Only a fool would take out a credit card on those terms, all i am saying is that lenders should be obliged to make potential customers aware that they could lose their home, and that their so called 'unsecured loans' are not actually unsecured.

Lots of people who don't own a home get credit cards, thats the point, the use of the term 'unsecured credit' is misleading. If you enter into a credit agreement and your led to believe by the provider or their agents that the credit being offered is unsecured as opposed to secured. If you then sign the agreement in the belief that your home is not at risk when in fact it is at risk you are being misled. Why don't lenders outline the steps they will take to recover their money in the event of their customers defaulting, this should include whether they would pursue a charging order or a forced sale of the customers property, home owners should also be given the option of lower interest rates if they agree to a charging order on their property in the event of default this in effect would make their credit card agreement a secured agreement, if they decide not to make their property security, then their interest rates and conditions should be the same as non home owners who apply for credit cards. With in this information in cluded in the terms and conditions of the agreement a prospective customer can make an informed decision as to whether they want to sign.

I agree with you 100 per cent, how can lenders get away with marketing one type of loan as secured and another as 'unsecured' when in fact in the event of default you can end up losing you home with both types of loans, When i took out my mortgage i knew that if i defaulted i could lose my home, i accepted those terms. However when i took out a credit card i took a calculated risk, i believed that the terms and conditions of the loan meant that in the unlikely event of my default there would be penalties applied such as ccjs adverse credit ratings ect. but because i had been led to believe that the loan was 'unsecured' my home would not be at risk it was on this basis that i accepted the card providers offer of credit, had i been aware that my home could taken for defaulting on the credit card i would not have signed the agreement. It isn't about people trying to get out of paying their debts, it is about lenders being transparent, how many people who have credit cards to day would have taken them out if they known their property would be at risk.

It has got nothing to do with being stubborn, how can lenders market credit cards loans ect. as unsecured to justify charging interest rates as high as 30 per cent to reflect the 'risk' they are taking and then when some one gets into financial difficulties they turn the screw by converting an unsecured loan into a secured one.

What do you mean by 'whether it said so or not' if that is the case what is the point of having terms and conditions or even a signed agreement, if a lender says that the loan is 'unsecuered then that is what it should be, as i have stated before i would not take out any loan which i beleived would put my property at risk

I have taken out unsecured credit card loans which have a higher rate of interest than secured loans i am willing to pay more in interest because i don't want to risk my property , i would not have considered taking out these loans if i thought for one moment my property would be at risk, so are you saying that i have been misled in to taking out what is in reality a secured loan rather than an unsecured loan. If at the outset when you are taking out these loans you are told that these loans are unsecured and you proceed on the basis that your property will never be at risk, how can a judge or anyone else put a charge on your property when you have never agreed to your property being used as security in the event of default. What does the OFT have to say about this,it is nothing more than an act of deception to mislead borrowers in this way.

Does the copy have to be the original signed one.

If a DCA can't produce your original signed credit agreement does it mean that they cannot take you to court.

If a creditor, in this case a credit card company threaten to Bankrupt you what benefit is it to them. If you own a property i have read that they can't put a charge on it as that becomes the job of the courts to decide and not the creditor. regards vinty

Do creditors have to obtain CCJS before they can petition for BR. Thanks vinty

Thanks Scott.

I had a capitol 1 account for about 10 or more years, i have since closed that account the closing balance was about £4,000 which i paid in full that was about last july 2009. I have read that ppi which i paid on the account was illegal, also late payment charges and interest rate hikes with out a new agreement were also illegal. What i would like to know is can i get CAP1 to go back 10 years so that i can claim back any unfair or excessive charges which may have been levied. Thanks Vinty.

I Have Read That If The Credit Card Company Raise Your Credit Limit Or The Interest Rate On Your Account They Must Get You To Sign A New Agreement Is This True.

Thanks for the replies. I had an mbna account up until 2005, i would like to know is it still possible to claim back my ppi and £35 penalty charges regards vinty.

Can i claim help with my mortgage payments if i am self employed and recieving a working tax credit?my taxable income for last year was assessed as zero by the taxman, my wife and i receive a tax credit of £85 per week apart from that after my expenses i don't earn very much.