Anyone with half a brain would see my posts are directed to the unfairness of creditors being able gain security (in whatever form) for a debt that was able to be charged high interest rates through being UNSECURED. Hence, if I can't pay my mortgage I would expect the bank to take me to court to recover their money and if I lost my house not long after I can have no problem with that as that is what was agreed. Utter nonsense! The rates applied to unsecured loans reflect the risk of no security and those are still being offered in the 10-15% bracket despite all the huge defaults caused by the recession. As I have said before, if companies pursuing a CO on an unsecured debt were made to revise the interest rate to reflect a rate that would have been been charged on a secured loan we might see a different attitude and acceptance to them. In a lot of cases the debt being "secured" is made up of huge amounts of compound interest created by creditors having raised the rate to 30%+. How, can anyone justify this as fair?

A bit more valid, surely!

I understand the difference but not sure I understand the point you are making?? Sequenci I have to bow to your greater experience on the stats (and I'll certainly give them a look) but I still see denying creditors as the only way to make effective changes in this unfair system.

I partly agree (I can't reconcile security for a debt charging unsecured rates) but creditors are not giving the full facts to debtors in allaying their fears regarding an OFS. Instead they play on it as witnessed by the panic seen on these boards by peope who think they are going to be out on the street for a credit card debt. I do understand where you are coming from, Sequenci, but if people lie down in fear of something worse happening then nothing gets changed.

Where is the evidence to support this, though? The evidence against it is that Bankruptcy throws all creditor debts together so the pot is divided. Which creditor is then going to risk the, not unsubstantial, costs of pursuing bankruptcy on the hope they may get "something" back? Very few I would wager, and the fact is that very few creditors (in relation to debts owed) go after CO's as it is, so there isn't going to be a stampede of them. Charging Orders have their place, I would accept, for certain types of debt; but creditors going afer CO's for variable rate, unsecured debts are, in my opinion, chancers and every effort to diminish the unfair advantage they currently have needs to be made to bring a change to this unfairness.

Hopefully, it will force them to look at more reasonable alternatives and end the practice of putting people under the intolerable strain of believing they are about to be made homeless. As Sequenci and Ganymede have pointed out, OFS are extremely difficult to obtain but creditors don't want you to be aware of this as it makes their job in extracting money much harder. Precisely why the information you first posted needs to be provided to everyone in this position to level the playing field.

The article you refer to is well spread around this forum and many others (such as "Charging Order The Myth" on MSE). But your assertion that more OFS would be applied for is, perhaps, ignorant of the facts of why more creditors don't go after OFS's already? When you research that you might just refrain from trying to scare people off exercising their legal right and we can continue to put pressure on creditors giving up on this particular CO attempt and being more reasonable about accepting more reasonable repayments from people whose finances have been decimated by the recession.

I would have thought anyone reading my posts knew what my point was? But just so you're not confused;it's simply to further inform people that are in the position of having had a Restriction placed on their property, for unsecured debt, that they have a legal option not to pay the attached CO when they sell up. It is difficult, though, not to come to the conclusion that you have agenda given your dismissive posts on this subject but, if you don't have one and you are as "detached" and as disinterested as you say, then why would you have a problem with someone promoting this information?

Obviously not if your assertion regarding clued up conveyancers is correct, but it is an example to show other people interested that it can be done and legitimately (but thank you for confirming it can and is being done) I agree that is how things work at present but, as we have heard from people dealing with conveyancers when selling a house with a Restriction, it's largely through ignorance of the facts and a beligerance to maintain the status quo. Maybe you would do the honours here as you seem to be aware of those conveyancers who are doing it (no I thought not!) Restrictions (in the Form K as these are) don't need to be paid off which is the whole point; they only hold power of notification. Any Charging Order attached to this type of Restriction was only made on an Interest which may or may not exist. As the CO only secured the Judgement, and not the debt itself, there is no legal obligation to anyone selling a house to pay off this type debt with the proceeds of their house sale. The Law is for everyone, remember.

The "effect" is reference to what has been happening but what legally doesn't have to happen (although some members of this forum are desperate to rail against this fact ) See posts #582 & #585 here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1839539&page=30 to see that "effect" has began to change.

