Notice of intention to apply for order for sale

[eggboxy1]

As you seem to be the expert here go ahead

and advise as you see fit, if you can recall matters

over 40 years you have my admiration.

If I had the time or the inclination I could no

doubt show a large number of such instances.

Advising constantly to ignore correspondence is

DANGEROUS.

 

It's not a question of being an expert; it's a question of doing your research and seeing what the facts produce. You do, however, have the huge resources of the internet at your disposal to locate some examples to back up your assertions. But my assertion is you will not do so as I haven't been able to do so (but please let me know if you do!).

 

I am, also, giving my advice based on that research and from the personal experience of my ex-wife who obtained a CO. Like many other people on here; she feared the worst but when you begin to look into what happens when a creditor gains a CO for consumer debt it's not terribly difficult to see why, given the facts, why they don't proceed with an OFS.

 

If people are frightened to trust those facts then there is not much that can be done. But all I ask is people from your standpoint present some form of evidence to support your advice rather than just giving generic warnings without substance of how you might be right?

 

It's the facts that are important not whose right or wrong.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

So your experience is of ONE case???

I have no time to go back over details of many

years.

I could from archived paper records if you

wish to pay me £175- £250 per hour I will

happily do it for you.

[eggboxy1]

So your experience is of ONE case???

I have no time to go back over details of many

years.

I could from archived paper records if you

wish to pay me £175- £250 per hour I will

happily do it for you.

 

No, I said from my research plus my ex-wife's case (your beginning to see what you want rather than what's there so take a step back).

 

My ex-wife received her CO over two years ago and hasn't spoken to her creditor since; despite the initial threats. It was only when I felt the creditor may come back that I started to read other people's experiences on CAG and other similar help sites to see what might happen.

 

Without exception, I haven't found a single person on any site who ignored their creditor, after the CO stage, then have an OFS thrust upon them. Further research and helpful insights from people like Sequenci throw the reality of how likely it is for a creditor to gain an OFS. From what I can see, certainly for consumer debt, it's seems impossible and they know it (which is why they don't try.)

 

And until I have any example that what I have researched is wrong, I shall continue to give the same advice that helps people get on with their life rather than see them fretting from the unsupported type of advice you are trying to push forward.

 

You state you haven't got the time to research but I'm only looking for one example? How hard can that be if your advice stands up?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It's not a question of being an expert; it's a question of doing your research and seeing what the facts produce. You do, however, have the huge resources of the internet at your disposal to locate some examples to back up your assertions. But my assertion is you will not do so as I haven't been able to do so (but please let me know if you do!).

 

I am, also, giving my advice based on that research and from the personal experience of my ex-wife who obtained a CO. Like many other people on here; she feared the worst but when you begin to look into what happens when a creditor gains a CO for consumer debt it's not terribly difficult to see why, given the facts, why they don't proceed with an OFS.

 

If people are frightened to trust those facts then there is not much that can be done. But all I ask is people from your standpoint present some form of evidence to support your advice rather than just giving generic warnings without substance of how you might be right?

 

It's the facts that are important not whose right or wrong.

 

Rseading this again I can see you have little experiance other than

this one case, we give advice on professional knowledge in some cases,

experience in others and a combination of both, I for one see no

purpose in trotting out chapter and verse of every bit of advice I give.

I will not qoute bits of law and regulation etc., when all that is

needed is good, considered advice.

[eggboxy1]

Rseading this again I can see you have little experiance other than

this one case, we give advice on professional knowledge in some cases,

experience in others and a combination of both, I for one see no

purpose in trotting out chapter and verse of every bit of advice I give.

I will not qoute bits of law and regulation etc., when all that is

needed is good, considered advice.

 

In other words, you can't back up your advice with any facts.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

You are also seeing this from the limitations of

this and other forums there is a very , very large

world outside these and other forums your ''research''

is therefore in a very narrow prospective.

[eggboxy1]

You are also seeing this from the limitations of

this and other forums there is a very , very large

world outside these and other forums your ''research''

is therefore in a very narrow prospective.

 

Maybe so, but I rather doubt it from the huge amount of CCJ and CO cases covered on these sites as it would be too statistically fantastic for there not to be OFS cases mentioned if they were going on elsewhere.

 

And when people with your vast experience can't either, then you can pretty much firm up your belief as being positive given those facts.

 

But remember, Sequenci, a Debt Counsellor who deals with, in his words, thousands of cases every year and he states more or less the same regarding OFS being pursued.

