Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[B3rty]

One issue thats not been raised are the DCAs who are buying debt with this sole purpose in mind...its part of their business plan...Marlin spring to mind as one.

 

When this ledgislation was drawn up I expect most involved saw the OC's as the one chasing the debt and not DCA's...

 

We need to get this message accros and make the powers that be realise what power they are giving to ****.....what next charging orders for wheel clampers?

[sequenci]

what next charging orders for wheel clampers?

 

In theory you could have a charging order for certain traffic offences already.

[MAGDA]

The problem with charging orders is that most people, when they take out a loan or credit card, are not aware that if they default on the repayments, an option for the creditor is to seek a forthwith judgement and ultimately, a charge on their property. The loan is unsecured when taken out and this is usually reflected in the interest rate as the creditor has greater risk than he would for example with a secured loan. OCs and DCAs often seek to obtain charges even when the debtor is making regular repayments and trying their best to clear the debt. I have first hand experience of this with an elderly relative. Fortunately we managed to stop the creditor from obtaining the charge, but not before it caused considerable distress to the person concerned. Far from making it easier to obtain charges, I think it should be much harder and something that is only possible as a very last resort. However, as things stand, this is certainly not the case. As for bankruptcy, most creditors are reluctant to initiate bankruptcy proceedings as they know that they will be at the very end of the queue, when any money is being paid out. They have far more chance of getting their money if they accept regular repayments, and they know this. So if charging orders were not a readily available option, I do not think bankruptcy would become the alternative choice. Magda

Edited November 24, 2008 by MAGDA

[Aequitas]

The most important thing is this:

 

A court will rarely make an order for sale under a charging order

 

If you do not believe this then Google "charging order".

 

The point of a charging order is to ensure that the creditor is paid when the property is sold, not to require the property to be sold to pay the debt.

[MAGDA]

The most important thing is this:

 

A court will rarely make an order for sale under a charging order

 

If you do not believe this then Google "charging order".

 

The point of a charging order is to ensure that the creditor is paid when the property is sold, not to require the property to be sold to pay the debt.

 

Yes, but a charge can still cause problems for people wishing to sell their home and move (maybe due to work commitments, etc) who are relying on the full proceeds of the sale to be able to do so. In the case of elderly people especially it does take away their sense of security also, as they are always concerned that the creditor will at some point try to force a sale. In addition, if the loan was unsecured, why, even if the agreement is terminated, should a creditor have the right to secure a charge. We actually went to court in response to a creditor's attempt to obtain a charge after a forthwith had been granted and fortunately, the judge on this occasion changed the forthwith to an instalment order. He actually stated that the creditor had charged interest at a higher rate reflecting the unsecured aspect of the loan and did not see any reason why the situation should now change. Most people do endeavour to make payments following default, and the creditor still pursues a charge despite this. This happens frequently. If you consider that the DCA has in fact purchased a debt for a tiny fraction of the original value, it is sheer greed that motivates their attempt to secure a charge and they cause immense distress to those involved. Magda

[sequenci]

Magda, just as an aside. What do you recomend a creditor to do for debt enforcement rather than a charging order? What would be deemed as a reasonable option taking into consideration of a debtor's circumstances and their ability to repay the debt etc?

[MAGDA]

Magda, just as an aside. What do you recomend a creditor to do for debt enforcement rather than a charging order? What would be deemed as a reasonable option taking into consideration of a debtor's circumstances and their ability to repay the debt etc?

 

Hi, taking into account a debtor's circumstances and ability to pay, which a court would do anyway, I think the creditor, if a debtor refuses to pay for no good reason, i.e., the creditor has proven that the debt is covered by a valid CCA, the debtor was defaulted correctly, etc, then the creditor would have the option, as they do now, to obtain a judgement in court ensuring that the debt is repaid by instalments at an amount the debtor can afford. If the claimant feels the instalment order is too low, then of course they have the option of asking for a redetermination and to request the debt be repaid at a higher amount. They can even apply for financial disclosure etc, if they feel the OP isn't declaring their full income. I think this in itself is sufficient, given that the debt we are talking about is unsecured.

 

However, If the debtor is already maintaining regular repayments on a debt, then this action should not be necessary.

