Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • images/posts removed . please do not post jpg picture images directly to a post . read upload and redact in jpg then convert using on of the listed websites there to convert to one multipage pdf only . that way only logged-in,registered and approved caggers are the only ones that can download and see them . else anyone can see them caggers or not. dx
    • OK, I will do now.   I did look to black out certain things, but I was not sure what I should and should not redact and there was nothing on there that was personal enough for me to be concerned with being made public. So I am happy for all to view, but if you are kind enough to redact what is needed as per the forum rules, that would be amazing.     I was planning on collecting up other court cases they have lost, to refer to as part of my evidence, I'm not sure if this is worth doing or could just confuse matters?   But there seem to be many where the judge has ruled against them because of confusing and not clearly displayed signage, trespass, as well as their charge being £100, which is more than the Bevis case said was reasonable.    A quick search found this article as one example KBT cornwall lose case article.pdf   Lastly, I will go to the site to get updated images, but from google earth, you can see from the pictures the entrance states it is for the hotel parking, which I follwed instructions and gave my details to the hotel. Where I think my car was parked (it was that long ago I'm not exactly sure) there are signs on the opposite wall, but it was 12.30am, pitch black and they could not be seen.           Claimants_WS.pdf
    • yes but have the landowner paid this years contract fee. no evidence they have in the ws. pop it back up now if you wish. the forum is quiet i'll redact it for you so we have the info.   dx  
    • Thank you all so much for taking the time to comment and help, I really do appreciate it.   Just to elaborate a bit more on the background, just because my lack of knowledge of the process might mean I've actually done things along the way that I did not know what they were and so hadn't mention it.    When they decided to go to court, I was offered mediation, which I took. I offered to pay the reduced rate, just to make it go away, but insisted it was not an admission of guilt, it was a goodwill gesture to save us all the effort of court. They refused and wanted £250.    A court date was set, but in Leeds, then a couple weeks later I received another letter saying it had been moved to London.   I was not aware I had any say in which court it would be held at, but I now understand i have good reason to request it is moved to a local one to me, which is also local to the offending place, I will call the court tomorrow and explain that. But so far I have only been told what is happening, I've not been given the choice for anything.   They seem to be going down the route of a contract breach, not trespass which is interesting. There is a document in the evidence which has the agreement between themselves which I assumed meant they can pursue me.    I am going to visit the site again shortly, at midnight the time of the offence and take pictures to build a case file of the route I took to enter the car park, how it is in the hotel grounds and no signs can be seen.    Am I right in saying, the fact they do not actually have any pictures of my car in the location they say it was in, just because all of the pictures they have were at 12/30am and it was pitch black, I am going to say my car was parked correctly in the hotel side, not on their land and it is then up to them to prove otherwise, which they are not able to do, because the burden of proof lies with the claimant I think?
    • did you move during the duration of this agreement.   dx  
  • Our picks

RoadToRecovery

Unsecured Credit - There's no such thing

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3652 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

In light of the ever increasing number of reports of charging orders being granted on a whim for debts that were previously supposedly 'unsecured'. Is it not time for the banner;

 

"WARNING YOUR HOME MAY BE AT RISK IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP THE PAYMENTS"

 

Be a legal requirement on ANY application and associated paperwork for credit of any kind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. I think it is misleading to state that credit is unsecured when the route for companies to take clearly threatens the security of the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well they even threaten charging orders for council tenants and attachment to earning orders to the unemployed

 

But yes I think it should be in the information, esp for any debt over a couple of grand. Clearly an enforceable debt for £20k would be secured whether it said so or not and anyway I do believe that to get higher amounts of 'unsecured' credit at reasonable interests rates, it is much more likely if you are a homeowner - a clear 'statement of intent' should yu default

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the point is being missed

 

a "secured" loan is directly secured on the property,thus if it is proven that the debtor has failed to perform the creditor can immediately seek to realise the asset in order to obtain releif.

