Watch Out - Charging Order Rules May Be Changing !!!

[MONX]

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

 

 

Troll Alert!

[stardust_john]

[killat]

Troll Alert!

 

 

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

Edited October 27, 2008 by killat

[MONX]

In the same way that you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine and without this thread being hijacked and personal comments firing off in all directions I believe that your comments were unhelpful and argumentative, having said that you were well within your rights as a member of the forum to share them. In the same vein I am entitled, as I am also a member of this forum to share my opinion that because your comments read as provocative and argumentative that you were trolling!

[UnmoderatetheNet]

Interesting points raised by Killat

 

I think with the rare exception most people on here are not avoiding just want to be treated fairly.

 

Have banks have been fair with us?

 

Closing bank accounts when we request fees returned, not providing documents consumers are legally entitled, etc, etc.

 

Remind me what the banking code says>

 

If the banks did nothing wrong this site would not exist, but lets keep on the subject of abuse of power and NOT stray off the subject of charging orders.

 

If Killat wants to champion fair play I suggest a new thread is started

[killat]

Make sure you pay your loans off, as per the credit agreement -

 

agreed, pirty they dont take into account that people do get into genuine difficulties and that if they played nice they might get a better response, instead of coming in all guns blazing saying pay now or die

 

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.

 

why should charging orders not be made if you fail to pay your debts -

 

disagree, why should a persons home be at risk for an unsecured loan, probably given out with the minimum of checks by an industry who were only too happy to ply people with easy credit when it suited them but now that they are in difficulties themselves they fall over themselves to claw back as much as they can be fair means or foul, without trying other avenues first

dont brand all people as wont pays, most if not all are cant pays.

 

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

[blind-as-a-bat]

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.

 

And from my expieriance they dont, GE money sell debt to CL finance because my OH couldnt afford what they wanted, CL Finance issue a court summons within 2 working days of being assigned the debt, no contact wit us first to ask what we could afford to pay, in fact we didnt know it had been assigned untill after the court summons was issued

 

Im sorry but your not living in the real world if you believe the above comment, and there is proof of that all over the internet, and other sources of media If you took the time to look.

 

Creditors and DCA abuse the system everyday, and drive people to the brink, have you spent a whole evening till the early hours of the morning talking to someone who was about to commit suicide because creditors had driven her to to the end of her sanity due to not being reasonable?

 

I have, more than once, so dont try preaching that rubish to me.

 

If your not a Troll, Open your eyes, do some re-search, you will clearly see you are wrong.

[PGH7447]

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. Many would rather make an offer that was accepted and that was then honoured by the creditor, which includes not having the debt sold on to a DCA that then renegades on the agreement usually with threats of Stat Demands and the like

 

 

 

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. Maybe they were but with the new rules I am led to believe that any unsecured debt can be tied to a debtors assets, usually a house and that then the OC or DCA can force a sale, thereby putting people on the streets, or am I being melodramatic here

 

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. not got a clue, but probably too many

 

Charging orders have been around for ages and the only change is that now you don't have fall into arrears with your payments - thereby giving more scope for misuse by the OC's and DCA's

 

But if you are meeting your payment plan why would your creditor go to the expense of actually registering the charging order. cause they get greedy and impatient with the arrangement, read some of the threads on this forum you will soon see a pattern emerging

 

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? the issue here is why should a family be uprooted to pay of a debt early when the original reason for falling behind is quite often circumstances beyond their control, personal experience talking here, I sold my house to pay off my debts, in the long run I was worse off than before, not only financialy but also in terms of well being etc, I would never advocate selling the family home to satisfy a debt to anybody and people who use this path to enforce selling a family home should think long and hard about their own life.

 

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 - NO ITS NOT its about forcing people to secure Credit card debts etc against a persons assets to soothe the greedy incompetent finance industry who are in such a mess today due to their own inability to run their businesses correctly

 

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. I dont know of any small businesses that are owed £10 of thousands of pounds by anybody on here

 

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 - read some threads then, you are quick to judge on this issue but have you actually spent time reading some of the horror stories on here?

 

 

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

 

Have a nice day

[citizenB]

 

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

 

Actually, no they arent not all debts are secured. A mortgage is a secured debt it says so in the Terms and Conditions. A "Secured" loan is a secured debt. It says so in the Terms and Conditions, by way of a statement "if you fail to repay this your home may be at risk".

 

A credit card debt is NOT secured. You pay a higher rate of interest, there is nothing in the Terms and conditions to say your home may be at risk.

 

 

 

 

You cant pick and choose what parts of the law you like

 

Why not? a creditor or DCA gets to pick and choose what parts of the law they will abide by. Many of them are not too shy about letting a debtor know about it either.

 

 

 

99.9% of people do not take out loans / credit cards, etc, with the thought in mind that they will renege on the debt further down the line. You will see if you choose to look round the forums ,many CAGers have been paying their credit cards for many years without fail. Many of them have either lost their employment, become too unwell to work, divorced, etc. The economic climate hasnt helped either. Most of them, have in the first instance contacted their credit supplier only to be met with hostility and abuse. Even where they have made arrangements through Debt Counselling agencies, they are still bombarded with letters and phone calls. You have, I am sure seen in the media, those who have been driven to suicide/near suicide and all because they have been at the mercy of a DCA/Creditor/Bank who has their bonus in sight.

