Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[joeblogs]

There should be a specific warning to debtors in the Banking Code and all advertising relating to unsecured lending that if you do not keep up with your payments, then eventually a Charging Order may be granted and you may loose possession of your house. Why is this not highlighted and put into plain English so that everyone has access to this information.

[FunkyFox]

There should be a specific warning to debtors in the Banking Code and all advertising relating to unsecured lending that if you do not keep up with your payments, then eventually a Charging Order may be granted and you may loose possession of your house. Why is this not highlighted and put into plain English so that everyone has access to this information.

 

This is exactly one of the points in the petition (have you signed? ) I even complained to the ASA about a Lombard TV advert for an unsecured loan which said '...and don't worry, you loan won't be secured against your property..' and they dismissed my complaint. Ho Hum.

[overdone]

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

So you really do get the justice you pay for. I did have a look at the long list of people who fund national debtline.

[Goldlady]

Signed. One thought that crosses my mind having just read this thread is that unsecured should mean what it says. So do lenders distinguish between homeowners and tenants when considering unsecured loans on the basis that they can obtain a charging order against the former if things go pear shaped? After all if you are a tenant you are off the hook so to speak.

 

Whilst I can see the logic in charging orders taking the pressure off where the debt is genuine and not enhanced with charges and PPI, it is yet another nail in the coffin of the tradition of owning one's own home.

[sequenci]

I'm sure that the terms & conditions of a financial agreement will state that legal action may be taken if a debtor breaches the agremeent which ends up with it being terminated. I actually think that a charging order is one of the better forms of enforcement providing they are used in a reasonable (and responsible) way.

 

What you should remember is that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment.

[JonCris]

Goldlady

Yes they do look less favourably on the tenant loan applicant precisely for the reasons you imply & yes you are also correct about home ownership not being as attractive as before.

 

Whilst it is assumed that the housing slow down is due entirely to the credit crunch & think that's too simple an analysis.

 

Although anecdotal it's my experience that many are refusing to enter the housing market, not because they cant get a mortgage but because they see homes being repossessed by lenders more & more & wonder why take on the liability & debt of buying a home when it can be wrenched from your grasp so easily by greedy lenders. After all you can rent one & have much less to worry about

 

bigpeter contrary to popular belief (including by some Judges) a Judge does NOT have to grant a charging or possession order

[bigpeterlg22]

 

bigpeter contrary to popular belief (including by some Judges) a Judge does NOT have to grant a charging or possession order

 

i am fully aware a judge doesn't have to grant a charging order or a possession order on the cases they look at everyday and they are .

 

the courts and the judges do walk a difficult tightrope with the discretion of the court and judges recognising that they must balance the interest of both parties and respect the wishes of the claimaint to recover the money and if the defendant has ignored a judgment order.

 

i am aware through my work that the criteria for charging orders is becoming stricter and stricter.

However a couple of things have occured in relation to charging orders in the last couple of weeks.

one of these things could have knock on effects nationally.

unfortually, i am not able to go into further details at this time due to legal reasons as these are currently ongoing cases.

 

i am also aware that possession orders and the processess to obtain these could be changing due the new draft pre-action protocols for mortgage repossessions.

[JonCris]

The fact that lenders are starting to use SD's, charging orders & repossessions as a 1st resort rather than a last is bringing such tactics into disrepute & will, as you have already suggested, backfire on them

[OnMyWayOut]

In recent correspondence with a lender who has a charging order on my house they defended their action as it made the situation 'equitable'. They don't see charging interest rates of 23% upwards on unsecured debt as unequitable though.

[JonCris]

As they now have 'security' on what was an unsecured & high % rate debt perhaps there's an argument for them to revisit' either voluntarily or by compulsion' their % rate otherwise could their relationship with the consumer not be deemed as unfair & subject to challenge in the courts

 

perhaps you may wish to mention that the next time you have cause to contact them;)

[OnMyWayOut]

That's what I was thinking, otherwise they are getting their 'equity' both ways...

[JonCris]

I do know that this point has been the subject of recent discussion within the finance industry & their lawyers

[bigpeterlg22]

yes i have heard that as well.

