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

[meerkatsmimm]

It seems like you have a few creditors so you need to address them pro-rata with what you can afford even if it is only £1. Keeping them all in the frame makes it less likely that one of them will be granted a charging order as it will be at the disadvantage of the others.

 

Don't rely on the fact that having a child will influence the court to not allow enforcement of a charging order or that it will be included as a term.

 

How much equity do you have compared to your debts? Are you tenants in common or joint tenants? Are the debts in joint names?

 

 

Hi Crapstone,

 

You are scaring me now as I had been led to believe by many, including site team and some of my creditors, that they WOULDNT get an order for sale through the courts on the basis that my child was under 18 and still at home.

 

Can you back that statement up with some evidence please?

 

I mean, this is all unsecured debt, not anything to do with mortgages or secured loans.

 

We have negligable equity, if anything in the property. Even if the house could be sold tomorrow for a good price, it would amount to no more than 1/4 of all the debt we owe - if that.

 

All our creditors are up to date with our situation and we talk to them all (even though some choose now to listen) at least twice a month.

[meerkatsmimm]

Hi Guests, dont you know its rude to lurk....

 

You should join up and join in!

[meerkatsmimm]

Seriously guests, join in or log-off - we can see you!

[Kraken1]

You are scaring me now as I had been led to believe by many, including site team and some of my creditors, that they WOULDNT get an order for sale through the courts on the basis that my child was under 18 and still at home

 

1. Orders for sale are really very rare

2. Orders for sale where there is a minor in the property, really really really really really rare.

 

So, not very likely at all, but not impossible.

[diddydicky]

and orders for sale when there are minors or elderly people or other joint owners living in the property and the proposed sale would not even clear the secured loans- whilst not impossible - are as rare as rocking horse sh*t

[meerkatsmimm]

Thanks guys,

 

That has reassured me a bit (feel like I went back nearly a month upon reading that post this morning), but in which instances would a judge grant an order for sale, if a minor was at home?

 

If its very rare that it happens, why would any judge feel the need to do it?

 

Thanks,

 

meerkat x

[diddydicky]

there is a huge difference between repossesion for secured lending and granting charging orders against defaulting ccj's for unsecured debt

 

the vast majority of charging orders simply lie dormant until the debtor sells the home themselves at which time the charge is redeemed from the sale proceeds

 

it really all depends on the individual circumstances

[meerkatsmimm]

Hey DD,

 

Thats my question I guess. I mean all of our debt is unsecured CC debt.

 

I understand secured would be different and that lots of people are losing their homes everyday due to mortgage repossesion or defaulting on secured loans.

 

But this is all unsecured, and one of our creditors has made it clear that they would never seek to force an order for sale on the basis of unsecured lending that they get a charge off the back of.

 

However, what if one of our other creditors did try? Would the other debts we have simply have to agree with the judge and take a piece of anything that is left (or take a piece pro-rata)?

 

If one of our creditors were to be granted a voluntary charge by us, could we haave written into any agreement that we would want them to refuse to give any other creditor permission to get a subsiquent charge, and would the judge allow this?

 

So after a mortgage (1st charge), voluntary charge (2nd charge), another creditor or creditors tried to get 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. I understand that those in line in front who already have a charge can refuse, but would that stop dead any other charges being granted by any other creditor?

 

Or could the judge overrule the refusal and grant anyway?

 

(This is an important one for us - meerkat x)

[payback68]

Alot of creditors and DCA's are going down the "Charging Order Route" now, as apparently it's been successful according to what i have read.

 

Personally i find it very hard to believe that when you sign up to an UNSECURED agreement be it via credit card or loan, the judicial system is allowing creditors to issue charging orders on minimal debts and forcing the debtor to sell his/her house to cover the outstanding debt. The so called "Charity Organisations" are up in arms over this and rightly so, as after all we never asked for the credit crunch, it was put upon us by gambling bankers who lost.

 

Link here which maybe useful :- Lenders repossess homes for credit card debt

 

Regards.

[diddydicky]

Hey DD,

 

Thats my question I guess. I mean all of our debt is unsecured CC debt.

 

I understand secured would be different and that lots of people are losing their homes everyday due to mortgage repossesion or defaulting on secured loans.

 

But this is all unsecured, and one of our creditors has made it clear that they would never seek to force an order for sale on the basis of unsecured lending that they get a charge off the back of.

 

However, what if one of our other creditors did try? Would the other debts we have simply have to agree with the judge and take a piece of anything that is left (or take a piece pro-rata)?

 

If one of our creditors were to be granted a voluntary charge by us, could we haave written into any agreement that we would want them to refuse to give any other creditor permission to get a subsiquent charge, and would the judge allow this?

