Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you all for your input so far. I have now received a letter back from my CPR 31.14 stating 'CPR 31.14 is not relevant to small claims matter, pursuant to cpr 27.2......we are under no obligation to disclose the documentation at this stage.' I assume this response is expected?   I have reworded my defence and made it more succinct, I'm not sure what else I could add?   1. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.   2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.   3. Signage at the site is not sufficient. A sign is present on the left hand side of the entrance, away from the driver, and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle. On closer inspection this sign states ’Refer to the full Terms & Conditions signs located throughout the car park’. Signs are located so that information is often obscured by other parked cars and is difficult to read. These signs state ‘Entry to or use of this privately operated and managed car park is subject to the current terms and conditions of vehicle control services ltd. Motorists/persons utilising this car park hereby accept in full the terms and conditions.’ Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the car park before knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.   4. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
    • On side note: I have notice that many people without the skills to argue their point, accuse others of being rude, racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I.E. Excuse me, i don't have a receipt for this refund, but i have my bank statement,  can i get a refund? -No, no receipt no refund - But your policy and the law says "proof of purchase" not "receipt " - You're rude/racist/homophobic, you must leave now or i call security.    I see this happening day in day out. Even kids do it, they're very quick at gaining a crowd's attention by shouting "racist/homophobic" so they can feel they've won the argument.  Sad.  
    • The advice is: make a complaint and get a refund. Then make another complaint about the inspectors attitude if you want, but changing the world is something that it's not going to happen, surely not for an excess fare. Inspectors are given discretion and unfortunately some of them take this as a sign of power over other people. It's impossible to sack all people who have a little position of power and employ more, hence the complaint system.  That's life and as .much as everyone of us want to improve it, it's an impossible task, so don't waste your time and brain on it. Just accept that there are things you can't change.  Get your refund, get your apology, then move on. That's my advice.
    • Hi.   I've removed part of the account number to keep this anonymous for you.   Have npower done what the ombudsman said?   HB
    • Read our customer service guide.   You've been here since 2012
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 976 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

I have a charge order placed on my house by Bristol & Wessex Water for £1800.

 

They recently sent me a letter stating that if I don't pay the full amount they will be taking legal action and apply for an order for sale.

I then will be sent an order to vacate my property within 28 days.

 

My house is owned outright with no mortgage and currently valued around £200K.

I am living on a small private pension with no chance of paying back the debt.

 

I went to the CAB who told me that I will end up homeless and living on the streets as there is no social housing available for single men.

 

The Water company placed a CCJ on my credit record so it's impossible for me to borrow money to pay back the debt and keep my house.

 

I could never understand why there were homeless people on the streets, but I do now. I will be joining them soon.

 

What an idiot I was buying a house.

If I had a council house I would have nothing to worry about and a safe roof over my head.

 

I know a chap near here who lives in a housing association bungalow.

 

He owes banks £73k and will not end up homeless.

 

Comments welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The logical thing to do is to sell the house, pay the debt and buy something smaller with what is left over.

 

But...it is very unlikely that a court will order sale of someone's home on the basis of owing such a small debt (relatively).

 

What you need to do is make an offer in writing to the company of a monthly or weekly sum to reduce the debt

and start paying it as soon as you offer it.

 

By the time they get you into court (months unless they have already started proceedings),

you will be able to show the judge that you have made regular payments since offering a fixed amount

 

(you'll need to do an income and expenditure form to show that the amount you are offering is as much as you can afford, not as little),

 

and that there was no need to take you to court as you were doing your best.

 

A reasonable judge will give them judgment for the outstanding amount,

 

but so long as you attend the hearing,

 

you can ask for your payments to continue as they are.

 

Once under a court order, if you don't miss a payment, the company can't ask for a charging order

 

and therefore won't be able to ask the court to allow them to get a sale order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coalition government were considering a threshold for charge orders to be set at £25,000.

They then decided to set it at £1000.

 

The government said that setting the threshold that low would reduce bankrupcy petitions.

