Charging Order Petition

[DizzieDiva2010]

 

Do you want the Government to consider setting a minimum amount of debt before a court can order the sale of a debtor’s home?

 

With a new Government in place a review is taking place of online services, including e-petitions. We are committed to improving the e-petitions process and are looking at ways of ensuring that it functions as part of a cohesive approach to public debate and transparent government. A full announcement on how we plan to use these and other services across Government will be made as soon as this important work is completed.

Existing e-petitions, submitted to the previous administration, will not be carried forward to the new administration as part of this process. E-petitions that were live at the time of the election announcement on 6 April, when the e-petitions system was suspended, will therefore not be reopened for signatures. We are issuing responses to petitions that had exceeded the 500 signatures threshold as of 6 April 2010 and these can be viewed on the HMG e-petitions responses page.

We will welcome resubmission on issues of concern to the improved e-petitions system when it is launched later in 2010.

I plan to issue a petition with regards to setting a minimum amount of debt before a Court can issue a Charging Order. However due to the above the petition will follow as soon as their web site has been up dated.

Edited November 10, 2010 by DizzieDiva2010

[sequenci]

?!?

[DangerRoss]

Charging Order Petition

 

??

[sequenci]

Oh, I can see this now.

 

I'm afraid setting a minimum amount on Charging Orders would be one of the WORST decisions ever made.

 

You may initially think that this is a sensational thing for me to say but this is the problem.

 

If creditors cannot secure a debt by the way of a charging order they will choose a different approach against homeowners.

 

Bankruptcy proceedings.

[DizzieDiva2010]

Oh, I can see this now.

 

I'm afraid setting a minimum amount on Charging Orders would be one of the WORST decisions ever made.

 

You may initially think that this is a sensational thing for me to say but this is the problem.

 

If creditors cannot secure a debt by the way of a charging order they will choose a different approach against homeowners.

 

Bankruptcy proceedings.

 

Perhaps there should be a certain amount on bankruptcy too!!!!

[sequenci]

Perhaps there should be a certain amount on bankruptcy too!!!!

 

There is. It's £750.

 

As it goes I'm writing an article on Charging Orders at the mo, I'll drop you a line when it's finished!

[DizzieDiva2010]

[sequenci]

Here you go:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?620-Charging-Orders-A-Very

[DizzieDiva2010]

[manchesteruni]

Here you go:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?620-Charging-Orders-A-Very

 

 

A great article and I agree with your stance on CO's.

 

On the section about Mercantille Ellis would you be able to add in that a redetermination to installments following a forthwith order, or a forthwith with installments order, do not exclude creditors from obtaining charging orders, even if your installments are paid perfectly, as that is a common misconception across the boards at the moment.

[sequenci]

Hi there, thanks for your comments.

 

A redetermination should allow the debtor the protection of instalments provided that their redetermination is concerned prior to any application by the creditor for the interim charge. If the creditor gets there first then it’s likely that the redetermination will not prevent the charging order – as confirmed in Ropaigealach v Allied Irish Bank. I think one of the key issues is that the courts have a tendency to list the two applications together which can cause allsorts of issues. Creditors have historically been quite sneaky by going down the ‘Hybrid’ order route, which is what I think you mean when you say ‘forthwith plus instalments’. I’ve not come across as many of these in recent years, I know Northampton bulk centre have decided they are not valid as they do not comply with CPR rule 14.3. A debtor should be able to get these set aside/re-determined due to a procedural error. Also, it is sometimes the case that judges a a law until themselves and will do whatever the feel like!!

 

You’ve made some great points and I shall expand the article when I get some spare time! Best wishes,

 

Seq.

[DizzieDiva2010]

I believe that certain individuals are genuine with regards to their debts and these people should not be forced to accept a charging order or bankcruptcy but simply have the opportunity to set up a payment plan and have a fair chance of paying it back until their circumstances improve.

[sequenci]

I believe that certain individuals are genuine with regards to their debts and these people should not be forced to accept a charging order or bankcruptcy but simply have the opportunity to set up a payment plan and have a fair chance of paying it back until their circumstances improve.

 

I totally agree. And by all accounts so do the OFT:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/119-10

[manchesteruni]

I totally agree. And by all accounts so do the OFT:

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/119-10

 

That is absolutely fantastic news. Particulary the HFC order to stop the collection charge. This collection charge is often £1000's. Restons say it is contractual and 16% of the debt, however there are no terms in the agreements - people now should be aware that HFC will be adding this charge onto their agreements for new loans and products and shouldnt agree to the term. The courts have been removing the charge when challenged but thousands of people who don't have the benefit of these sites will have ended up paying it, and very often when through Restons solicitors, having that added to charging orders on their home. Slow going OFT, but you got there in the end. Great news. Anyone with Restons/HFC claims against them at present should be made aware of this.

 

http://oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/HFC-requirements.pdf

 

 

With regards to the hybrid orders, unfortunately they still appear to be rife. Although not as initial judgments - they come up following redeterminations, or even initial installment orders, companies are applying to the court (within the 7 days set aside/amend/vary) to amend installment orders to hybrid orders in order to get the CO, quoting Ropaigealach, and it doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference whether they had already applied pre-redetermination.

[Guest jsa12]

this is here too.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gL25LtRU2SKscGWACilxtJuHzTNg?docId=N0205211290430135154A

 

"while they did not always carry out adequate checks when making lending decisions, contributing to the problems in the first place".

[merry2007]

Hello Everyone !

[DizzieDiva2010]

Wishing everybody a Happy New Year 2011