 

However the element of security does not come into an unsecured agreement but is rather an enforcement tool applied for to the county or high court where a losing party fails to comply with an order of the court

 

there is no instance where a creditor (unless the debtor voluntarily agrees) can "turn" an unsecured debt into a secured debt during teh performance of the contract.

 

further very few "charging orders" are enforced and often the creditor is happy to wait until a voluntary sale of the property.

 

There has (IMO) been a lot of media "hype" in this respect.

 

yes the incidence is increased compared to say 20-30 years ago- but not to the extent the media would have you believe as much of the increase in charging orders was shown to be in relation to company debts (ie directors giving personal guarantees, persons running unlimited businesses etc) and not as much of an increase for consumer finance

 

further, Where they have been used more in consumer finance matters it has usually been where the debt is very large in comparrison to the payments being made

 

I am out of date but a few years ago the trends showed that people were moving house on average every 7 years and this has been falling,

 

clearly a creditor with a ccj of say 10,000 faced with a creditor wanting to make payments of 20 per month which would take 44 years,interest free is going to want some security since the debtor otherwise could sell up and use all his equity without the creditor knowing.

 

the courts WILL and do accede to this request fairly willingly in these cases even if the debtor has not yet defaulted and in my opinion quite reasonably so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we should consider the element of risk.

 

I have used the argument with Barclays (2005) that should they wish to consider second charge over property they would also be required to reduce risk factor from 17.9% to 5.9% apr from inception of loan, the DJ on that ocassion agreed (on production of without prejudice save as to costs comms) with a debt reduction of some 7k agreed on acceptance of interest free c/o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical question. Suppose a person gives a member of his family a charge on a property, a charge large enough to consume all the equity, should the property be sold.

 

Suppose this person then loses a county court case, the other side apply for a charging order and get it. But this charge has to go in line, behind the one to family member, as that was registered first. What happens when the house is sold and there is no cash to pay the charging order? Then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hypothetical question. Suppose a person gives a member of his family a charge on a property, a charge large enough to consume all the equity, should the property be sold.

 

Suppose this person then loses a county court case, the other side apply for a charging order and get it. But this charge has to go in line, behind the one to family member, as that was registered first. What happens when the house is sold and there is no cash to pay the charging order? Then what?

 

 

All the creditors that are entitled fight over the money. You cannot treat one creditor in preference to the detriment of others. Also I feel I contested dispersal type court case coming on from, shall we say, the legitimate creditors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know all charges are treated equally, I thought they had an order. So there really is no such thing as an unsecured loan. The argument posted in this thread doesn't convince me. Your home is at risk if you default on a secured loan, the exact same risk applies if you default on an unsecured loan. You can be ordered to pay forthwith, you can't, bang there is a charge on your property.

 

Put it this way, the standard secured loan warning that "Your home is at risk if you do not maintain payments" is misleading because it's absence from unsecured loans creates the distinct impression that your home is not at risk if you do not maintain payments. But your home is at risk, and the argument that Judges rarely force sales does not strike me as justification for turning a credit card or overdraft debt into a glorified mortgage.

 

How many people would think twice if their credit card application had "Your home is at risk if you do not maintain payments" plastered all over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think what hungrybear meant was telling you was that UNSECURED creditors are treated in the same way

 

secured creditors who have a charge on the property are indeed in order

 

the first charge gets paid IN FULL, then the second and so on down the line

 

when the secured creditors have got their pound of flesh, anything left is then divided between unsecured creditors in proportion to the amount they are owed

 

this incidentally can be a useful objection to a charging order application from one of your creditors, since they would be seeking security at the expense /detriment of other unsecured creditors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I did wonder about that, I was sure I had been told secured charges are paid back in the order they are registered.