 

the issue of interest is definately up for discussion with the finance industry lawyers from what i have heard and the one of the commonly used words is "worried", especially after the action of a specific nameless lender even adding interest when there weren't allowed to and they got caught out.

 

the finance industy are also worried about a number of things across the board and have good reason.

 

they are very worried especially after the draft repossetion protocol's were issued some from the finance industry have called them " a charter for non payers" and it looks likely to significatly increase costs and regulation for lenders and reduce repossession.

 

they are worried about the draft general pre-action protocols and that include debt recovery and the new levels of regulation by the fos and procedures.

 

they are also worried about the proposed changes to the limitation act to take limitation down from 6 to 3 years.

[Jeff2000]

In recent correspondence with a lender who has a charging order on my house they defended their action as it made the situation 'equitable'. They don't see charging interest rates of 23% upwards on unsecured debt as unequitable though.

 

 

 

 

Hi,

 

 

This is a very interesting point.

 

They admit that their action of obtaining a charging order on your property makes the situation "equitable".

 

This statement, therefore, implies that the situation before obtaining the order WAS "inequitable!"

 

So, in a way, they ARE admitting that the interest rate of 23% plus that they charge IS "inequitable!"

 

 

I think!:-|

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[FunkyFox]

This has just over 1 month to run and with only 68 signatures it is not going to suceed in changing anything.

 

The petition closes on 25th October and if before then we can secure a minimum of 200 signatures then it will at least get passed to the relevant governement department for a response.

 

Please can I ask that if you believe that the current use of charging orders at the earliest opportunity by many creditors and DCA's needs to be more closely regulated that you both sign the petition yourself and pass the message on to as many people as you can. I feel it would be a real shame if out of 200,000 members on CAG we couldn't get 200 signatures.

 

If you are members of other forums why not mention it on there and send an email to your friends and family.

 

Every little bit helps.

 

Thanks,FF

[phatram]

bump

[banker_rhymes_with]

I'll BUMP this as well, as people do need to sign that Petition...here

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Jeff2000]

Hi,

 

 

Can a Mod not have a link placed in the CAG announcements?

 

That way just about everyone logging in to the forums will see it!!!

 

 

Jeff.

[angel_1]

had already signed it ages ago, but got my hubby to sign up today too

 

i think this is so important we really need as many sig as possible especially with what the government are planning on giving creditors chance to bypass the ccj and go for the charging order if the law is passed, i spoke with nationaldebtline this week and they are concerned too - this will impact heavy on homeowners especially making unsecured debts - secured

 

ciao for now laters maz

[ziggy04]

this new law that will come into force soon allowing creditors/dca's to go straight for a ccj & charging order is discrimatory to householders that's totally unfair, i have an interim charge placed on my joint owned property for an unsecured debt which over one third is made up of inflated interest charges & unlawful fees . there should be a warning given when on any unsecured debt with regards to making a debt secured by way of a charging order should the account be defaulted etc, the dca's are going to have a field day with this law ! i have already signed the petition.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION NOW .....

[phatram]

Hi,

 

 

Can a Mod not have a link placed in the CAG announcements?

 

That way just about everyone logging in to the forums will see it!!!

 

 

Jeff.

bump

[tosh1]

just checked the downing street site and it is upto 114 signutures. come on guys keep it up. get everyone you know to sign it.

[banker_rhymes_with]

...just checked the downing street site and it is upto 114 signutures

 

That's good, because when I checked it earlier, it was up to 100, so it looks like some momentum is building.

 

It needs to too, as this is something that needs to be shot down in flames.

 

Next petition is to have s127(3) reinstated into the Consumer Credit Act!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angel_1]

Hiya all

 

just checked it s at 128 at the moment

 

so this seems to be getting around a bit

 

am awaiting on my mp office to call me back, planning to visit and discuss anyway keep you all updated

 

ciao for now laters maz

[Nightmare4banks]

Hi All!

 

I think the next thing to tackle here should be to challenge the interest rate charged in the event of the charging order being being granted.

At the end of the day,the lender has the security that the lender will be paid but should NOT be allowed to charge the same interest rate as that on the original unsecured debt.

 

What do you think folks?