No problem but the panic is what they want to try and extract a higher payment often above what you can afford. You must understand, though, that once you have made your offer you must ignore any further contact with them. If you don't they will continue to hurl threats at you as they know they have you on the hook.

They can't take it any further which is why they are trying to scare you with an OFS tactic (have a search of CAG and you won't find anyone who has had to sell their house because of an OFS on consumer debt) If you are willing to pay just pay what you can only definitily afford (and not a penny more) then just ignore them and they will stop contacting you once they realised they have been rumbled.

If the debt is for a credit card then an OFS wouldn't be obtainable by the creditor if you have children at home as their rights far outway any creditor chasing consumer debt on jointly owned property. Whilst they "technically" can apply for an OFS, having received a CO, they never would because they know they would never succeed. It's a scare tactic and my response would be to halve your offer to £10.00 and inform them you will contact them when your situation improves. They have gone as far as they can regarding scare tactics so please don't fall for outfits like this!

jj7452 Can you just confirm what the debt is for (ie is it for a credit card or loan) and can you confirm he has definitily received a CCJ and you were notified of a Charging Order being sought by a Court?

I think the Hillary response to questions that; "All our fitters receive 8 full days of training, which is undertaken at our purpose built Training Academy at head Office. This training is a mixture of theoretical knowledge as well as hands on, practical experience." confirms the lottery I stated as, if a rep being trained has been in the construction industry, you will be lucky. However, if a rep being trained has never picked up a power drill in their own home let alone being set free after 8 days to use it in somebody's else's home; it's hardly surprising they get so many fitting complaints. The worst thing I see after going to a house that's used Hillarys before is the corner cutting that goes on as the rep is up against the clock all the time. This takes the form of fitting to a window frame instead of properly drilling into the lintel or, when they have drilled into the lintel they have hit a catnic (steel) lintel. Instead of drilling into it properly and securing the fixing bracket with a self tapping screw (which can be time consuming occasionaly as these lintels vary in structure), they use a cut down rawl plug and small screw to fix in the small depth of plaster underneath the lintel. The pricing is a lottery too as I can quote against Hillarys and only be 10% cheaper then, when I go to a similar job close by, I'll be nearly 50% cheaper than they have quoted.

As someone who has been in the window blind business for over 25 years I would like to add my opinion that dealing with Hillary's is a lottery at best. This is largely due to the fact that you are dealing, in many cases, with some of the reps who are not trained up enough to do the job of fitting the blinds correctly (they use self employed reps who are expected to sell and fit the products.) I also can't remember, genuinelly, a week going by in those 25 years where a customer hasn't relayed information of dealing with an "arrogant" or "rude" Hillary rep. As a commision only based job, there is a lot of pressure to cover the huge amount of leads Hillary generates and, so I understand from people I know in the business who have worked for them, it's a relentless situation that puts a lot of pressure on the rep which causes a fair amount of rep turnover. The quality of many of their products Hillarys offers has also dropped below what many other companies such as Louvolite and Eclipse (mainly blind manufacturers for other sellers) produce for sale. Particularly the Vertical Blind and Roller blinds which, in my opinion, just about exceed DIY quality now. This I have assumed is because they were bought out in 2007 for around £300million and the onset of the recession must have put some pressure on their profit margins. Whatever the reason, the recent Watchdog program on them was long overdue as you will comprehend if you do an internet search of "Hillary Complaints". Apparently, their customer service leaves a lot to be desired also!

Not regarding why a sale can't "legally" proceed you haven't. Certainly, Solicitors and Mortage company's will pose obstacles but largely out of ignorance of the facts. As in the case I cited on MSE, when pressed the two Solicitors who "wouldn't budge" had to back down when confronted by the legal requirements of the Restriction. The point regarding Mortgage company's requiring clear title is very valid, but there is no equitable charge to clear in these cases so asking for one to be discharged is a bit silly.

Please feel free to enlighten the forum as to what those requirements for consideration are?