 

If the creditor wishes to take advantage of the option of a debt being secured, then they should offer a secured loan at the outset, reflected in the favourable interest rate offered. The debt industry is a huge industry, generating massive income for those involved and many creditors have lent money in an extremely reckless way, not caring whether the person could afford to pay the money back. We are all credit searched and many people owing thousands of pounds in unsecured debt were still granted more credit despite being on a relatively low income by comparison. Is the debtor in this situation solely to blame. No, I don't think so. I know from experience that the sole aim of many DCA's (and OCs) is to secure a charge, this is the classic threat they use, even though the person concerned is endeavouring to pay the debt back. We have recently been taken to court, when the claimant issued four claims against us within days of each other, because we wouldn't agree to a voluntary charge, although I had maintained repayments on these accounts for the last four years without fail. It has so far backfired on the DCA though as three out of four of the claims so far have been struck out or discontinued.

 

Debt, in my opinion (and this is just my opinion) should be either one thing or the other, i.e., secured, or not secured. Magda

Edited November 24, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[pugsley]

it is now closed

 

good luck

[Aequitas]

How about this for a rule then:

 

If you take out a loan and your circumstances change so that you cannot keep up payments no charging order should be put on your property unless you fail to keep to the revised payments ordered by the court (which will have been set to take account of your cirumstances).

 

If you take out a loan and your circumstances have not changed there should be no bar to the placing of a charging order. That is because it is reasonable to assume that if you take out a loan you have both the intention and ability to meet the payments you agreed to make. If you overcommit yourself you should be prepared to take the consequences.

[MAGDA]

How about this for a rule then:

 

If you take out a loan and your circumstances change so that you cannot keep up payments no charging order should be put on your property unless you fail to keep to the revised payments ordered by the court (which will have been set to take account of your cirumstances).

 

If you take out a loan and your circumstances have not changed there should be no bar to the placing of a charging order. That is because it is reasonable to assume that if you take out a loan you have both the intention and ability to meet the payments you agreed to make. If you overcommit yourself you should be prepared to take the consequences.

 

The problem with this is that we are all human. I think most people on this forum are either in debt, or have been in debt, and it isn't a situation any of us set out to be in. It is very easy to overcommit and not realise at the time that you are because you genuinely believe you can meet all of the repayments required. Many people in debt bury their heads in the sand and the full extent of the problem is pushed to one side. I still think that even in this situation the loan or credit card debt should not become a secured one by way of a charge. I do think that if the debt is genuine then the debtor should of course attempt to clear it at a rate they can afford, but to do so, they need the co-operation of the creditor, and most of the time, they are far from helpful, which is why many people then choose to go down the route where they stop repayments due to an unenforceable agreement. As mentioned before, creditors were practically forcing cards on people who couldn't really afford them a few years ago and then appeared to be surprised when it all went wrong. The creditor takes the risk by offering a loan which is unsecured and even with charging orders in operation, there is no guarantee that they will get one if the OP understand their legal rights and defends the claim accordingly. A lot of the time they manage to get these charging orders as people simply do not know their rights, and they exploit this. To have complete security the creditor must offer a secured loan and both parties are then fully aware of the repercussions in the event of a default, or in the case of unsecured debt, be a lot less reckless when deciding who to lend money to. They should not be able to have it both ways. Magda

Edited November 24, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[bish]

I have to agree with Magda here, as I stated in my previous post my loan was paid back in full, it was only the late payment charges that prompted the threat of a charging order. Late payment charges that where clearly unfair as stated by the OFT in April 2006, yet still I find a company willing to ignore this and chace me for them and apply threats of charging orders. This was not a cowboy company, this was part of the Lloyds TSB group, the very group that is about to become a super bank. As Magda and Aequitas clearly say a judge is unlikely to allow such an order to proceed the distress caused by such threats is enough in itself. Again as Magda states most people, including myself, do not realise that your home could be at risk, all be it at the discretion of a judge, if you default on an unsecured loan. I think that point has been shown to be true on this post alone. Therefore all loans should carry the warning that if you do not keep up repayments or default by making a late payment etc your home may be at risk, in bold. Perhaps a lot more people would reconcider taking out such a loan. I am quite sure that in the coming weeks, months, and years there will be many DCA companies willing to take advantage of the words unsecured and secured. Words can be very deceptive.