 

I have looked into the laws on bankrupcy and discovered that a debt of only £750 can bring about a bankrupcy petition against a debtor.

 

However, in order to be made bankrupt your debts must be greater than your assets.

 

So if you have a charge order on your house for £1000 and you own your house outright

you will loose your house even though the debt is far smaller than your assets.

 

I therefore assume that the government brought in this low threshold for charge orders to deliberately make house owners with a very small debt homeless.

 

An outright home owner with a house worth £250,000 could find himself evicted due to charge order of only £1000.

 

I am of the impression that the government encourage people to buy houses so they can take them off them due to a very small debt.

 

Why the government want people who have paid thier mortgages off living on the streets due to small debt is beyond my understanding.

 

I assume that the government hate people who buy their houses, live on private income and never claim benefits despite paying into the tax system for decades.

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


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).

Share this post


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

 

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now tell me again that there is no threshold on charging orders

and prove your point before you post please.

 

 

I have posted and proved my point.

 

 

Please stop using opinions and use proven facts before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no threshold on charging orders ...there is a threshold on Order for Sale pertaining to the Charging Order of £1000 as per all your links provided.

Not an opinion just fact...you need to re read what you have posted.

 

So that means you can have a CCJ for £600 and they could secure it with a Charging Order but they cant get a Order for sale because its below £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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold up, bankruptcy and charging orders are two different things, this is where the confusion is arising.

 

A charging order is a method of enforcing a CCJ.

A charging order can be followed by an order for sale.

The order for sale used to have no lower threshold - a charge of any value could potentially force a sale.

Now the threshold is a £1,000.00 minimum charge.

Forcing the sale of a property doesn't mean you're bankrupt.

 

Bankruptcy is not a method of enforcement per say.

It's effectively a court order stating that you cannot pay your debts as they fall due and imposing consequences on you as a result of that

- one of which being forcing realisation of your assets to pay a dividend to all your creditors.

 

But to start a bankruptcy petition a creditor has to have a debt of at least £750.00.

This is the bankruptcy threshold.

 

And another thing is that the Court won't arbitrarily force a sale because a charge holder applies for an order.

 

There is a hearing where you can put forward arguments for your house not to be sold.

 

I'm not 100% sure but I imagine one of those arguments would be proportionality i.e. is is reasonable for a £250k house to be sold to pay a £2k debt,

and are there other ways the debt could be paid?

 

These are arguments the Judge would consider, along with the obvious family home/child welfare arguments, before ordering any sale

 

And finally as with anything, the Creditor has to weigh up the costs and whether it is worth incurring those.

 

Charging orders

- The court fee for the application is £100.00 and most creditors will have a solicitor doing it for them, who's costs are not necessarily added to the debt.

 

Many creditors, especially companies instructing solicitors, will instruct counsel to attend both the interim and final charging order hearings

- this costs money

- you're probably looking at around £750.00 costs straight off the bat.

 

Then if they want an order for sale,

again there will be application fees (£80.00 I think) with associated solicitors and counsel's fees which again aren't all recoverable.

Now you're probably running close to £1,500.00 and that's without any guarantee that a sale will actually be granted...

 

And the same with Bankruptcy while we're at it lol.

Court fee of £220.00 plus official receivers deposit of £750 i think

- then there's the cost of actually drafting the petition and advertising it, personally serving it.

That's about £1,200 straight away.

 

Then there's the cost of the hearing

- again a creditor will most likely instruct counsel so it's going into the realms of £1,800-£2,000...

and for what

- you've no guarantee of a recovery and any recovery you do make will be shared with other creditors.

No one is likely to do it for £1,000, let alone the lower threshold of £750.

 

However, in order to be made bankrupt your debts must be greater than your assets.

 

So if you have a charge order on your house for £1000 and you own your house outright

you will loose your house even though the debt is far smaller than your assets.

 

That first line isn't accurate.