 

I'm not suggesting I would give a charge to a relative to avoid paying another creditor with a later charge, I just wondered what the legal position was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i did- for several years on a previous house- it acted as a buffer and ensured that in the event of the unmentionable- that i would not be left empty handed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats true, you can transfer any/all beneficial interest in property to a relative with little effort if the property is unencumbered...... if you still have a mortgage then clearly they'll need to raise some capital but so long as you have this completed prior to any unsecured claimant filing for charging order it leaves any nett benefit errrrrrr safe as houses :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

family arrangements are always open to challenge- especially if the stakes are high

 

A limited company (which you can name yourself) costs around 30-80 quid to set up.

 

the "running costs per annum if largely dormant 100-200 quid

 

you can do a lot with an arms length arranagement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
family arrangements are always open to challenge- especially if the stakes are high

 

A limited company (which you can name yourself) costs around 30-80 quid to set up.

 

the "running costs per annum if largely dormant 100-200 quid

 

you can do a lot with an arms length arranagement

 

 

best to get your wifes sister and her husband to set up the ltd for you tyhat way there's no 'name' connection at companies house.

 

I have an alternative solution. It is alleged that a registered user of cag with possible initials hb (but who has no access to my IP address) has transfered the ownership of his interests in the UK to his lifelong friend who lives in Marbella. Naturally said friend had the financial ability to pay through the bank for said interests and was re-embursed in cash:D.

 

And dicky if you give me £200 I'll happy pay companies house the £15 to file your return - just offering!

 

seriously though. if this is what you want to get into then as dicky says look into 'arms length arrangements'. the sooner the better as the more time elapses until the 'stuff hits the fan' the safer you are.

 

 

Personally i would never condone such evasive and underhand tactics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
best to get your wifes sister and her husband to set up the ltd for you tyhat way there's no 'name' connection at companies house.

 

I have an alternative solution. It is alleged that a registered user of cag with possible initials hb (but who has no access to my IP address) has transfered the ownership of his interests in the UK to his lifelong friend who lives in Marbella. Naturally said friend had the financial ability to pay through the bank for said interests and was re-embursed in cash:D.

 

And dicky if you give me £200 I'll happy pay companies house the £15 to file your return - just offering!

 

seriously though. if this is what you want to get into then as dicky says look into 'arms length arrangements'. the sooner the better as the more time elapses until the 'stuff hits the fan' the safer you are.

 

 

Personally i would never condone such evasive and underhand tactics

 

the one to two hundred pounds i quoted was for the annual return and accounts and an accountant- most charge around 100 or so to do a small company return

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Of course I would not use such a tactic to avoid paying a debt.

 

But if someone was thinking of doing that, then a limited company, maybe even one registered overseas, with no direct connection to the owner, would be interesting advice.

 

Back to the main topic, has anyone ever argued that omitting the warning "Your home is at risk if you do not maintain payments" from an unsecured credit agreement is 'unfair', or becomes unfair when the creditor seeks to take a charge on your property. Can a term be unfair by omission?

 

Isn't there a human rights issue in there? I'm sure I read some piece of EU legislation that would suggest someone taking legal action (to gain a charge on your property) is a breach of your rights if there was no warning that such action was a possibility when the contract was agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken out unsecured credit card loans which have a higher rate of interest than secured loans i am willing to pay more in interest because i don't want to risk my property , i would not have considered taking out these loans if i thought for one moment my property would be at risk, so are you saying that i have been misled in to taking out what is in reality a secured loan rather than an unsecured loan.

 

If at the outset when you are taking out these loans you are told that these loans are unsecured and you proceed on the basis that your property will never be at risk, how can a judge or anyone else put a charge on your property when you have never agreed to your property being used as security in the event of default.