 

So after a mortgage (1st charge), voluntary charge (2nd charge), another creditor or creditors tried to get 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. I understand that those in line in front who already have a charge can refuse, but would that stop dead any other charges being granted by any other creditor?

 

Or could the judge overrule the refusal and grant anyway?

 

(This is an important one for us - meerkat x)

 

i can only re iterate my earlier advice NEVER NEVER voluntarily agree to a charging order and nice as it may sound never beleive what they might say about not enforcing it

 

If they are insisting then ask them why in that case won t they trust YOU and enter into a repayment arrangement

 

whilst nothing is impossible i think you are worrying too much about the charging order-

[Kraken1]

i can only re iterate my earlier advice NEVER NEVER voluntarily agree to a charging order and nice as it may sound never beleive what they might say about not enforcing it

 

You can make it a term of the co though, then they can't.

[diddydicky]

You can make it a term of the co though, then they can't.

 

fair cop there kraken - having never agreed to one that was one i was not aware of- so if so it useful to know

[meerkatsmimm]

Guys thanks for all replying.

 

Murphy already signed that, thanks for bringing it onto the thread for others though.

 

Payback, thank you for the link I will have a read shortly.

 

DD I probably am worrying too much, but we dont want to run the risk of losing our home over this unsecured debt and if by voluntarily securing some of it, that it offers us some protection against other more unreasonable creditors, then we would give it ago.

 

Kraken, as you say, the creditor in question stated that it would be part of the VCO that they would never seek to force this order to be paid out and the only time that it would become applicable is through the sale of the house or remortgage - neither seem likely.

 

I know the VCO is a get out of jail free card for the banks, it means they have none of the work to do, and they effectively get handed the value of the debt in a sling. However, I think if thought about and offered correctly, it could prevent other creditors who are unreasonable and who would want to force a sale from either getting the charge in the first place or not even trying.

 

Can anyone clarify if a creditor who has a priority charge can refuse to allow subsiquent charges to be placed - and if so, can a judge overrule this?

 

meerkat x

[payback68]

i can only re iterate my earlier advice NEVER NEVER voluntarily agree to a charging order and nice as it may sound never beleive what they might say about not enforcing it

 

If they are insisting then ask them why in that case won t they trust YOU and enter into a repayment arrangement

 

whilst nothing is impossible i think you are worrying too much about the charging order-

 

I totally agree with that statement. Personally i have been threatened with a charging order and i will deal with it if it happens although i do think it's a lame threat as always with these creditors, if you are in doubt in anyway have a word with one of the charity organisations, in my experience National Debt have been very helpful.

 

Regards.

[diddydicky]

Guys thanks for all replying.

 

Murphy already signed that, thanks for bringing it onto the thread for others though.

 

Payback, thank you for the link I will have a read shortly.

 

DD I probably am worrying too much, but we dont want to run the risk of losing our home over this unsecured debt and if by voluntarily securing some of it, that it offers us some protection against other more unreasonable creditors, then we would give it ago.

 

Kraken, as you say, the creditor in question stated that it would be part of the VCO that they would never seek to force this order to be paid out and the only time that it would become applicable is through the sale of the house or remortgage - neither seem likely.

 

I know the VCO is a get out of jail free card for the banks, it means they have none of the work to do, and they effectively get handed the value of the debt in a sling. However, I think if thought about and offered correctly, it could prevent other creditors who are unreasonable and who would want to force a sale from either getting the charge in the first place or not even trying.

 

Can anyone clarify if a creditor who has a priority charge can refuse to allow subsiquent charges to be placed - and if so, can a judge overrule this?

 

meerkat x

 

well if you do go down that route AND you ensure a watertight clause in it then you have to notify your existing lender but it is unlikely that they will object (but they WILL make a note of what is happening) as their security is in no way threatened by a second charge

 

HOWEVER the danger is that if you do not notify your other unsecured creditors and they find out THEY could apply to the court to have it undone- espcially if their debts are large/larger because in effect the creditor you are seeking to make the arrangement with is seeking an unfair advantage over your other secured creditors

 

i say again that if the agreements are valid then your best best is to negotiate a payment plan with all of them and not just one

[diddydicky]

sorry typo meant to say UNSECURED creditors in the second to last line

[meerkatsmimm]

Thanks DD,

 

What if we asked the 2nd charge holder that we were giving the VCO to write into the contract that they wouldnt agree to any further charges, unless we agreed first?

 

If that was done can the court overrule it?

 

The one seeking the VCO has the only joint debt out of all of our creditors.

