Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2654 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't ask about selling the land Ganymede! I had the gall to suggest that and my posts were deleted overnight :-)

 

Yes but its the way you suggested it ...perhaps try a more diplomatic approach in future.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes I suppose I could sell the land to pay the charge order on my house. I assume that the water supply company and the county court judge must have known that I owned land. When they searched the land registry to see if I owned anything to slap a charge order on they would have found my house and my land as they are both on the land registry. Therefore I assume that the courts enforce charge orders deliberately to make house owners homeless despite there being an alternative when the house owner has other assets. I have learned that county court judges won't allow charge orders on house owners who have little equity in their house. I therefore conclude that the judges despise people who have worked hard for decades and bought their house outright. Being an outright house and land owner it's not surprising that I consider county court judges to be evil nasty people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court have nothing to do with what property is charged. They wouldn't know or care about your land, it's not the Courts concern and is the Claimant's choice but they probably didn't know about your land either unless you told them beforehand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that anyone has searched the land registry by name. I doubt anyone knows about this piece of land. Its actually very difficult to search the land registry to find out what property people own without a court order specifically authorising the search. Please refer to http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/can-i-search-against-a-persons-name-to-find-out-what-properties-they-own.

 

The judge will not have done any searches. The judge's job is just to decide the application. He would have had no idea you had other land. If you would have preferred them to get a CO over the land instead of your house, you could have offered this during the legal proceedings.

 

I doubt the water company know either. As the land is vacant, the water company would have no problem getting an order for sale if it knows where the land is !!.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you steampowered for your reply. Very interesting indeed. I therefore assume that my water supplier searched the land registry using my home address to see if I owned the property. When they discovered that I owned my house, they put the debt in my name even though the water account was in my wife's name, then applied to the court for a CCJ against me and then a charge order. I do wonder why the water supplier didn't obtain a CCJ against my wife because she was the only earner at the time. They could then apply for an attachment to earnings against my wife and recovered the debt by now. Instead they seem to be happy to wait years for their money. Very strange in my opinion. I did phone my water supply company and asked them why they took the action against me rather than against my wife. They said that they weren't prepared to discuss this any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you steampowered for your reply. Very interesting indeed. I therefore assume that my water supplier searched the land registry using my home address to see if I owned the property. When they discovered that I owned my house, they put the debt in my name even though the water account was in my wife's name, then applied to the court for a CCJ against me and then a charge order. I do wonder why the water supplier didn't obtain a CCJ against my wife because she was the only earner at the time. They could then apply for an attachment to earnings against my wife and recovered the debt by now. Instead they seem to be happy to wait years for their money. Very strange in my opinion. I did phone my water supply company and asked them why they took the action against me rather than against my wife. They said that they weren't prepared to discuss this any further.

 

Yes, it would have been easy for them to search the land registry if they knew your address. It is easy to do searches by address but not by name.

 

Yes that does sound strange that they got the CCJ against you rather than your wife. But I guess we are where we are. If you want to get rid of the charging order that is relatively simple to do once the debt has been paid.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's stranger you let them take you to court for a debt your wife owed?

I didn't know that the court had served a CCJ against my name for 8 months after it was served. My wife was obviously intercepting my post and hiding it to cover her dishonest conduct. I understand that if notice of a CCJ is posted to your house and you never see it due to a wife intercepting it you are still considered to know about it even if you don't. Bring back the days when the summons has to be signed by or actually handed to the person being summonsed to remove this huge hole in the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could prove the above it would be reason to set aside. However, if you DO owe the money then there wouldn't much point?

 

Well my wife was the only earner in my house during the period that this debt accumulated. But the water supplier decided to dump this debt on me. Surely the water supplier should have taken my wife to court as she was the only earner during that period. That's why I am of the opinion that County Court Judges consider people on no income to be punishable compared to their partners who have a full time job. The judge must have known that my wife was living here during this period and was fully employed. I also therefore conclude that the judge hates men who have worked for 30 years, bought their houses outright and fallen on hard times due to fault of their own. How come County Court Judges consider people on zero income to be more capable to pay debts than their wives who have a full time job? A full time job pays infinately more than zero income. When was zero income ever greater than a full time salary? Sadly the courts consider zero income to be more than a full time salary. I therefore consider court judges to be brain dead ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The county court judge would not have known that your wife is the earner. He won't have known anything about your family situation unless you specifically told him. Perhaps it is surprising to some people, but please be aware judges do not have access to any more personal information about you than a random member of the public. It doesn't really matter anyway - the courts are there to decide whether you owe money, not on your marital dispute or whether you have any income.

