Who has stopped paying anything and what have the consequences been?

[meerkatsmimm]

Hi David,

 

Its wrong though isnt it?

 

I mean, brought back to basics without the monetry value of the property being considered....

 

Two debtors side by side, one owns their home, the other rents.

 

Both owe the same amount, both get threats of CCJ, baliffs, but obviously the home owner gets threats of charging order etc.

 

Both get a CCJ against them, but the renter has no assets so as long as they keep to a repayment schedule they should not get any more hassle.

 

The home owner gets a forthwith judgement for the full amount to be repaid by a certain date, and because they cant do that, the creditor gets a charging order secured against their home. Then because they are a single person, married without children etc, the order for sale is granted and the house is sold.

 

I know I am being extreme here with this statement, but effectively two people with the same debts, one loses their home as a result of the debt.

 

Thats what is most unfair about charging orders and the government should be forced to step in and deal with it.

 

meerkat x

[Abby25]

If credit is sold and advertised as unsecured credit ... especially in respect of a personal loan, whereby often the option is given to have it secured on your home (for a lower rate of interest).

 

Then surely, its "mis representation", as they only mean its unsecured if you maintain the acct until redemption. Should you not maintain, its then turn to secured .... where does it say this in the agreement you signed, that the security of the loan can be changed at a later date should you fall into difficulties?

 

I'm not a legal bod, but theres got to be an arguement of somesort there .... as in essence, if full disclosure had been given to you, and you were made aware at execution that the loan could be secured at a later date ... well then you wouldn't have proceeded to accept the terms would you?

 

I would argue, that if the lender had fail to disclose the full details of the terms surrounding the redemption/repayment of the loan, thereby (deliberately?) preventing you in making an imformed decision, as to whether the FULL terms of the loan were suitable to you (i.e future charge on your home), then their claim should be disallowed on the basis of deliberate concealment.

 

If I got in this situation, and it ended it court, I think I would use something along these lines, and I definately wouldn't appear as LIP, but employ counsel to give the best fighting chance of defeating the creditors demands.

 

Just my ramblings on this little hot potato ....

[tottys]

there is no way they should be aloud to get away with this you hear about the number of ppl losing their homes down to being unable to pay their mortgage but you should never have to lose your house due to a dca that has really mortified me...

anyway my view on not paying your debts is if you aint got it they cant have it...have been telling a few where to go lately after the council advised me that my council tax and rent was the most important bills i should pay they basically told me to tell all the others where to go have kept the e mail they sent just to show any unsuspecting callers and if they want my doorstep they welcome to it am fed up of the kids tripping over it anyway...just a thought what happens if you dont have a doorstep for them to collect????lol so my bit for this is tell the monkeys where to go as you and your family needs come first not some **** that wants you doorstep for some odd reason....maybe they have some fetish with them!!!!

[meerkatsmimm]

Hi Guys,

 

Abby I agree with you completely, and I do wonder how the Creditors have managed to be able to turn this to their favour.

 

Perhaps someone from the site team would be able to elaborate on how the creditors have been allowed to secure unsecured debt in this way and what specific sections of the CCA allows them to do so.

 

In saying that, if its not in the act, they are taking the p***.

 

Totty your home and essential bills must come first - you and your family essentially, then whatever is left over (if any) can go to the creditors. From experience I now know that, but for years I felt too trapped and fearful if I were to ever miss a payment so just paid up at the expense of everything else in our lives.

 

No longer.

 

meerkat x

[Abby25]

Hi ...

 

Definition of an unsecured loan ....

An unsecured loan is a loan that is not backed by collateral. Also known as a signature loan or personal loan

 

Lending decision criteria

Since unsecured loans are not secured against property or any asset, it is more difficult for a lender to get their money back if the borrower does not or cannot repay the loan.

 

Because of this increased 'risk' (compared to secured loans) unsecured lenders tend to have stricter underwriting rules. In particular, lenders will look at the potential borrower's credit history and how they have conducted their previous and current credit or loan accounts.

 

In summary the lender has to decide, based on their borrower's credit history, how likely are they to repay the loan. If the risk is too high, the borrower will be declined for the loan. If the risk is acceptable, then the lender will (subject to other minimum requirements) make a loan offer.

 

So, unsecured loans are by their term not secured on any collateral ... the collateral in essence is your own good credit history.

 

So, the fact that they lender made a decision on accepting you for credit, based purely on your good credit history, which then "goes bad" (for whatever reason).

 

They in effect still want to win .... win .... win ...

 

Could one of the legal bods explain on what legal premis and juristiction the lenders/Dcas are presenting this request to the court for judgement for enforcement?

