My endless Quest again Northern Rock

[emanevs]

I dont know if any experts on here can help with this one, it is a bit complex!

 

Is is correct that creditors are not entitled to charge interest on a secured debt after bankruptcy occurs?

 

What legislation allows secured creditors to just sit on their security...? because essentially all debts, whether they are secured or not are in fact included in BR.

 

Anyone with any legislation would be gratefully received.....

[Lea_HTH]

It's not legislation - it's common law - contractual. So the answer is yes, they are allowed to continue to charge interest during bankruptcy and thereafter (i.e. on discharge) if you retain the property.

[emanevs]

Disagree......

 

They cannot, because what rate of interest, what credit agreement would it relate to because essentially these is no credit agreement because it was put in BR..........

 

They also cannot enforce....... check the Bankruptcy Legislation..........

[Lea_HTH]

Disagree......

 

They cannot, because what rate of interest, what credit agreement would it relate to because essentially these is no credit agreement because it was put in BR..........

 

They also cannot enforce....... check the Bankruptcy Legislation..........

 

If you thought you knew the answer - there was no point in asking.

 

It's contractual - the contract existed before the bankruptcy and contains the information about the interest.

 

Information is given freely, you do not have to believe it or accept it if you think you know better.

[emanevs]

Originally Posted by emanevs

Disagree......

 

They cannot, because what rate of interest, what credit agreement would it relate to because essentially these is no credit agreement because it was put in BR..........

 

They also cannot enforce....... check the Bankruptcy Legislation..........

 

 

 

If you thought you knew the answer - there was no point in asking.

 

It's contractual - the contract existed before the bankruptcy and contains the information about the interest.

 

THE CONTRACT (CCA) ENDED IN BANKRUPTCY....... IT DOESNT SURVIVE BR........ IT SIMPLY CANNOT...

 

Information is given freely, you do not have to believe it or accept it if you think you know better.

 

EDIT....... Took me days to find this out... and the post was wrong....

Edited May 12, 2011 by caro

[bluedogx]

A secured debt does not discharge with bankruptcy unless it is no longer secured ie house sold for less than outstanding mortgage or house repossessed. If you still live in your house then you have to pay the mortgage plus contractual interest as lea states

 

B

[emanevs]

Who said anything about a secured debt being discharged with BR?.......

 

Back to my question....

 

What legislation allows secured creditors to just sit on their security...?

[bluedogx]

If something is included in a br - it discharges. A secured debt does not.

 

Where are you getting your info from that it does?

 

B

[emanevs]

The Insolvency Act 1986

[Lea_HTH]

Clearly you have no idea that various sections of that Act have been repealed!

 

If I had a rolling eye smiley, I'd use it - instead I'll just get on and offer assistance to those who actually need it. EDIT

Edited May 12, 2011 by caro
Removed unhelpful remark

[caro]

Please would posters be civil to each other. Advice is generally given in good faith and there is no need to be rude if you disagree with it. Please report abusive posts for site team to deal with.

[emanevs]

Ha,ha.... you must work for a mortgage company......

[bluedogx]

Maybe if you explained your circumstances in more detail you get advice which would help you understand what is happening with the mortgage.

[emanevs]

Hi,

 

Can anyone, point me in the right direction with this.

 

A company could not produce a copy of the loan agreement, but did in fact get a CCJ against me and subsequent charging order.

 

My solictor seems to think that there is case law whereby they can reconstruct a credit agreement, but I disagree.....

 

Surely they cannot do this?

Many thanks,

[rebel11]

Hi eman

 

The main Case Law is Carey v HSBC (2009) - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html , it's lengthy, but theres a summary at the bottom.

Also number 5 in my signature is worth a read.

[emanevs]

Many thanks,

 

so they cannot then...

[rebel11]

They can reconstruct them, but the infomation contained in the reconstructed agreements must be correct.

 

Many thanks,

 

so they cannot then...

[emanevs]

how can they without having the original and without my signature?

[rebel11]

Carey v HSBC was a case where claimants claimed their agreements were unenforceable because of various errors. Judge Waksman disagreed.

 

how can they without having the original and without my signature?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Also if there are statement of the account showing payments etc most judges will

accept that the debt is payable.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi,

Your solicitor needs to do his homework though, as Carey was the claimant and the case related to section 77-79 requests, which this case established could be satisfied by a reconstruction. So it shouldn't have had relevance in your case. imho. However it also made it clear that in a normal case where the creditor was the claimant, an original agreement should be produced.

The banks and dca's have jumped on this judgement, using smoke and mirrors to the extent that even non savvy solicitors and judges are convinced.

[toddle2u]

Have similar case to this and when tried to get CCJ set aside due to no agreement the Judge said it had already been enforced by way of CO so coud not set aside. Problem was the original claim was notdefended on basis of no agreement. Hope you have more luck than me with this one

[emanevs]

Hi,

 

Please can anyone help??

 

Can anyone show me where I can get a copy of the case below:

 

 

NationalWestminster Bank plc v Patel and another[ 2004] All ER (D) 429 (May)

[citizenB]

I have googled and can only find summaries.. I will ask others on the site team.

[citizenB]

http://www.bailii.org/

 

Have you tried the link above ?