 

Bankruptcy isn't about your assets it's about your ability to pay your debts. Having a £200k house is not the same as having £200k in the bank.

 

Having a charge on your house is completely different to bankruptcy. The creditor can apply to force a sale of your house but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be granted by a Judge. As I said above:

 

A) You have the opportunity to argue your reasons for the house not to be sold at the hearing

B) The creditor will have to weigh up the cost of applying for this order vs the likelihood of a sale being granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutley correct SV thank you for confirming...thought I was going mad:???:

 

I have merged all the posters previous threads on the same point...hopefully he will now understand the difference.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Haha 1

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That first line isn't accurate.

 

Bankruptcy isn't about your assets it's about your ability to pay your debts. Having a £200k house is not the same as having £200k in the bank.

 

Having a charge on your house is completely different to bankruptcy. The creditor can apply to force a sale of your house but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be granted by a Judge. As I said above:

 

A) You have the opportunity to argue your reasons for the house not to be sold at the hearing

B) The creditor will have to weigh up the cost of applying for this order vs the likelihood of a sale being granted.

 

Sorry but I have been misled regarding the definition of bankruptcy.

 

I found the definition in the second paragraph on this web page:

http://www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Bankruptcy/Whatisbankruptcy.aspx

 

I therefore assume that the stepchange definition of bankrupcy is incorrect.

 

This being the case I assume a person could be bankrupt and extremely rich simultaneously.

 

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

 

Yes but you must have a CCJ for £1000 before a creditor can apply for a charge order.

 

Therefore that sets the debt level for a charge order at £1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but I have been misled regarding the definition of bankrupcy.

I found the definition in the second paragraph on this web page: http://www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Bankruptcy/Whatisbankruptcy.aspx

 

I therefore assume that the stepchange definition of bankrupcy is incorrect.

This being the case I assume a person could be bankrupt and extremely rich simultaneously.

 

I think you're thinking of bankruptcy in the wrong way.

 

It's not a state of existence... You aren't just bankrupt based on an arbitrary set of conditions being satisfied.

 

Bankruptcy is a process as stated on that website you linked. It's up to the court to declare someone bankrupt following a petition, either by the person wanting to be declared bankrupt or one of their creditors.

 

If one can demonstrate an inability to pay their debts as they fall due the court can declare them bankrupt.

 

A person who is asset rich but cash poor is unlikely to be declared bankrupt as the sensible thing to do would be to dispose of some assets to create cash to pay the debts. Remember bankruptcy brings with it restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but you must have a CCJ for £1000 before a creditor can apply for a charge order.

Therefore that sets the debt level for a charge order at £1000.

 

Incorrect.... The £1000 threshold is for an Order to Force Sale to execute the Charging Order...if the Charging Order is securing a debt of less than 1K then the judgement creditor cannot Force sale your property.


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're thinking of bankruptcy in the wrong way.

 

It's not a state of existence... You aren't just bankrupt based on an arbitrary set of conditions being satisfied.

 

Bankruptcy is a process as stated on that website you linked. It's up to the court to declare someone bankrupt following a petition, either by the person wanting to be declared bankrupt or one of their creditors.

 

If one can demonstrate an inability to pay their debts as they fall due the court can declare them bankrupt.

 

A person who is asset rich but cash poor is unlikely to be declared bankrupt as the sensible thing to do would be to dispose of some assets to create cash to pay the debts. Remember bankruptcy brings with it restrictions.

 

I know a woman who lives fairly near here who has been made bankrupt.

 

She told me that she can only borrow money up to £500 due to her bankrupcy status.

 

I have been told that due to my CCJ and a charge order on my house that I can't borrow any money at all.

I can't even use the equity in my house to secure a loan.

 

I therefore assume that I would be better off bankrupt and therefore loan worthy.

 

I also therefore assume that due to the charge order that the equity in my house is worth nothing.