 

As it would help anyone in this position to understand if they could reasonably stand and argue on the points we've raised, or just roll over, because the legal principal allowing this is already in place.

 

This principal simply over ruling anyother arguement presented to the Judge.

 

 

Abs xxx

[Blondmusic]

I stopped paying Lowells as they have never provided any concrete proof that i owe them money from a debt they bought. I sent them a strongly worded letter telling them that until they provide evidence they will not be getting another penny out of me. I am still waiting for a reply.

 

I sent off 4 CCA requests to various DCA's and only 1 came back as enforceable. I also sent a Full and Final Settlement offer off to another DCA who have now closed the account. I am waiting for some others to contact me as i have not made any payments. As soon as they get in touch i will CCA them too!!

Edited June 24, 2009 by Blondmusic
My spelling!!

[meerkatsmimm]

Hi Abby,

 

Thanks for getting that info on the thread, I would be keen for someone who knows to explain things further as well.

 

meerkat x

[cashins]

Its wrong though isnt it?

 

 

Very wrong.

 

I can see no circumstances whatsoever, that it is fair that a loan marketed as unsecured, (without the mandatory warnings) and very possibly at a higher interest rate, then becomes secured on property or other assets for that matter.

 

David

[casperlady]

I have stopped paying.

 

I tried everything I could think of.. payplan to start with, they couldn't help me as I don't have enough income, then I tried an informal agreement, which was refused. Then I tried an IVA but it was a dodgy company I think who wanted me to pay a fortune up front, and I pulled out at the last minute. Then I tried the informal agreement again, and again, and was refused again, and again, so I gave up completely. I can't afford to pay my household bills at the moment, so there is definitely nothing spare for creditors!

 

It's only been a few months so far and yesterday I received the first court claim from Howard & Cohen solicitors, which I think is from GE Capital. Maybe I'm just one of the unlucky ones!

[tottys]

you are not the unlucky one you lucky you found this site in time with lots of helpful ppl on here you will get through it all....as far as all the house hold bills go as long as you can pay the essential ones my opinion is sod the rest of them till you can afford to start paying them the majority of ppl in this boat me included otherwise would not be on here things could be a lot worse....my advice keep your chin up and a smile at all times things dont seem as bad then...you will get through it....

[Kraken1]

A charging order is not linked specifically to credit agreements. It is a generic enforcement tool for any money debt. Sue someone for crashing into your car and if they don't pay you can seek a CO.

 

Even though I think some health warning should be made, I think that there is a huge difference between the secured and the unsecured that is then subject to a CO.

 

For eg, and very roughly (ie someone might need to correct me) the 'stages to doom'

 

Secured

Loan - don't own the item, usually with restrictions on usage of such.

Default

possession

forced sale, often below value sale.

 

unsecured

Loan

default

ccj

default

order for sale,

Sale, usually at market rate, or at least within a given timetable.

 

If you agree a voluntary CO you are also able to apply to terms to the CO - such as 'there shall be no order for sale' or 'there will be no interest'. They are not a stupid option, if appropriate. Voluntary orders are also equitable, so come further down the list.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Kraken1

[meerkatsmimm]

Kraken,

 

Can you confirm what you mean about Voluntary orders being equitable?

 

I have had this suggested by one of my creditors as a solution and they have stated there would be no CCJ applied against me if I agree.

 

The problem I have is that all they have is a 1 page application with no prescribed terms, so why should I agree to securing the unsecured monies when they have nothing enforceable?

[casperlady]

you are not the unlucky one you lucky you found this site in time with lots of helpful ppl on here you will get through it all....as far as all the house hold bills go as long as you can pay the essential ones my opinion is sod the rest of them till you can afford to start paying them the majority of ppl in this boat me included otherwise would not be on here things could be a lot worse....my advice keep your chin up and a smile at all times things dont seem as bad then...you will get through it....

 

 

Thank you! You're quite right, this site is fantastic. Before I found CAG I was in such a state over it all. The letter from the court would have had me in a heap bawling my eyes out a few months ago. But I came straight on here, have a plan of how to attempt to deal with it, and managed to go to work and carry on as 'normal'. That's progress!

[Crapstone]

meerkatsmimm,

 

Do not agree to a charging order without them obtaining a CCJ first or you'll are giving them the easy option and live to regret it. In my opinion turning unsecured debt into secured is the worst thing one could ever do.

[Crapstone]

To the OP,

 

My OH refused to aknowledge any of his debts ( something I don't advocate). Howard Cohens stopped pursuing him for a £14,000 loan from Nationwide. Natwest have discharged his debt of a £9000 loan and £1500 overdraft because they can't provide an agreement. Abbey gave up years ago on a £5000 loan. Natwest have not chased a credit card debt of £3000.