[MAGDA]

I have to agree with Magda here, as I stated in my previous post my loan was paid back in full, it was only the late payment charges that prompted the threat of a charging order. Late payment charges that where clearly unfair as stated by the OFT in April 2006, yet still I find a company willing to ignore this and chace me for them and apply threats of charging orders. This was not a cowboy company, this was part of the Lloyds TSB group, the very group that is about to become a super bank. As Magda and Aequitas clearly say a judge is unlikely to allow such an order to proceed the distress caused by such threats is enough in itself. Again as Magda states most people, including myself, do not realise that your home could be at risk, all be it at the discretion of a judge, if you default on an unsecured loan. I think that point has been shown to be true on this post alone. Therefore all loans should carry the warning that if you do not keep up repayments or default by making a late payment etc your home may be at risk, in bold. Perhaps a lot more people would reconcider taking out such a loan. I am quite sure that in the coming weeks, months, and years there will be many DCA companies willing to take advantage of the words unsecured and secured. Words can be very deceptive.

 

I think as you say bish, when you have been on the receiving end of this, you realise just how wrong the whole charging order process is. Magda

[Aequitas]

There is something in what you say and we can agree that finance companies are wicked. However, I must express some unease as the following seems to flow from your comments:

 

1. People should be allowed to borrow money on certain terms, but then be afforded the chance to alter the terms to make them more favourable.

 

2. Someone whose assets exceed their debts should be allowed to keep the assets rather than selling them to repay their debts. Further, the assets they should be allowed to keep should not even be allowed to be charged with what they owe, even if the charge does not put their asset at risk, because at some undefinable time in the future it may cause them inconvenience and actually put them in the position of having to pay back what they owe.

 

3. People should not take responsibilty for their actions.

 

The only reason that unsecured loans are expensive is because there is a relatively high proportion of defaulters. The defaulters raise the cost for the compliers, just as shoplifting puts up prices in the shops. If charging orders are banned the finance companies will lose more money and put the cost of borrowing up further. People will borrow secure in the knowledge that the remedies for default will not put their assets at risk of being charged.

 

Everyone is very keen to curb the powers of lenders to recover their money, but I wonder if they are equally keen to curb the power of defaulters to borrow. How about a law that makes it a criminal offence to borrow money without the consent of the court if you have a CCJ outstanding?

Edited November 24, 2008 by Aequitas

[bish]

Know that is not what I am saying, I took out a loan for a car, the cost of that loan was £7000 + £3000 interest totaling £10000. I agreed to that and I also agreed to compensate the lender for my breaches of contract, under the terms and conditions of the contract. I paid back all of the borrowings plus the interest, the loan came to an end, I paid. The issue is can the lender then apply a charging order against charges that are clearly against what the OFT regard as unfair charges. You can not justify applying a CO to charges that are deamed unfair by the OFT. As I have already stated two wrongs do not make a right I do not want to get in to a protracted argument over the rights and wrongs of consumer contracts, but I must re-itterate what this site was formed for, the protection of the consumer against bad business practice. The consumer has relitivly no say over how these contracts are written, so can not be held responsible for mistakes made, we are not experts. If the provider of such agreements have made mistakes, well that is their problem not ours.

[bish]

AEQUITAS Who Do you Work For?.

[MAGDA]

There is something in what you say and we can agree that finance companies are wicked. However, I must express some unease as the following seems to flow from your comments:

 

1. People should be allowed to borrow money on certain terms, but then be afforded the chance to alter the terms to make them more favourable.

 

It isn't a case of making the terms more favourable, it's just that in reality, there are times when someone, for whatever reason is unable to meet the normal repayments, but a least if they are willing to try to pay something (and sometimes the amount isn't that far off the normal payment anyway) this should be allowable. A lot of the time, as bish has said, the debt is made up of unlawful charges (I had a debt recently the DCA was pursuing me for - same one who recently took me to court, and when I actually looked at the figures, they owed me money, and they have now 'gone away') In addition, DCAs purchase these debts for a pittance and then immediately demand repayment of the full amount, not willing to negoitate or come to any arrangement.