[diddydicky]

not quite sure what you are getting at

 

you and the Creditor can agree what you like between you but it will not be binding on any of your other creditors

 

having one come along later and start court action to get your arrangement set aside would i imagine get quite complicated

 

dont forget also that when your first mortgagors (who may also be your current bankers) get wind of what is happening you could find an y overdrafts being looked at- )

[diddydicky]

if you search the letter templates there is one dealing with creditors who ask you to agree to a vco

[diddydicky]

here it is@-

 

 

a donation

 

Cagger since : Mar 2006

I am in: (near) Stoke on Trent

Posts: 11,066

 

 

Letter H - When a creditor asks you to agree to a voluntary charge against your home

When a creditor asks you to agree to a voluntary charge against your home

 

1 High Street,

Newtown,

Kent

R21 4RH

 

June 28, 2006

 

The Loan Company

Company House,

Church Street,

Newtown,

Kent,

R1 7HG

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Acc/Ref No 4563210025897412

 

Further to our meeting of 23−06−2006, we are writing to confirm that we are not prepared to agree to a voluntary charge on our property as requested by you, in respect of the debt to your company.

 

As already discussed with you, we have a number of creditors, apart from yourselves. To allow you to obtain a charge on our property would be to grant your company preferential status, and could therefore prejudice the rights of our other creditors, all of whom have already accepted our proposals without any request for additional security.

 

In addition, whilst it is not our intention in any way to be unco−operative, we are not prepared to allow a debt which is currently unsecured to become a secured debt and therefore put our home at risk.

 

As you will see from the Personal Budget which we have already submitted an offer to your company is still open for you to accept. This is based on our income and expenditure, and a pro rata of equitable distribution of available income. We would therefore hope that you will follow the lead taken by the other creditors, and accept our proposals without attaching unnecessary conditions.

 

Furthermore, whilst of course we wish to avoid county court action, we are aware that were your company to pursue this debt through the county court, the court would look at our circumstances and order a level payment which we could afford, and in addition would freeze interest on the account.

 

We would bring to your attention that following the case of Mercantile Credit Ltd−v−Ellis and others in the Court of Appeal on March 11th 1987, if we were to maintain payments as ordered by the court, your company would be unable to obtain a Charging Order against us. This is further reason why we do not wish to allow a charge on our home.

 

In light of the other creditors agreeing to our repayment plan, please would you reconsider our offer. We will be making the payments in line with the offer to our company, on a monthly basis, as a gesture of goodwill.

 

May we take this opportunity of expressing our sincere hope that we can come to a mutually acceptable arrangement, that will allow repayment to our creditors at a level which is affordable based on our circumstances.

 

We look forward to your co−operation in this matter

[meerkatsmimm]

not quite sure what you are getting at

 

you and the Creditor can agree what you like between you but it will not be binding on any of your other creditors

 

having one come along later and start court action to get your arrangement set aside would i imagine get quite complicated

 

dont forget also that when your first mortgagors (who may also be your current bankers) get wind of what is happening you could find an y overdrafts being looked at- )

 

 

Sorry for the confusion DD, and thanks for sticking with me on this one.

 

Basically I mean, can a judge over-rule the 1st or 2nd charge holders of my property, should they refuse to agree to any subsiquent 3rd or 4th creditors attempt at a charging order?

 

I say this because the creditor asking for 2nd charge wouldnt force the sale and I can have that in writing.

 

Not worried about bank as they arent linked with my mortgage, Thank God!

 

Thanks for the template also, it certainly would help for structure.

 

Only thing is the letter doesnt take into account the forthwith judgement, which we could have granted, effectively asking for the full payment within a certain timeframe, otherwise a charging order would follow. If the forthwith judgement is requested by the creditor, there isnt much we can do.

 

We dont know what to do for the best, although most are stating not to agree to the the VCO. Our home is everything though.

[diddydicky]

well i cant see the occassion arising

 

anyone who is in FRONT of a new charge gets paid FIRST irrespective of who forces the sale

 

therefore the 1st mortgagor wouldnt really give a toss if the 10th charge forced a sale

 

there is no even distribution of funds

 

1st creditor gets ALL he is owed

 

2nd creditor and so onb

[meerkatsmimm]

Yes, but if we get it written into a contract as part of a VCO that they would oppose the 3rd, 4th charge on the property.

 

We give away a small part of our overall debt to be secured against our home, with the intention that this 2nd charge blocks any subsiquent charges by refusing them.

 

Could that be over ruled by the court?

[diddydicky]

of course it could

 

as i said you and the creditor concerned CANNOT bind other creditors by what you agree

 

On what grounds would they be able to object to a charge lower down the pecking order than theirs? they 3/4/5/100th charges would not affect their security !

 

i really do advise you strongly not to go down this route when there is absolutely no need to do so. read the letter above- it tells you your best course of action deal with ALL your unsecured creditors at the same time

[meerkatsmimm]

Thanks DD,

 

Sorry for going over things so much - its not making much sense at present and we have alot of other things going on personally that are adding to the confusion.

 

meerkat x