 

What does the OFT have to say about this,it is nothing more than an act of deception to mislead borrowers in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well they even threaten charging orders for council tenants and attachment to earning orders to the unemployed

 

But yes I think it should be in the information, esp for any debt over a couple of grand. Clearly an enforceable debt for £20k would be secured whether it said so or not and anyway I do believe that to get higher amounts of 'unsecured' credit at reasonable interests rates, it is much more likely if you are a homeowner - a clear 'statement of intent' should yu default

What do you mean by 'whether it said so or not' if that is the case what is the point of having terms and conditions or even a signed agreement, if a lender says that the loan is 'unsecuered then that is what it should be, as i have stated before i would not take out any loan which i beleived would put my property at risk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by 'whether it said so or not' if that is the case what is the point of having terms and conditions or even a signed agreement, if a lender says that the loan is 'unsecuered then that is what it should be, as i have stated before i would not take out any loan which i beleived would put my property at risk

 

 

well vinty if you take out a £20k loan, dont pay it back and dont comply with a court order to pay it back they will get a charge on your house and they may go after a sale order as well. Assuming that they have all the paperwork and you are that stubborn of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there was some indication from the OFT that they felt a warning, similar to that included in secured loans, should be in place on any type of loan or credit agreement but frankly the OFT have not done that well recently in dealing with banks.

 

What I think is dubious is the banks & credit card companies handed out credit like confetti, when it suited them to do so. Now the economy has gone south, people are defaulting all over the place and the banks are queueing up to seek charging orders.

Edited by dp77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well vinty if you take out a £20k loan, dont pay it back and dont comply with a court order to pay it back they will get a charge on your house and they may go after a sale order as well. Assuming that they have all the paperwork and you are that stubborn of course
It has got nothing to do with being stubborn, how can lenders market credit cards loans ect. as unsecured to justify charging interest rates as high as 30 per cent to reflect the 'risk' they are taking and then when some one gets into financial difficulties they turn the screw by converting an unsecured loan into a secured one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. Of course I would not use such a tactic to avoid paying a debt.

 

But if someone was thinking of doing that, then a limited company, maybe even one registered overseas, with no direct connection to the owner, would be interesting advice.

 

Back to the main topic, has anyone ever argued that omitting the warning "Your home is at risk if you do not maintain payments" from an unsecured credit agreement is 'unfair', or becomes unfair when the creditor seeks to take a charge on your property. Can a term be unfair by omission?

 

Isn't there a human rights issue in there? I'm sure I read some piece of EU legislation that would suggest someone taking legal action (to gain a charge on your property) is a breach of your rights if there was no warning that such action was a possibility when the contract was agreed.

 

the process of taking a charge on property in support of a court judgement is not the sole preserve of defaulted credit agreements

 

the process is/can be used where a ccj has been obtained and/or not complied with irrespective of what the original dispute which led to the ccj was about

 

therefore i think you would be on a hiding to nothing trying to persuade anyone that this facility is any more relevant to regulated unsecured credit than to a customer who gave a dud cheque to his butcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry vinty the 'stubborn' quote wasnt a pop at you, I meant that if a person was foolish enough to not appreciate the implications of not complying with a court order to pay - a general statement not a 'get vinty':p.

 

- I think that is the important difference for unsecured, if you pay as directed by the court then your home is safe (usually) whereas for a secured loan a charging order is the first port of call as it were.

 

As an aside credit card companies are there to make money which means they will charge whatever they can get away with as an apr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The baseline point stands though, in terms of security to the lender there is no difference - if the borrower is a homeowner - between an unsecured and a secured loan. This is a 'have your cake and eat it' situation for the lender.

 

If the fact you are a homeowner is a factor in granting you credit (and who believes otherwise?), then why aren't you legally entitled to be warned that you could lose your home, or at least have to give up some security in it, as a result of entering into the agreement?

 

There is no argument that justifies omitting the 'Your home is at risk...." warning from supposedly unsecured credit / loans - other than it would adversely affect the business of the lenders. No way I would have taken the credit flung at me had I known the lender could switch to being secured at the drop of a (Judges) hat. I am sure I would not be alone in thinking that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...