in that case, rather than amiguous statements, please provide statistics on a) the number of Order for Sales applied for b) the number granted and c) the debt level in each case.

 

I am ignorant to the level of charging orders being issued. What I am not ignorant of is the VERY specific and tight rules on issuing orders of sale following a charging order. Almost by definition, the percentage of charging orders leading to orders of sale must be minute.

[OnMyWayOut]

I've just been railroaded into a CO by a bank that was determined that this would be the case. When I received the DN ages ago I rang up to find out what it was about. I was informed that it was so that they could register a charge against my house!

 

Having obtained the CO, the bank have now sold the debt on. I find this most immoral and underhand. In fact I do not understand why a bank will not accept a reduced settlement of say 60% from a debtor and then goes on to sell the debt for 5-10% of its value. Why not offer the debtor a settlement of 10-20% - they get more, the debt is closed and everyone's happy.

[Dollydoo]

in 2003 I lost my job with building society. I had an unsecured personal loan at a "staff rate". upon dismissal the interest rate reverted to normal public rate and I couldn't afford to repay and made offers on numerous ocassions all of which were declined. this went on for about 6 months then I got letters saying I should agree to a charging order, I refused. court papers arrived to which I also made offers of payment these were also refused even though I was then receiving job seekers allowance. I then got a news that co had been granted against my house. I felt like I had been railroaded and bullied. what galled me most was I could have taken out a secured p/loan on a much cheaper interest rate right from the outset, which I would have done had I known that eventually it could result in it becoming secured in the end anyway, along with the fact that my very first original offer of £x per month was then accepted. Something definately needs to change about the way co's are so easily and readily obtained.

[Avesovum]

Hi All,

 

I haven’t had time to read all the posts, so forgive me if this has nothing to do with this thread.

 

I posted a thread back in May 2008 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/144522-sell-your-house-before.html?highlight=avesovum

 

about charging orders, you can read my story above.

 

I successfully sold my house with an interim charging order.

 

This is what the judge said to me:

 

You will pay your creditor £85 per month including interest and there will be an interim charging order placed on your property.

The charging order cannot be enforced unless you default on payment.

In addition, no further action can be taken by the creditor.

 

Therefore, im assuming that the charging order could only be entered on the land registry if I default, because I have since sold my house and no charging order was entered on the registry.

 

I am currently renting and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

Therefore, i have a question for a Legal Eagle.

 

If i stopped paying the creditor does this mean he would have to go back to court to seek a further order of some sought to get me to pay the money I owe?

 

Would just like to add: I am on the bones of my bottom financially.

[sequenci]

 

If i stopped paying the creditor does this mean he would have to go back to court to seek a further order of some sought to get me to pay the money I owe?

 

Hello there,

 

If you default on the instalment payment the creditor would be able to excercise further enforcement; since you're no longer the owner of the property the creditor would opt for either:

 

a) A warrant of execution (Bailiffs)

b) An attachment of earnings (Payment from your wages)

c) Third Party Debt Order (a search to see if you have savingss etc and payment from those)

 

Currently, they cannot go for these as you are keeping up with the set payment.

 

Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[Aequitas]

Therefore, im assuming that the charging order could only be entered on the land registry if I default, because I have since sold my house and no charging order was entered on the registry.

 

Your assumption is incorrect. Once it is obtained a charging order can be registered. It seems that in your case the lender forgot to register it.

 

Enforcing a charging order is not the same as registering it.

[Aequitas]

I should add that if a charging order is obtained against a co-owner of property that it cannot be registered. All the creditor can do is register a restriction.

[bigpeterlg22]

i though i would put my two pence in about charging orders as i deal with them on a day to day basis for as part of an enforcement team for a well know utility company.

 

Rather than charging orders becoming increasingly common, we have actually noticed that judges are now starting to question applications for charging orders more often both at the application and the final hearing stage.

 

Judges are getting wise to the number of charging order applications being put forward and are now refusing charging order from £400 to £800 or granting them without costs leaving for the court costs/solicitors costs & land registration fees to be picked up by the applicant.

 

Judges on certain county courts are advising that they will refuse to grant charging orders for less than £500, if an application is put before them.

 

Judges are now increasingly questioning what other methods of enforcement have been tried before a charging order has been sought i.e attachment of earnings & warrants, visits, oral examinations.

 

although they company i work for specifically don't deal with order for sales post charging order, discussion with judges during proceedings for charging orders have revealed that judges are unlikely to order any orders for sale without substantive debts before hand either secure with one or more charging orders.

[FunkyFox]

i though i would put my two pence in about charging orders as i deal with them on a day to day basis for as part of an enforcement team for a well know utility company.

 

Rather than charging orders becoming increasingly common, we have actually noticed that judges are now starting to question applications for charging orders more often both at the application and the final hearing stage.