 

You will be familiar with the saying that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions; but that's what I see happening in these cases where (if you search these boards) you will see the people who shut up shop after the CO is granted are the ones who move on with their life.

 

Those who continue to try and appease creditors seem stuck in an endless circle of negotiations. To me, given the facts I have stated on CO's, it's completely understandable as the creditor can only really go at those debtors who, for want of a better phrase, play the game.

 

Once they don't the problems stop, not start. That is what I have gained for dozens of cases I have read and corresponded with on here. It's all about making your decisions on the facts not the fear and, in my opinion, your type of advice (as well intentioned as it may be) puts unnecessary doubt and fear into people's minds.

 

My point is only, if you could point me to cases where my assertion has not been correct I would stop immediately recommending people to do this. But you, nor anyone else who has challenged this, has ever managed to do so.

 

That cannot be a coincidence.

[sequenci]

But remember, Sequenci, a Debt Counsellor who deals with, in his words, thousands of cases every year and he states more or less the same regarding OFS being pursued

 

For sure I do, but you've always got to be prepared just in case this is one of the few creditors that means business. If I have learned one thing it is to never underestimate what a creditor might do

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is no bounds in my opinion to what

methods DCAs/Creditors may do these days,

I have just been looking into a bankruptcy case

for £950.00 just £200 over the threshold the creditor

is determined to follow the SD right through.

[Conniff]

Yes, but if someone was applying for an order for sale I think I'd want to be there to defend it.

 

But this "someone" isn't going to go for an OFS.

 

And to keep pushing the "if" factor is misleading given the facts of both Sue's circumstances and the court statistics of how often, and more importantly under what circumstances, Creditors do decide to proceed for an OFS.

 

(My bold)

 

Will you make an absolute guarantee it won't happen by restitution if it does??

[eggboxy1]

There is no bounds in my opinion to what

methods DCAs/Creditors may do these days,

I have just been looking into a bankruptcy case

for £950.00 just £200 over the threshold the creditor

is determined to follow the SD right through.

 

I do understand Bankruptcy is pursued for such low amounts and, indeed, you would be able to site the above case if I advised on ignoring the creditor who was threatening bankruptcy. But the key difference to an OFS is that there is nothing to stop a determined creditor gaining a Bankruptcy order over it's debtor.

 

With an OFS there are huge barriers that prevent them from being obtained and there is also a wealth of information that Judges do not like granting them (and especially not for consumer debts.)

 

I would begin to understand your caution on this matter if there were a glut of failed Creditor attempts that pointed to creditors trying to gain OFS's. But, again, I can find no data to back this up? The logical conclusion for this reason is creditors know their chances of obtaining them are so slight they don't even bother to try (I do mean on consumer debts here.)

 

Therefore, and for this particular situation only where a creditor has gone the full hog and gained a CO, I believe giving advice to keep communicating with creditors who act in the manner like Sue's is detrimental as it allows the creditor to keep making demands.

 

The facts are borne out by numerous examples here on CAG that demonstrate that when creditors realise there tactics don't work they stop trying. The debt doesn't disappear but the aggravation does and it allows you breathing space to organise your situation more to your advantage.

 

For sure I do, but you've always got to be prepared just in case this is one of the few creditors that means business. If I have learned one thing it is to never underestimate what a creditor might do

 

That's true, but it's also crucial you mustn't overestimate what a creditor can do, either, or your life will be a misery.

 

The facts are the most important thing to base your decision on and in this situation the facts are crystal clear that 1) creditors don't pursue OFS for consumer debt and 2) there are no cases on CAG (and I can't find any else where either) where ignoring a creditor at this point results in an OFS being pursued.

 

This is not down to luck, this is down to judgement. The judgement of the creditors in knowing it's a waste of time trying.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I must disagree times and attitudes and processes

have changed partly in response to the global financial

crisis thus anything can happen, even the most stringengent

of enforcement procedures are more likely to be used, I

could not countenance advising anyone to ignore such

a letter, I believe that it would be proffesional incompetence.

[SunshineSue]

Now I don't know what to do for best.

 

The last thing I want to do is antagonise these people by coming across as a "smart Alec" and telling them what I will and will not do, but the reality is that I can only afford £20 a month, at the moment. I have done an I&E form for my own benefit, which is how I know this figure is a realistic one but I don't want to give them more ammunition, if I really don't have to, by handing it over to them. But will I make them even more determined to "win" if I don't?