 

2. Someone whose assets exceed their debts should be allowed to keep the assets rather than selling them to repay their debts. Further, the assets they should be allowed to keep should not even be allowed to be charged with what they owe, even if the charge does not put their asset at risk, because at some undefinable time in the future it may cause them inconvenience and actually put them in the position of having to pay back what they owe.

 

Again, you have to remember that the debt was not secured, a decision the creditor made at the outset, when deciding to lend on this basis. If the debt wasn't secured, for example on a car, or a house, or whatever, why then should that person feel compelled to sell these item at a later date if the account falls into difficulty. They have been making payments at a higher rate of interest to reflect the risk involved. What that person can do, however, is to offer reduced repayments to clear the debt as quickly as possible.

3. People should not take responsibilty for their actions.

 

All of the people in this country who are currently on DMPs are taking responsibility for their actions - very much so.

 

The only reason that unsecured loans are expensive is because there is a relatively high proportion of defaulters. The defaulters raise the cost for the compliers, just as shoplifting puts up prices in the shops. If charging orders are banned the finance companies will lose more money and put the cost of borrowing up further. People will borrow secure in the knowledge that the remedies for default will not put their assets at risk of being charged.

 

Yes, that is one way to look at it. what you actually forget is that most fianance companies sell the debt on as soon as it hits problems. They wash their hands of it. The high number of defaulters has largely been due to the reckless lending by banks, I remember, as I'm sure we all do, a time when the lenders were actively seeking to encourage people to take out more and more debt - every shop you walked in to had huge signs, 'buy now, pay 18 months later' etc. and this is where the problem, IMO, stems from. If lenders lend more responsibly, then to a large extent, the number of defaulters will reduce. Of course, we must also borrow resonsibly, which I'm sure anyone who has been in debt, realises anyway.

 

Everyone is very keen to curb the powers of lenders to recover their money, but I wonder if they are equally keen to curb the power of defaulters to borrow. How about a law that makes it a criminal offence to borrow money without the consent of the court if you have a CCJ outstanding?

 

No, this country has become enough of a nanny state already, I don't think that would be very helpful. Defaulters already have their power to borrow money curbed - you should take a look at my credit file, no chance of borrowing anything there! That is the whole point I made earlier, creditors credit search us all, but still, were lending money to people already seriously in debt.

 

Magda

Edited November 25, 2008 by MAGDA
typo

[banker_rhymes_with]

The problem here is we are talking about the froth on top of the real problem.

 

The Debt Industry wants to blame the Consumer, when the real problem is the Debt Industry itself.

 

We've reached the scary situation where the bankers have been given everything they ever wanted, and look where it has taken us. We are now a nation of Debt Slaves with little to show for all the number money Debt we are supposed to have spent.

 

Meanwhile, the bankers have been steadily increasing their percentage share of real Assets, such as property and land. The Charging Order issues are just another example of their hunger to acquire an even greater percentage of our Nation's assets during this next Recession.

 

We have a pro-bank Government literally pooping itself because it knows the over-inflated Debt Bubble is close to irreparable bursting point. And yet the bankers are being selfish, despite being thrown the most expensive life-line in History.

 

There is no easy solution to this banking mess, but I know that trying to borrow out of it will only push the problem into the future, and will make the task of addressing the issues all the harder.

 

Somehow, we need to take charge of the bankers, and re-introduce very tight limits on their ability to create money from nothing. Then we need to impose tight limits on how much they can earn from money, and especially from money created from nothing.

 

All that you see on the news at the moment is missing the underlying point. I have yet to see anyone question the underlying role of the banks in all of this. Talking about levels of borrowing and spending is just discussing the symptoms and not the cause.

 

Rather than fix the issue by doing exactly what the bankers want, i.e. throwing more number money at the problem to get Consumers borrowing again, I think the alternative should've been to leave everything as it was...and tackle the banks instead.

 

How?

 

Cap all Interest, then constrain the bankers' ability to generate money from nothing, and then impose harsh fines on any bank that fails to lend within the new Capped levels.

 

For example, bring back the Liquidity Ratio, and force banks to align lending to an actual Reserve, that prevents their lending from going beyond certain limits without extra real Cash being injected at the base.