 

Judges are getting wise to the number of charging order applications being put forward and are now refusing charging order from £400 to £800 or granting them without costs leaving for the court costs/solicitors costs & land registration fees to be picked up by the applicant.

 

Judges on certain county courts are advising that they will refuse to grant charging orders for less than £500, if an application is put before them.

 

Judges are now increasingly questioning what other methods of enforcement have been tried before a charging order has been sought i.e attachment of earnings & warrants, visits, oral examinations.

 

although they company i work for specifically don't deal with order for sales post charging order, discussion with judges during proceedings for charging orders have revealed that judges are unlikely to order any orders for sale without substantive debts before hand either secure with one or more charging orders.

 

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

 

I think its great that DJ's are starting to question the validity of issueing charging orders, especially for smaller debts.

 

Although they may be questioning them more in your cases, I think this may be due to the shear numbers (which still appear to be rising) they are seeing as a result of unsecured credit debts coming before them.

 

Personally, in theory I actually have less of an issue with a utility debt being secured on a property because at least it wasn't advertised as an unsecured debt, like all these credit cards and personal loans are.

 

As I said, if applications for CO's are at least being questioned rather than being made as a matter of course then that has to a good thing. I wonder if it has anything to do with the HMCS as suggested here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/146628-have-look-who-members-3.html#post1549088

 

FF

[OnMyWayOut]

I've seen the argument that the lender has to secure the debt to make the situation 'equitable'. Surely they had that 'equity' by charging 15-30% interest on card debts in the first place. As I see it, with a charging order they are getting their 'equity' twice.

[bigpeterlg22]

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

 

I think its great that DJ's are starting to question the validity of issueing charging orders, especially for smaller debts.

 

Although they may be questioning them more in your cases, I think this may be due to the shear numbers (which still appear to be rising) they are seeing as a result of unsecured credit debts coming before them.

FF

 

thanks funkyfox.

 

i think dj's are starting to question the issue of charging orders across the board for all uses, especially if they are a more senior dj with a few years worth of hearings under their belt hearing the cases.

 

it is not unusal for us to be attending hearings where other credit debts and mortgage repossession or sale are being heard at the same time.

 

i have heard a seen dj's have a little chat and with solicitors (sometimes) and repesenatives (most of the time) for credit & loan companies and mortgage companies and tear them to shreads due to the "quality of their paperwork" before refusing to grant charging orders or repossesion orders.

 

a couple of the dj's i see are even making comments that they are having to grant the order with the greatest reluctance.

 

i have also heard of an charging order been granted for less than £50

but have never actually managed to figure out how that was ever granted by the dj in the first case with the limit of enforcement being £400.

 

all the credit & card companies across the board are now starting to use their local court so the can build a "special relationship" with them read £ for that court as it means more business for that court.

 

i would always recommend to anyone who is ever served with an interim order to advise they will attend the hearing or send a letter to the court stating their position and explain the contact & letters which a lot of credit and debt companies seem to never mention before the dj's.

 

when this happens, dj's do have the option and the power to refuse the charging order or strike out the charging order and could impose a variation order sometimes for a little as a £1 or an suspended aoe.

 

in relation to the solicitors & costs issues on charging orders applications, i am aware that the closest thing with solicitors used by certain companies come to the application is the rubber stamp used to sign his or her name on the application.

[JonCris]

Not about Charging Orders specifically, more to do with helping debtors by being positive and sympathetic. Section 14 covers this:

 

http://www.bba.org.uk/content/1/c6/01/30/85/Banking_Code_2008.pdf

 

My argument is that on many an occasion a bank simply doesn't give the debtor a great deal of assistance and are quick to take further action / sell the debt on - which could *then* lead to further action i.e. a CO.

 

It's worth mentioning that if they subscribe to a code of conduct & don't adhere to it they will be guilty of unfair terms of trading under the new act

[JonCris]

also I have to agree with bigpete there's a lot of PR going on between the finance industry, their agents & the court staff which involves them inviting the court staff to their various function, xmas parties & such.

 

This can sometimes explain the considerable latitude given to the banks & their reps

[overdone]

also I have to agree with bigpete there's a lot of PR going on between the finance industry, their agents & the court staff which involves them inviting the court staff to their various function, xmas parties & such.

 

This can sometimes explain the considerable latitude given to the banks & their reps

I hate to think this John Cris. I hope you are only joking. "News of the World," would love to investigate this type of story.

[JonCris]

No I'm not joking. Next time you visit the local court office look out for the posted signs behind the desk inviting staff to the banks/solicitors various functions

 

The last one I saw was an invitation the local RBS xmas party

[FunkyFox]

You know Jon the more I find out about this sordid industry the more I am determined to do my bit to make them clean up their act.