 

Thanks again guys.

[eggboxy1]

I must disagree times and attitudes and processes

have changed partly in response to the global financial

crisis thus anything can happen

 

But this totally ignore the facts on Charging Orders as creditors actions are seen repeated again and again.

 

The creditor pursues the CO to secure their debt even when a debtor is communicating and offering payment. The main reason for this action, however, is because is secures their debt over the debtor's OTHER creditors. The time, effort and expense involved is worth it to them as CO's are virtually never refused and, most important of all, a CO takes priority over (and also isn't included in) bankruptcy proceedings.

 

This is why I agree with the advice to do everything you can to avoid a CCJ as this is the area when anything really can happen given the disparity of District Judges who hear these cases. This is because once the CCJ is obtained then a CO is most likely to follow when you own property. And I also agree with trying to stop a CO being granted (despite the overwhelming odds being against) as it is possible as we've read about on CAG.

 

even the most stringengent

of enforcement procedures are more likely to be used

 

I agree, but only up until the CO is granted. After that the overwhelming FACTS demonstrate that, for consumer debt, it's the end of the road for further, legal, enforcement by the creditor. It just doesn't happen and there are reasons, as I've already stated in this thread, for that being so.

 

I

could not countenance advising anyone to ignore such

a letter, I believe that it would be proffesional incompetence.

 

But how professional is it to give advice that totally ignores the facts?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is no point to this, 90% of the problems

I am called to sort out are directly caused by

this head in the sand attitude, ignore and it

will go away, IT WONT!!!

Having to apply for set asides on default judgements

is tedious and time wasting.

[eggboxy1]

Now I don't know what to do for best.

 

The last thing I want to do is antagonise these people by coming across as a "smart Alec" and telling them what I will and will not do, but the reality is that I can only afford £20 a month, at the moment. I have done an I&E form for my own benefit, which is how I know this figure is a realistic one but I don't want to give them more ammunition, if I really don't have to, by handing it over to them. But will I make them even more determined to "win" if I don't?

 

Thanks again guys.

 

Sue, I understand your dilemma and you have to do what YOU feel is best for your situation. But do ask yourself WHY they are being so persistent about this I&E and haven't already gone for the OFS?

 

And I don't mean this to sound harsh, but if a creditor is going to pursue any OFS it is only going to be against someone who definitely has the equity to pay (which is just good business sense.) The facts you have given on your personal financial situation doesn't reflect that would be the case with you so, also, ask yourself why they would come after you?

 

Creditors aren't, either, vindictive they are businesses; and if they could get an OFS we wouldn't be here discussing an I&E.

[eggboxy1]

There is no point to this, 90% of the problems

I am called to sort out are directly caused by

this head in the sand attitude, ignore and it

will go away, IT WONT!!!

Having to apply for set asides on default judgements

is tedious and time wasting.

 

There is no head in the sand here, it's merely making a stand to let the creditor know he's gone as far as he can.

 

Again, give me just ONE example where a person has taken this stand, for this type of debt, and the creditor has pursued an OFS. Sequenci could have put a stop to this by letting me know how many of the thousands of people he deals with have had this happen.

 

The reason he didn't is...........there aren't any.

 

A final note, to Sue, in case she isn't aware. As you are a joint owner of the property then the CO against you can only be registered as a Restriction as the Charging Order has been made against your "beneficial interest" in the property (or your share of the equity) and not the property or land itself.

 

This Restriction only has the power of ensuring the creditor with the CO is notified when you sell the property. You are under no legal obligation, however, to pay the creditor when you sell the property.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I have put a stop to this now, final response,

research thousand of records for yourself.

[SunshineSue]

Hoping I don't get caught in the cross-fire here

 

Eggboxy you mentioned the fact that my property is in joint names (mortgage) - I think you, or someone else had pointed this out earlier, and I do understand but, as I haven't informed "them" of this, would they be aware, or should I tell them?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If they have done the usual credit/security check

they should be well aware of the status of the

mortgage.

Brig.

[JunkiMunki]

"eggboxy1"Quotes ....

 

The facts are the most important thing to base your decision on and in this situation the facts are crystal clear that 1) creditors don't pursue OFS for consumer debt and 2) there are no cases on CAG (and I can't find any else where either) where ignoring a creditor at this point results in an OFS being pursued.

 

This is not down to luck, this is down to judgement. The judgement of the creditors in knowing it's a waste of time trying.