 

Then Cap the Interest they can charge to a set Level above Base Rates, say, +5% maximum to include Mortgages, Loans and particularly Credit Cards.

 

Then fine them if they do not lend. Say, a fine based on a percentage of their Reserves if it's clear they are refusing to lend. Or a fine that imposes a harsher Liquidity Ratio on the bank in question...forcing them to only loan what they have as real Reserves. They'll soon get lending again if faced with a ban on creating any number money is imposed on them.

 

Other useful steps may be needed, such as to make it compulsory for all banks to issue a Basic Bank Account with Debit Card to anyone who asks for one who can also prove their ID. These basic accounts would have No Overdrafts, as lending is not needed just to have an operational Account. These Accounts would earn Interest, and bank charges should be zero. The bankers can earn their money from the difference between the Rate they Pay to these Accounts, and between the Rate they lend out to borrowers who borrow any surplus of available funds the bank holds in relation to these basic Accounts.

 

Banks can control accounts to stay above a Zero balance if they want to. Such a step would allow many people to function at a basic level, who are currently pushed outside of the financial system due to the power of the CRAs and the clear evidence of Credit Blacklisting.

 

The Recession will still be nasty, but at least we'd be heading in the right direction. The bankers would be forced to work within similar constraints to the rest of us, and they'd have to start lending appropriately because the fat profits they once enjoyed for doing very little would no longer be attainable. If they get short of funds, then they'll just have to Sell off some of the Assets they have steadily acquired over the last 50 Years or so, starting with their expensive HQs in London.

 

China is waking up to the fact that the number money we are paying them to produce for us, is potentially worthless. If the Debt Bubble bursts and that fact becomes a reality...we'll lose probably 80% of the goods we are currently used to having. These are goods we can no longer produce, so if the Debt Bubble does burst, we will lose them until we can either start making them again, or until we can restore confidence that our number money has at least some value because it is again tied to actual Reserves.

 

Likewise, Nations who produce vital supplies such as Gas and Oil and getting twitchy too, as they won't be too keen to accept our worthless number money in Payment for real commodities.

 

That's the real bubble burst the banking Government are so scared about. They know that if they cannot prop up our Debt Based Economy, then we could face very real collapse. Our ability to Buy and Import will collapse, and with it our access to all the goods and services we can no longer make or produce for ourselves (because making/producing them never fitted into the banking ideal of how a rotten to the core Debt Based Economy should operate).

 

This is what they are so desperate to avoid, and yet their solution is to push the problem into the future, when it could become an even greater problem than if we faced up to it right now.

 

We are not alone, because at least 20 other Nations have allowed themselves to get into the same banking mess. Sadly, we stand out as being one of the worst, possibly only second to the USA.

 

But at least this Christmas will be a good one. Hang on to that memory, because 2009 onwards could be very bleak.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[MAGDA]

Well said Banker and I too think the future is bleak. That is something else the government should be focussing on - the fact that we have no real industry in this country any more. The jobs are all outsourced and unfortunately, just looking at the situation locally even, there is going to be massive unemployment as all the remaining industries (e.g., car manufacturing) pull out. For a long time now, companies have been shutting down operations here and shifting them abroad to save money, and the government has allowed them to do so. I think the debt industry is pretty much all that is left! As for Gordon Brown's latest idea to cut VAT, I hardly think that is going to solve the problems this country currently has. regards, magda

[Aequitas]

AEQUITAS Who Do you Work For?.

 

I do not work for anyone, indeed I do not work at all.

 

I think you need to know where I am coming from. I am a bit of a leftie. Society is not organised the way I would like to see it organised. If society were organised the way I would like to see it organised everyone would earn enough to have a fulfilling life without having to borrow money to get the things they need - not the same as the things they may want. However, the way that society is organised, at least in modern representative democracies, is fairly tolerable for most of the time for most people. There is a general consensus (which has been arrived at after trying various models that, however idealistic they may have been in their conception, have not proved workable and, in the worst cases, pretty near disastrous) that capitalism, tempered by controls inspired by social democratic ideals is, if not ideal, then the best we can hope for in the present state of affairs. As a matter of pragmatic necessity, I accept the consensus.

