Banks exploit legal loophole to seize homes

[creditcardmug]

You say its meaningless, but what about the scenario of someone having to relocate for employment reasons or something, whilst all the while not defaulting on the ccj, the property is sold, then half a dozen creditors descend and take the remainig equity, thereby making it impossible for the family to buy the next property.. no job no income, ccjs and everything else dont get paid, its ludicrous.

[MrShed]

OK then controversial point number 2. They rent.

 

I realise this isnt an opinion that is going to go down well on this forum. But if you cant afford to buy, you rent. The creditors should not be subsidising the ability of them to purchase a property.

[mak71]

Lets get some clarity here.

 

It is not a "secured debt" usually in the traditional sense of the word, where if people do not keep up repayments they may lose their home. The chances of you losing your home are VERY slim unless it is a very sizeable debt.

 

It is true that an order of sale is just the next step, but this is in the same way that climbing Everest is just the next step from walking up my local hill. The difference in the difficulty of acquiring is exponentially more, and will only be done in extreme circumstances.

 

All that is happening is that a creditor is making a request that at a future unspecified date, but a date when they KNOW you have money, they will request that a portion of that is allocated to them. It prevents them from never being able to recoup the loss.

 

I think what people need to remember is that although yes there are a lot of unfair debts, and unfair banks, there are also a lot that should be repaid fair and square. If the only way this repayment can and will happen is to get some at the time of house sale, then so be it.

 

It is perfectly MORAL to do this - why should people who owe other people(be it a bank, or some other institution, or some other INDIVIDUAL - remember that these can also be used to enforce personal claims) be allowed to sell their property and have that amount of capital asset, but the other person is the loser?

 

 

Mr Shed, thanks for the info,

personally ide have no problem with them putting a charging order on my house as long as they gave me time to pay off what i owed them on the original unsecured debt,or agreed to only take up that charging order when i voluntarily sold the house at a later date ,however i would feel really hard done by if they forced me to sell my house on the back of a credit card unsecured debt,

These banks etc have all been bailed out by the government, a litttle bit off leeway to struggling debtors is the least these bailed out institutions can do,im struggling too, but unfortunately no golden handshake or bailout for me

[MrShed]

I personally dont see why it should make any difference if they have been bailed out - that emotional argument is a surefire way to ensure the bailed out banks fail, and our taxpayers money goes down the toilet with it. In fact, those banks should ensure they act even MORE like a business if anything.

 

With regards the COs, I take your point - I do feel that the vast majority will in fact be this case. I stress(as the FT article seems to indicate the other way) - IT WILL ONLY BE IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES that an OOS will be successful.

[mak71]

Is there any timescale for next year when they plan to introudce this legislation , or is it already fully operational?

[babybear39]

The legislation is still under consultation as far as I know.

[JR1]

I've done some research on this and I read somewhere that

 

1, Charging orders are still being placed on the debter even when the debter is keeping up with payments on the ccj!

 

2, Some creditors are selling off the debt to dca's even when payments are being made on a regular basis. The dca's then demand full payment and when payment cannit be made go straight for a charging order.

 

On one occaision someone brought a £1000.00 sofa, failed to keep payments because they lost their job. the creditor got a ccj. While the debter was making payments which were regular. the creditor sold the debt to a dca and the dca demended payment within 7 days and went straght for a charging order and got it. The amount owed was now £15000. Yes fifteen thousand. They carried on adding interest.

 

Some DCA's are specializing in this and go and try to buy this kind of debt just so that a charging order can be placed with interest.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, an unsecured loan is an unsecured loan. You pay a higher rate of interest for that.

[Monty2007]

I've done some research on this and I read somewhere that

 

1, Charging orders are still being placed on the debter even when the debter is keeping up with payments on the ccj!

 

2, Some creditors are selling off the debt to dca's even when payments are being made on a regular basis. The dca's then demand full payment and when payment cannit be made go straight for a charging order.

 

On one occaision someone brought a £1000.00 sofa, failed to keep payments because they lost their job. the creditor got a ccj. While the debter was making payments which were regular. the creditor sold the debt to a dca and the dca demended payment within 7 days and went straght for a charging order and got it. The amount owed was now £15000. Yes fifteen thousand. They carried on adding interest.

 

Some DCA's are specializing in this and go and try to buy this kind of debt just so that a charging order can be placed with interest.

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, an unsecured loan is an unsecured loan. You pay a higher rate of interest for that.

 

 

I totally agree. This is an extreme case but there will be a massive increase in charging orders and the less informed will suffer.