 

ONE HERE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT THEN YOU SHOULD READVISE AGAIN !!!!!! LEGAL ISSUES junkimunki http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?324884-bank-got-CCJ-CO-for-loan-never-got-any-papers-now-want-to-force-sale-of-house-help, even DJ despite being told have had no prior notification of any court hearings taken place therefore unable to exercise my right to a defence, never got the terms attached to the judgement order no prior notification of any of the court hearings until after FCO had been granted once again in my absence, stated that the DCA/ Solicitors supposedly having been assigned the debt back in 2008, luxembourg registered company, but acting solicitors are the same solicitors now acting for the supposedly new assignees of the debt requesting an OFS, no longer than a few months after the supposedly legal deed of assignment being signed, I have done loads of research and have evidence that all the DCA's and Solicitors named are actually all interelated with Marlin Financial Services at a shared property according to companies house records, but the DJ admitted that there may be a few errors within the paperwork produced by the DCA but quite blatantly refused to address these issues by changing the subject by asking myself and my OH who has been stated as the 2nd defendant by the claimants (although it was a solely owned debt and states the restriction is on the BI of myself in a jointly owned property), if we could borrow the money off relatives ( unfair collections) after stating that we could not borrow from anyone, and that I do not owe the amount stated, by the claimant (which was double the amount the Bank had stated was owing at the time of the judgement order (Automated Court) and addressing the issue that it was my beleif that a CCA 1974 regulated agreement could not have any interest applied after judgement date, this also was swept aside and not addressed, I stated that I have never had any legitimate documentation according to the relevant legislations within the CCA1974 for any of the different DCA,s purporting to be the owners of the allegd amount or debt but after all the above info the DJ, still ordered me to PAY £25, A WEEK out of health related benefits for 6 weeks whereby another hearing would be held to see if the claimant would accept that amount and suspend the OFS , ( The original agreement (In my possession) was regulated by the CCA 1974 and was made between myself and my bank at that time although it is a solely signed agreement by myself, and the ICO states the charge be registered by way of a restriction against the BI of myself in the jointly owned property, although land registry documents to date still give details of the O/C ******** Bank, and solicitors acting on their behalf are the persons with an interest, SO MUCH FOR THE BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM, thought by stating the obvious erronous aspects according to the CCA 1974 regulations, it would be the claimants having to prove that they had conformed with all the legislations in law and that they had written certifiable evidence to offer as their burden of proof to the onership of the debt and the amount owed, Contradictory to what and who was registered as the person with the interest at the land registry office to date.

 

Any ideas as to what I can offer re my actual rights to a defence for not paying as per the DJ ordered at the hearing which I feel, was erronous in law according to the CCA 1974, anyone else offer me some good quality advice urgently urgently.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Well put JM, I have been off line for a week

due to hacking probs, so wont jump in to advise

without reading it all through.

Brig.

[eggboxy1]

Hoping I don't get caught in the cross-fire here

 

Eggboxy you mentioned the fact that my property is in joint names (mortgage) - I think you, or someone else had pointed this out earlier, and I do understand but, as I haven't informed "them" of this, would they be aware, or should I tell them?

 

They will know as Brig states.

 

And don't be put off by JunkiMunki's experience as, unfortunately for her, it is so extreme! (So extreme, in fact I'd be tempted to call the Fraud Squad!) This DCA was, however, exposed by Despatches a while back here

 

http://www.debtwizard.com/news/consumer-issues/293-marlin-financial-services-dispatches-tv

[SunshineSue]

I just don't know what to do now. Part of me thinks "oh just do whatever you have to (them) and sell the bl**dy thing". The likelihood of us ever paying the mortgage off in our lifetime is highly, if not certainly, unlikely due to re-mortgaging it a few years ago. Bad business decisions led to that stupid decision but life goes on. Even if we wanted to sell it ourselves to free up what little equity there is, it would be pretty pointless as there is no way on earth we could afford to buy another property where we are now, or get a mortgage. I do wonder sometimes just what the benefit of owning a property is (apart from the kids inheriting it - split 4 ways!) - unless of course you do own it outright, or can see that happening in the long term. Unfortunately that just isn't going to happen for us, unless we win the pools - and we don't do those so.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I know how you feel Sue having only actually ''owned''

one property prior to being ''quartered'' then

renting I am quite relieved now not to be burdened

weith property friends and colleagues in ''Europe''

are all in rented properties and it works brilliantly.

Your last remark says it all a BL**dy miracle is needed.

 

Brig.