 

Despite his large amount of debts he has never had a CCJ which infuriates me as I have always done my best to address mine and still ended up with one for a relatively small amount. It does seem that if you play hard to get they just give up and go away but as soon as you start a dialogue they are relentless.

[mr.ton]

Im cheeky & brazen enough to offer myself to the DCA's so to speak & even go out my way to taunt them etc...the fools still do nothing.

Not saying that will work will everyone, but it sure does for me

[jon888999]

Im cheeky & brazen enough to offer myself to the DCA's so to speak & even go out my way to taunt them etc...the fools still do nothing.

Not saying that will work will everyone, but it sure does for me

That's how it seems if you stick 2 fingers up at the DCA'S they quickly seem to get fed up.

If you pay them they just badger you for more.

[meerkatsmimm]

Hi Crapstone,

 

Its strange because we have an overdraft with the NW and they have admitted no agreements for the flexaccounts with the OD's, yet they still pursue collection.

 

I agree to get the voluntary order seems fool hardy at the moment, as all that they can do by going to court is dish me out a CCJ on top, which with how my Credit history stands at the moment makes no odds.

 

To be honest though, I feel they hoped we would go this road as it makes their lives so much easier and it was 'sold' to us as being the best option for 'us'.

 

I thought the law had to be fair and impartial?

 

Im not so naive to believe injustices dont take place everyday, but given that the CCA 1974 is in Law, why are the judges allowed to take it upon themselves to offer their 'opinions'?

 

Surely the chappy who created the CCA (cant remember his name off hand) did so to protect both sides, and therefore it shouldnt be up for debate or discussion - the law is the law.

[meerkatsmimm]

hello guests!

[Kraken1]

Can you confirm what you mean about Voluntary orders being equitable?

 

A court ordered CO is a legal interest, as in a mortgage. A voluntary CO is an equitable interest. This means that following an order for sale the legal interests get paid first and then the equitable. The result of this is that if you have little or no equity in a property then an order for sale is really unlikely as it would not achieve a pay-out for the creditor.

 

Do not agree to a charging order without them obtaining a CCJ first or you'll are giving them the easy option and live to regret it. In my opinion turning unsecured debt into secured is the worst thing one could ever do.

 

If you think that a ccj and CO is very likely then it is advisable to go for the voluntary charging order - this allows you to dictate the terms, for eg that there be no order for sale and that there be no interest.

 

Don't just agree though and sign forms - you need to take proper advice and specify your terms.

 

What is the value of a CO where there can't be an order for sale? It is also not too shabby if there is no interest to be paid.

 

It is all an assessment of risk.

[the_shadow]

I believe the Eu is looking to enforce a warning on all unsecured debt similar to the warning for secured so the debtor will know that in the end his house/property could still be at threat.

 

S.

[meerkatsmimm]

Hey Kraken,

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Shadow, what about the rest of us who are too late for the warnings? Without sounding political, its a bit like folks being encouraged to smoke in the good old days, now they are all addicted they feel its the right time to warn them of the consequences of illness and death!

 

More should be done for those who were led to believe unsecured was just that, unsecured.

[Crapstone]

I agree to some degree Kraken1 but I just think it's too complicated to suggest it as an option without going to court or without detailed legal advice. It would also be unadvisable that the creditor places pressure on the debtor to do so without telling them that they need legal advice.

 

Without a CCJ and a default they can't put a Charging Order on your home, voluntarily or not.

[Crapstone]

Hi Crapstone,

 

 

I thought the law had to be fair and impartial?

 

Im not so naive to believe injustices dont take place everyday, but given that the CCA 1974 is in Law, why are the judges allowed to take it upon themselves to offer their 'opinions'?

 

Surely the chappy who created the CCA (cant remember his name off hand) did so to protect both sides, and therefore it shouldnt be up for debate or discussion - the law is the law.

 

A written document can't contain all scenarios and is open to it's interpretation and the passage of time in the context it was written. Law doesn't stand still, it can't as the world and our legal relationships are getting ever more complicated. A jury sometimes does not agree even on the most heinous of crimes just as we could all read the same book or watch a film and not agree on it's underlying meaning.

 

Only the higher courts decisions are binding and as so few county court judgements are appealed, through the cost involved and denial, we don't always get cases that are relevant up to a level where its interpretation has influence on future claims in the lower courts.

 

Happy days..

[Kraken1]

Without a CCJ and a default they can't put a Charging Order on your home, voluntarily or not.

 

I perhaps should have just called it a charge for clarity, but for all intensive purposes it is the same thing. No ccj is needed, in the same way that no ccj is needed to agree a secured loan.

 

It is serious though, and legal advice should be sought.