Exactly why it's here (and I hope your mind is at rest now regarding no CO having to be discharged on a sale where only a Restriction is in place:wink:) BF TOLATA = Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act

It's actually quite an interesting read for anyone affected by a CO particularly the following section; 3.1 Compliance with a judgment order would continue to be the responsibility of judgment debtors. As long as the judgment debtor meets the conditions of a judgment order or instalment payments agreed and continues to engage with the creditor if difficulties or changes in circumstances occur, the need for the creditor to seek an order for sale is obviated. Should the judgment debtor default, the creditor may apply to the court for an order for sale (but as case law & TOLATA protects jointly owned, primary residences and those with dependents resident, this is only likely in cases concerning single owned properties, stocks, unit trusts or funds in court or secondary properties or land where the creditor can be assured of sufficient equity to cover the costs of the sale).

I think this is where the confusion is arising as some people are finding it difficult to grasp that there is no Charge to discharge (in these instances) when the property is being sold. The Charging Order the creditor has (where a Form K Restriction is registered) is made against any potential money (beneficial interest) the debtor has in the property. The CO, because the property is jointly owned, was not now allowed to be registered against the property as an Equitable Charge (as it would be if the property was solely owned by the debtor) and therefore confers no guarantee or right of payment if a sale is made. So just why Solicitors are taking it into there own hands to pay off a Charging Order attached to a Restriction, which they legally aren't obliged to, is what needs to be tested as they, in my opinion, are not acting in the best interests of their clients by doing so. Lenders, too, need to be educated on the difference between a Form K Restriction and an Equitable Charge that legally needs to be removed prior to a sale being completed. I'm not saying it will be easy, but the more people stand up for their legal right not to pay the more the norm it will become.

1. You don't need a desperate buyer just one who is explained a very simple form. 2. You don't need a willing Solicitor, either, you just need to remind him/her of their duties (as was done in the case I cited) and that you are paying him/her for their service to protect your interests on the sale. 3. You also don't, amusingly, need anyone "in the know" at the Land Registry as a Solicitors explanation, from the LR (regarding a Form K Restriction's automatic removal as being over reached after a sale is made for value to a third party) is available for everyone's consumption on this and many other forums. As for a seller challenging their Conveyancer on this point, do me a favour! Would any seller in the knowledge of the above facts really be afraid to lose themselves thousands of pounds over telling a jumped up Solicitor the law? I think not and for whatever reason you feel the need to keep repeating the "party line" rhetoric on maintaining the status quo; the fact is people need to know their legal right of non payment on this matter. Especially, in light of the fact that it is currently legal for creditors to go after "security" on their debts after having charged customers high rates of interest for lending that was classed as "unsecured". Maybe if those creditors were prepared to, retrospectively, adjust the debt owed to reflect a rate of interest that would have applied to a "secured" loan then people might feel differently about them going after a CO.

The difference is you're trying to maintain that 99% figure by falsely claiming that "in reality, nobody will buy a house without an undertaking from the seller's solicitor to discharge all existing charges as a condition of the purchase" ; whereas, I'm trying to reduce the 99% figure by explaining to people that there is no legal obligation to pay a creditor who only has a Restriction (Form K) and they have options when they do sell. Sellers need to understand that where a Form K Restriction is in place, there is no Charging Order to be cleared from their property as one hasn't been registered against it. The Charging Order, in these instances, was only made against any Beneficial Interest the debtor may have in the property. All that creditor has legally been granted, under Form K, is a right to be notified of the sale being made by the new purchaser (or their conveyancer) and that's it! The 99% figure is in place because, when challenged, it's being consistently proven that many Solicitors are unaware of the power a Form K Restriction has. Many, as I have said, are treating the Restrictions like an Equitable Charge and are paying them off, in my opinion, against the best interests of the clients who are paying them to protect those interests. The particular interesting thing in the case I cited, was that the buyer was desperate to make the purchase and it was only when he pushed his Solicitor on the information gained from the LR (that when a purchase is made to a third party for value that the Restriction will then be automatically cancelled) that the Solicitor had to back down and proceed with the sale as his client wished.

Not true as we have just proved on MSE by helping a lady sell her house (with a Restriction) after her buyers Solicitor "refused to budge" without the undertaking you talk of. Her property is now sold and whilst, in this instance, the creditor did obtain some money from the debtor the the point was made that a Form K restriction only has power of notification and the Solicitor had to accept to the buyers request to proceed with the sale on understanding the Restriction would fall away after the sale was made. So the "reality" of what can be done, legally, needs to be understood by sellers with a Restriction to allow them the choice they have.