 

I think we are all guilty of accepting the consensus because the fact is that we enjoy, or at least want, a wide range of goods in the shops, nice cars, leisure facilities, holidays abroad and the rest. All these things are made available by a capitalist system that depends on a wide range of financial services including companies that offer unsecured loans. We cannot, without a wholesale restructuring of society, have the one without the other.

 

When I look at questions like the subject of this thread I try to see it in the wider context. One problem I have, and I have become more acutely aware of it since I started posting on forums like this, hopefully in the main giving people advice they find useful, is that people do not think things through. They are inconsistent. They only see things from their own narrow perspective and do not see the wider picture.

 

I post quite a lot on a forum where which deals with property issues. One day someone will post complaining that they cannot get the council off their backs because they have put up an extension for which they should have got planning permission. The next day someone else is going on about how they cannot get someone from the council to come out and look at the extension their neighbour has put up wthout planing permission. One complains that he thinks that government should get off people's backs and the other witters on about about a lack of proper controls and both complain the law is an ass.

 

One could go on with many similar examples.

 

I have a real admiration for the consumer movement and try, in my own small way, to make a contribution. It has achieved great things, but it does have its downsides. One is that it does not always foresee all the consequences of the reforms it achieves. The other is that it leads people to think that they must always be right and big business wrong. It harps so much on rights that people forget they have duties. Examples can be found in any landlord and tenant forum where people regularly come on saying they have signed up for a fixed term tenancy and wanting to know how they can get out of it. The same people would soon be rushing for advice if it was the landlord who wanted to bring the tenancy to an early end.

 

As a lawyer I am naturally interested in the rule of law. It has to be a principle of the rule of law that everyone has the same rights. Whilst it is perfectly proper to have, as we do, safeguards in place to protect the party to a transaction with weaker bargaining power or who lacks knowledge, it cannot be the case that different rules are to apply to those who are rich and powerful. Whilst the law goes quite a long way to protect people from their own folly, it does not stop a man from driving a hard bargain.

 

I happen to believe that a man should keep to the bargains he strikes, even to his own detriment, unless prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond his control. Leaving aside the need to procure necessities, in most cases we have a choice about whether we make a bargain or not. We should take responsibilty for our actions. If those actions lead to unpleasant consequences or inconvenience we should put up with it.

 

A system for the enforcement of judgment debts needs to be simple and flexible. Remember that the courts have to deal with debtors who may be unfortunate or incompetent or reckless or just plain rogues.

 

Turning to the issue of charging orders, I am not saying that they are not overused and that there is not room for guidance on when they should be granted. I certainly think it is unacceptable practice for debtors to be threatened with them before a case is even heard. Whilst it may be reasonable for the courts to be issued with guidance that they should give careful consideration to cases where a charging order is sought in the case of an unsecured loan, it cannot be acceptable that it is ruled out completely. That would put those who provide unsecured loans at a disadvantage compared to other creditors and, whatever we think of them, however big they are, however much money they make, that cannot be right.

[MAGDA]

Hi Aequitas, I have read your comments and you are of course entitled to your opinion as we all are. The world we live in is increasingly materialistic. However, we can experience problems with debt not solely because of this. I am a full time mother to our children and my husband is the sole income provider in our family. If I worked, our income would be much higher. However, I realise that there are more important things in life than having the latest car, or the biggest house, etc. It is a sad fact of life that possessions are more important sometimes than the things in our lives that really should be the most important. However, in reality, it is increasingly difficult to have anywhere near a decent standard of living in this country - the majority of jobs are low paid, taxes are high and prices ever increasing in the shops, so of course people struggle to survive, and this can only get worse. I don't think the majority of people who get into debt intend to do so. It is a situation that nobody would wish to be in. We do have a responsibility to repay money we have borrowed, but it is not always quite that straightforward. If you borrow money and excessive (unlawful) charges are applied, should you then repay the full amount and if the debt is assigned to a third party who are adding further charges and interest to what initially may have been a fairly small amount, again, should you pay? I could go on and on with this. The point is, each case is different and of course, must be judged on its own merits. You state that those who provide unsecured loans are disadvantaged compared to other creditors. Usually, they are not. They charge a higher rate of interest for one thing. It is a sad fact that many creditors pursue charges through the courts even when the debtor is paying the loan back in instalments (they can afford) and do not wish to negotiate or to try to reach any compromise. Magda