Thirty years work all down the drain. So a £1000 debt that ends up with a charge order makes your house worth nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will probably depend on what lenders you and your friend are talking to. There are some which specialise in lending to bankrupts/people with poor credit whereas the vast majority won't. Having a CCJ and a charge doesn't stop you from getting credit per se but the lending criteria will be much stricter as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a woman who lives fairly near here who has been made bankrupt. She told me that she can only borrow money up to £500 due to her bankrupcy status.

I have been told that due to my CCJ and a charge order on my house that I can't borrow any money at all. I can't even use the equity in my house to secure a loan.I therefore assume that I would be better off bankrupt and therefore loan worthy. I also therefore assume that due to the charge order that the equity in my house is worth nothing.

Thirty years work all down the drain. So a £1000 debt that ends up with a charge order makes your house worth nothing.

 

Woah Woah think about what you're saying. Better off bankrupt??

That will force the sale of your house and there will be little you could do to fight it.

Plus if you owe anyone else money they can get a share of those proceeds too.

 

And as you pointed out there are restrictions that come with bankruptcy.

These stay with you for at least a year and its a criminal offence to break these restrictions.

Bankruptcy in my view is very much a last resort option.

 

The whole point is that your house isn't worth nothing, that's why there's a charge on it.

 

It's the CCJ that's preventing you from borrowing money more than the charge.

 

You're house is still worth £200k or whatever, it's that any sale of the house must pay the charge from its proceeds.

 

Most creditors just wait till a house is sold.

But you can fight an order for sale if the company decides to go down that route.

I don't think it would be cost effective for them given the amount of the charge,

but like I said its not an arbitrary thing that a sale will happen

- a Judge will look at all the circumstances in the case.

 

Can you not make any instalment payments to reduce the debt? Even if it's as little as £5 or £10 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a woman who lives fairly near here who has been made bankrupt. She told me that she can only borrow money up to £500 due to her bankrupcy status.

I have been told that due to my CCJ and a charge order on my house that I can't borrow any money at all. I can't even use the equity in my house to secure a loan.I therefore assume that I would be better off bankrupt and therefore loan worthy. I also therefore assume that due to the charge order that the equity in my house is worth nothing.

Thirty years work all down the drain. So a £1000 debt that ends up with a charge order makes your house worth nothing.

 

I'm sorry but that is all nonsense.

If you have a small CO of a couple of grand but £200k equity then you can still release that equity in the normal way. You'll just need to pay off the CO.

 

The only reason a CCJ stops you borrowing is because of the higher risk

but you will be able to find loans with a crazy high interest rate if you want.

There is NO legal restriction on borrowing with a CCJ unlike bankruptcy,

you just need to find someone stupid enough to lend to you.

 

Also just to correct something else,

 

you are able to get a CO for less than a grand but it cannot be enforced by way of OFS unless it is over a grand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but I have been misled regarding the definition of bankrupcy.

I found the definition in the second paragraph on this web page: http://www.stepchange.org/Debtinformationandadvice/Debtsolutions/Bankruptcy/Whatisbankruptcy.aspx

 

I therefore assume that the stepchange definition of bankrupcy is incorrect.

This being the case I assume a person could be bankrupt and extremely rich simultaneously.

 

It's only part of the story, and rather than consider a definition of 'bankruptcy' it's better to consider the point at which someone might be 'insolvent. There are two points to consider:

 

- They are unable to pay their debts and liabilities as they fall due; and

- The value of their assets is lower than the value of their liabilities.

 

Now, it's important to bear in mind that someone can be regarded as insolvent even if the amount of equity they have in their property is more than their debt level. As such I absolutely agree with your assumption.

 

What I've written is likely to appear a little convoluted, and it is. The problem is, is that there are different tests as to when someone is regarded as 'insolvent' depending on where you look within the Insolvency Act. Those two points I mentioned are used when someone is being investigated into whether or not they have arranged any transactions at undervalue whereas when someone is simply looking to petition for their bankruptcy the key test is whether or not they can pay their debts on time, or not.

 

Hope this helps.

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...