 

As you say, we are all entitled to our opinions. I just dont think yours holds much substance killat.

[sequenci]

I'm afraid to say that I agree with a great deal that Killat has said. There is nothing wrong with Charing Orders in my opinion. There is a great deal wrong with the debt collection industry, however.

 

A creditor could try for a charging order even if a debtor has an instalment order right now, what is to stop them applying for a variation to a forthwith and then going for an interim charge straight away?

 

Also, Surely the Trusts of Lands and Appointment of Trutees Act 1996 would make it nigh on impossible for a charge holder to obtain an order for sale for a family home?

[MONX]

My problem with Killat's original post was that (s)he basically accused anyone of disagreeing with Charging Orders as "wont pay" debtors who were bleating because the DCA's had another avenue of debt collection.

 

His/her tone was argumentative and typical trolling. He/she may have a point that Charging Orders may be innefectual etc however that does not mean that his/her comments were any the less insensative. People find themselves on this forum due to the terrible treatment they have suffered at the hands of financial institutions and the villiany purpetrated by some of the Debt Collection Agencies. To find someone apparently taking the moral high ground only compounds the guilt that someone who finds themselves in debt already feels and is not (in my opinion) in the spirit of CAG.

 

I am only pointing out that there may have been a less judgmental way of getting his/her point across.

Edited October 28, 2008 by MONX
accuracy!

[sequenci]

My problem with Killat's original post was that (s)he basically accused anyone of disagreeing with Charging Orders as "wont pay" debtors who were bleating because the DCA's had another avenue of debt collection.

 

Sure, I appreciate that. I've only skim read a great deal of this thread as I'm flat-out busy trying to help people defend these very orders amongst other things. I work within the industry and as you can imagine I've never been busier. I think the point was that a Charging order has little to do with an unsecured debt and more to do with the enforcement of a court judgment (I hope that makes sense!). Personally, I don't see any problems with Charging Orders if people owe the money and have no other way of paying. They are usually relatively harmless providing there are conditions attached to the charge which many judges are happy to agree to.

[UnmoderatetheNet]

FT.com / Your money / Your property - Home repossessions jump 71%

 

Home repossessions jump 71%

 

Whats the figure going to be after the charging order rules change???????????

[B3rty]

We also need to do this....see post 4 for the question I have emailed to them

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/165996-ask-chancellor-question-banking.html#post1787141

[killat]

Sure, I appreciate that. I've only skim read a great deal of this thread as I'm flat-out busy trying to help people defend these very orders amongst other things. I work within the industry and as you can imagine I've never been busier. I think the point was that a Charging order has little to do with an unsecured debt and more to do with the enforcement of a court judgment (I hope that makes sense!). Personally, I don't see any problems with Charging Orders if people owe the money and have no other way of paying. They are usually relatively harmless providing there are conditions attached to the charge which many judges are happy to agree to.

 

 

 

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

[tosh1]

Hi

 

there is a new petetion for charging orders -

 

Petition to: Stop banks from being allowed to place charge orders on unsecured loans. | Number10.gov.uk

[UnmoderatetheNet]

 

Trust me there are new rules of enforcement that you lot should be more worried about than this change to charging orders.

 

None of which applies to unenforceable debts. There will be many more CCA requests that your lot should be more worried about.

[intree]

THIS MATTER was raised by a MP at Prime Ministers Questions time, the point was that DCA's are abusing the procedure and the PM stated that this was being looked into and the loophole would be addressed.

 

So things may be different soon

[sequenci]

None of which applies to unenforceable debts. There will be many more CCA requests that your lot should be more worried about.

 

What about post april '07 agreements?

[blind-as-a-bat]

 

So things may be different soon

 

 

Hmmmm yes probebly worse:rolleyes:

 

Sorry my cynical side is showing:p

[PGH7447]

More Pain For Homeowners In Debt - 29/10/2008

 

This link rather proves a point Killat, that lenders are resorting to any means to cover their arses.

[sequenci]

More Pain For Homeowners In Debt - 29/10/2008

 

This link rather proves a point Killat, that lenders are resorting to any means to cover their arses.

 

Just read that article and it is poor journalism, there are quite a lot of important factors that it seems to have missed.

[PGH7447]

Just read that article and it is poor journalism, there are quite a lot of important factors that it seems to have missed

 

What the bit about only letting consumers default by a Month before applying for a Charging Order, or the bit about Northern Rock using this as a Last Resort

[sequenci]

What the bit about only letting consumers default by a Month before applying for a Charging Order

 

In the years I've been a money adviser I've never heard of this before.

 

or the bit about Northern Rock using this as a Last Resort

 

I have it on very good authority that Northern Rock have had their collection tactics discussed with their new owners, The Government. For sure they are aggressive but there is a great deal of work going on 'behind the scenes with them'. The article doesn't mention the need the whole default process nor does it mention the serious difficulty that a a creditor would have in getting an order for sale in the majoirty of cases.

[PGH7447]

I understand that, but if I was still in the unfortunate postion of not being a member of CAG etc, and I recieved a charging order, I would most certainly be in a panic, afraid that because I got into difficulites with an unsecured debt that they, the lenders can now apply to get it secured against my assets, considering that unsecured debts are in the most part more expensive to maintain than a secured one.

 

Is this Legal - Yes

Is it morally right - No - IMHO

 

It is Just another unashamed attempt by finance institutions to shore up their shoddy business practices.