  • Haha 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The county court judge would not have known that your wife is the earner. He won't have known anything about your family situation unless you specifically told him. Perhaps it is surprising to some people, but please be aware judges do not have access to any more personal information about you than a random member of the public. It doesn't really matter anyway - the courts are there to decide whether you owe money, not on your marital dispute or whether you have any income.

 

The water company who took me to court knew that I was unemployed on no income and my wife was employed full time. I assume they didn't tell the judge in order to try to make a person homeless. Surely if the water supplier just wanted their money they would have applied for a CCJ against my wife and then applied for an attachment to earnings.

In this way they would have their money back by now. Instead they decided to apply for a CCJ and a charge order against me. That's why I conclude that the creditor and the courts want people living homeless rather than recover the debt by much easier and faster means.

 

Regarding the judge not taking into account income, about 15 years ago a friend of mine was taken to court for drink driving. He would have normally received a fine of around £800.

However, because he was unemployed he got a fine of only £80.

He would have owed the court and the police £800 but they let him off with a small fine due his low income.

This seems to imply that a county court case is far more serious than a magistrates court criminal case. I never received any reduction of my debt in the county court even though I had no income and had not committed any criminal offences. Perhaps the law should make utility debts criminal offences so you can then plead poverty and have them reduced on the basis of means testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I understand that the Government set the charge order threshold at £750 in order to reduce the number of people being made bankrupt.

 

Could anyone explain what the Government meant by this?

 

What happens if you owe a debt of £750 to a creditor and you own a house outright thats worth £250,000 and the creditor files for bankrupcy?

 

I assume you end up homeless with a bank balance of just under £250,000.

 

I have read that you can only be made bankrupt when your debts equal or exceed your assets.

 

Therefore how can there be a threshold of £750 without taking into account any assets?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charging Orders forced sale threshold is £1000.00. The new regulations came into force 6th April 2013.Statuary Demands are £750.00.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/491/made

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I

I assume you end up homeless with a bank balance of just under £250,000.

 

It would be significantly less than £250,000 as you would be liable for a large amount of costs (likely to be a four figure sum).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that the Government set the charge order threshold at £750 in order to reduce the number of people being made bankrupt. Could anyone explain what the Government meant by this?

 

What happens if you owe a debt of £750 to a creditor and you own a house outright thats worth £250,000 and the creditor files for bankrupcy?

I assume you end up homeless with a bank balance of just under £250,000.

 

I have read that you can only be made bankrupt when your debts equal or exceed your assets. Therefore how can there be a threshold of £750 without taking into account any assets?

 

Having read this again, it is a very strange post.

 

Before a BR petition can be started a Statutory Demand for the actual debt needs to be served.

 

The "debtor" would then have to apply to either get the demand set aside or make payment.

 

Someone can be "asset rich" and cash poor. At the time of the BR petition, it is my understanding that ALL creditors have to be advised. So, just because the original petitoner is only owed £750.01 other creditors might be owed far more (even if payments are being made).

 

Again, it is my understanding that if you CAN pay all your debts then you would not be made bankrupt ? So the charging order would be irrelevant ?

 

Or am I missing the point ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how a person can be made bankrupt with a debt of £750 if the he has assets of £250,000.

 

I have a charge order registered against my house for just under £2000.

 

Mr Cameron set the charge order threshold at £1000 in order to reduce bankrupcy.

 

I therefore don't understand what he meant.

 

Did he mean that he wanted charge orders placed on peoples houses to prevent them being made bankrupt

or was he trying to keep people in their houses to prevent eviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no threshold on Charging Orders...there is a threshold on Orders for forced sale from the charging order of £1000.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why it only confirms what I have been posting for 2 days:-

 

The threshold is for the court to grant an order for sale of a charging order, which can now be sought for debts of £1,000, as opposed to the higher threshold of £25,000 promised by the government in the Coalition Agreement in 2010.

 

 

And that also confirms the same as I have already stated?:roll:

 

No thanks ...Think this is a wind up thread .......unsubbed.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...