[bish]

Sorry Aequita should not have asked that, was just wondering where you were coming from. Most people on this site, like myself, have an axe to grind. In my experience and I am sure many other people on this sites experience, the big issue was unfair bank charges or unfair credit card charges. The OFT issued their statement two and a half years ago regarding such default charges, yet still very big business are ignoring them. At last well over a year ago the OFT decided to take action in the courts regarding bank charges, we are all still waiting for a decision, and am sure will wait a long time for the case to be resolved in the courts. All claims against banks regarding their charges have been frozen, any one like myself who put a claim in to the court before the OFT action, got their money back. Not one bank or financial institution enterd a court room unless they saw a flaw in the individuals case which would have the case thrown out. I can not for the life of me understand the banks not defending such court actions if their charges do comply with the civil laws, I can not understand why no financial institution has challanged the OFT in court, although they all say the OFT is wrong. Having been on the receiving end of these charges to the point of bankruptcy and loosing my home, I now hold the belief that you have to question everything about these agreements, be they default charges or charging orders. I think that it is healthy not to trust your financial provider to be abiding by the rules, some they might some they might not, but which ones ?. I am just a lowly consumer that knows nothing regarding civil law or contractual law, what I do know is that people I borrowed money from and paid back have tried to rip me off for money they are not entitled to, not withstanding the pending court case in the high court, should I trust such people not to be up to other underhand practices ?. I hear tonight that Woollworths and MFI are going to the wall, with the possible loss of more than 30,000 jobs. I do not see the government steping in to save them like they saved the banks, I know we had the sacrificial lambs in the finance sector, but the big picture to me is double standards and the rich running the show and the poor paying. Will the financial sector be sypathetic to the plight of the very people they have put out of work, because they have pulled the plug on businesses that they have given easy money to probably knowing they were unviable. I doubt it. Like you I am a socialist, and what we have is probably better than most other opptions, however why ask one section of the worlds community, like the poor, to abide by the rules if the rest, like the rich do not ?. I am not questioning your motives or obvious knowledge on the subject, just the big picture to some people is relative to their situation. I must admit I have found this post most stimulating, many thanks all.

 

Regards bish

[phatram]

I do not work for anyone, indeed I do not work at all.

 

I think you need to know where I am coming from. I am a bit of a leftie. Society is not organised the way I would like to see it organised. If society were organised the way I would like to see it organised everyone would earn enough to have a fulfilling life without having to borrow money to get the things they need - not the same as the things they may want. However, the way that society is organised, at least in modern representative democracies, is fairly tolerable for most of the time for most people. There is a general consensus (which has been arrived at after trying various models that, however idealistic they may have been in their conception, have not proved workable and, in the worst cases, pretty near disastrous) that capitalism, tempered by controls inspired by social democratic ideals is, if not ideal, then the best we can hope for in the present state of affairs. As a matter of pragmatic necessity, I accept the consensus.

 

I think we are all guilty of accepting the consensus because the fact is that we enjoy, or at least want, a wide range of goods in the shops, nice cars, leisure facilities, holidays abroad and the rest. All these things are made available by a capitalist system that depends on a wide range of financial services including companies that offer unsecured loans. We cannot, without a wholesale restructuring of society, have the one without the other.

 

When I look at questions like the subject of this thread I try to see it in the wider context. One problem I have, and I have become more acutely aware of it since I started posting on forums like this, hopefully in the main giving people advice they find useful, is that people do not think things through. They are inconsistent. They only see things from their own narrow perspective and do not see the wider picture.

 

I post quite a lot on a forum where which deals with property issues. One day someone will post complaining that they cannot get the council off their backs because they have put up an extension for which they should have got planning permission. The next day someone else is going on about how they cannot get someone from the council to come out and look at the extension their neighbour has put up wthout planing permission. One complains that he thinks that government should get off people's backs and the other witters on about about a lack of proper controls and both complain the law is an ass.

 

One could go on with many similar examples.

 

I have a real admiration for the consumer movement and try, in my own small way, to make a contribution. It has achieved great things, but it does have its downsides. One is that it does not always foresee all the consequences of the reforms it achieves. The other is that it leads people to think that they must always be right and big business wrong. It harps so much on rights that people forget they have duties. Examples can be found in any landlord and tenant forum where people regularly come on saying they have signed up for a fixed term tenancy and wanting to know how they can get out of it. The same people would soon be rushing for advice if it was the landlord who wanted to bring the tenancy to an early end.

 

As a lawyer I am naturally interested in the rule of law. It has to be a principle of the rule of law that everyone has the same rights. Whilst it is perfectly proper to have, as we do, safeguards in place to protect the party to a transaction with weaker bargaining power or who lacks knowledge, it cannot be the case that different rules are to apply to those who are rich and powerful. Whilst the law goes quite a long way to protect people from their own folly, it does not stop a man from driving a hard bargain.

 

I happen to believe that a man should keep to the bargains he strikes, even to his own detriment, unless prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond his control. Leaving aside the need to procure necessities, in most cases we have a choice about whether we make a bargain or not. We should take responsibilty for our actions. If those actions lead to unpleasant consequences or inconvenience we should put up with it.

 

A system for the enforcement of judgment debts needs to be simple and flexible. Remember that the courts have to deal with debtors who may be unfortunate or incompetent or reckless or just plain rogues.

 

Turning to the issue of charging orders, I am not saying that they are not overused and that there is not room for guidance on when they should be granted. I certainly think it is unacceptable practice for debtors to be threatened with them before a case is even heard. Whilst it may be reasonable for the courts to be issued with guidance that they should give careful consideration to cases where a charging order is sought in the case of an unsecured loan, it cannot be acceptable that it is ruled out completely. That would put those who provide unsecured loans at a disadvantage compared to other creditors and, whatever we think of them, however big they are, however much money they make, that cannot be right.

 

I, for one, have had enough of you lefties!

[phatram]

"I happen to believe that a man should keep to the bargains he strikes, even to his own detriment, unless prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond his control. Leaving aside the need to procure necessities, in most cases we have a choice about whether we make a bargain or not. We should take responsibilty for our actions. If those actions lead to unpleasant consequences or inconvenience we should put up with it".

 

 

Following that through, should credit card companies be allowed to rip us off by raising interest rates when BOE rates are dropping? Isn't that beyond our control?

 

Are you Fred Goodwin? or Mandy? or even the idiot Broon?

Edited March 20, 2009 by phatram

[bish]

Following that through, should credit card companies be allowed to rip us off by raising interest rates when BOE rates are dropping? Isn't that beyond our control?

 

It is not beyond our control, get rid of the credit card, or do not take one out. The points made by Aequitas where noble and made before Fred Goodwins, or the others you speak of, situation came to light. The problem is not from what political perspective you come from, the problem is simple greed. The law is very black and white, human nature is not, given overwhelming evidence a jury will give a guilty verdict and 27 years later that verdict could be found to be wrong. The jury was not wrong, it just did not have the benefit of DNA testing, and had to reach its verdict on the evidence available.

 

In light of what has transpired in the financial sector since September last year, it would be foolish to believe anything that is said by the banking fraternity. They were never up front or honest about anything they did or do, in hind sight perhaps we could all say on this site we told you so.

 

It is difficult to find any practices by the banks that are not questionable, with regards to charges and their complience with the regulations. It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for banks to ever get back any

trust or credability for a long time. That will seriously affect the economy, but is a direct effect of their own dishonesty.

 

A bit like the poor man who did not admit his guilt when convicted for a murder he did not commit. Perole was never an option, it was only the scientific evidence of DNA that proved his innocence 27 years later. The banks have a lot of time to do, unless they provide the evidence to contradict that.

 

Regards bish.

[phatram]

"get rid of the credit card, or do not take one out".

 

Many people can't get rid or have taken one out.They do not expect interest rates to rise from 0% to 34.9%. If you can't see thats wrong then you must be lucky enough to have plenty of cash.

If your mortgage rate went up to a similar rate, would you be able to just get rid of it?

Edited March 21, 2009 by phatram