Charging Orders Petition - Sign it NOW!

[angel_1]

thanks for the info

 

still at 316 guys

 

cheers maz

[PossVox]

Hi,

 

My MP has written to me today to say that she has forwarded a copy of the letter I sent her to The Right Honourable Jack Straw M.P.

 

She will write to me again once she receives his reply.

 

PV

[B3rty]

I wrote to my MP Jeremy Brown and David Cameron

 

Recieved this reply from David Cameron

 

Your recent e-mail to David Cameron has been passed on to me in my capacity as Shadow Minister for Justice and Legal Services.

I am very grateful to you for contacting us in connection with the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: I led for the Opposition during the course of the Bill through the House of Commons.

Although we supported some aspects of the Bill, we were extremely critical of the Government on the whole area of debt collection and increased powers for bailiffs. Indeed, we had vote after vote in Committee and also on the floor of the House. Furthermore, out colleagues in the Lords also did their best to hold the Government to account.

Although we did secure some concessions for the Government, not least over their commitment to ensure that the private bailiff industry is properly regulated by the Security Industry Authority and although we did secure from the Minister handling the Bill (Vera Baird QC MP) to keep a number of the new procedures under review, the Government nevertheless ignored opposition parties and public opinion and forced much of the Bill through.

I especially share your concern about Charging Orders and the conduct of debt collection agencies, and in particular those ones that are based off-shore who use venture capital money to buy either zero or low rated debt.

We also warned at the time that if the UK economy started to move into recession, and if the housing market collapsed then so many of the new powers in the Bill could indeed be abused.

In conclusion, I can assure you that as an Opposition, we will certainly keep up the pressure , and we have also made it very clear that if we do win the next election we will put in place an immediate review of the Act, then if need be make the necessary legislative changes.

In the meantime, I have forwarded your concerns to the Minister with a request that she lets me have an update on the Government's thinking.

Finally, if you feel that a meeting would helpful, then please do not hesitate to let me know.

Kind regards,

Henry Bellingham

[JonCris]

I wrote to my MP Jeremy Brown and David Cameron

 

Recieved this reply from David Cameron

 

Your recent e-mail to David Cameron has been passed on to me in my capacity as Shadow Minister for Justice and Legal Services.

I am very grateful to you for contacting us in connection with the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007: I led for the Opposition during the course of the Bill through the House of Commons.

Although we supported some aspects of the Bill, we were extremely critical of the Government on the whole area of debt collection and increased powers for bailiffs. Indeed, we had vote after vote in Committee and also on the floor of the House. Furthermore, out colleagues in the Lords also did their best to hold the Government to account.

Although we did secure some concessions for the Government, not least over their commitment to ensure that the private bailiff industry is properly regulated by the Security Industry Authority and although we did secure from the Minister handling the Bill (Vera Baird QC MP) to keep a number of the new procedures under review, the Government nevertheless ignored opposition parties and public opinion and forced much of the Bill through.

I especially share your concern about Charging Orders and the conduct of debt collection agencies, and in particular those ones that are based off-shore who use venture capital money to buy either zero or low rated debt.

We also warned at the time that if the UK economy started to move into recession, and if the housing market collapsed then so many of the new powers in the Bill could indeed be abused.

In conclusion, I can assure you that as an Opposition, we will certainly keep up the pressure , and we have also made it very clear that if we do win the next election we will put in place an immediate review of the Act, then if need be make the necessary legislative changes.

In the meantime, I have forwarded your concerns to the Minister with a request that she lets me have an update on the Government's thinking.

Finally, if you feel that a meeting would helpful, then please do not hesitate to let me know.

Kind regards,

Henry Bellingham

 

I think you should go for a meeting to gauge the guys sincerity as when in opposition politicians tend to promise the earth but once in power they seem to forget all they have said

 

Also I for one would like to know if they are all singing from the same hymn sheet as if I'm convinced they are they would get my vote on this issue alone

 

PS you could arrange a tele conference & invite other interested parties to take part;)

Edited October 22, 2008 by JonCris

[angel_1]

320 at the moment

 

Oh what a brill move , yes a tele conference would be ace, so would it be an idea to go and see any of our local mps that are from the opposition party? and take them a copy of the letter from Henry Bellingham?

 

ive already seen my local mp who is labour and my letter sent also to jack straw, but i await responce from his office

 

so thanks B3rty and all, maybe its getting through - short of doing what our european counterparts do, what else can we do, ive said it before, we might have to take up refuge at no 10 because all our homes will be soon repossessed!

 

keep signing and keep up the letters and visits, its our only hope of getting this pressure up

 

ciao for now MAZ

[tosh1]

come on guys. 323

[angel_1]

moving along to 336

 

2 more days and then nada guys

 

this is like watching paint dry lol do we really believe the government that they are going to make sure repossession will be the last resort>>>>>>?>????????????

 

thats if there is any house worth still paying for after all the charging orders have been dumped on it!

 

have a fun day Ciao MAZ

[tosh1]

Come On. Its On 337

[MAGDA]

If a loan is unsecured, the risk the creditor takes (which is reflected in the interest rate charged) is known to them. If they are unprepared to take this risk, then they should perhaps offer secured loans only. Most debtors do endeavour to pay something on their outstanding debts and why, when you were offered an unsecured loan, should the creditor later be able to secure this against your property. I know of someone (quite elderly and in poor health) who had been making regular (quite substantial) repayments on a debt they defaulted on and still the creditor took them to court to obtain a charge. Fortunately, the creditor did not succeed, but they were extremely determined and of course, this was very distressing for the person who potentially risked losing their home. I do not think any unsecured debt should be recovered in this way and think it is completely unacceptable that creditors (DCA's in the main, though not always) should be able to do this. Magda

[Aequitas]

in particular those ones that are based off-shore

 

Tories expressing concern about off-shore companies!

 

Quantum mutatus ab illo

[JonCris]

Here you go Funky

 

From The Sunday Times

 

October 26, 2008

Banks exploit legal loophole to seize homes

 

 

Robert Watts

 

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } Banks and credit card companies are exploiting obscure legal powers to seize the homes of thousands of people who cannot pay their credit card bills.

In some cases, people owing as little as £1,000 have been served with charging orders – the legal instrument enabling a creditor to order the sale of a property.

The practice has emerged days after Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury, called on banks to do more to allow people to keep their homes.

According to the Ministry of Justice, 97,026 charging orders were granted by courts in England and Wales last year, a tenfold increase since 2000.

Related Links

 

 

 

• Northern Rock accused over rising repossessions
  

 

• How to avoid repossession
  

 

 

 

They allow financial institutions to order the sale of a property to pay off unsecured debts on credit cards, personal loans, store cards and car finance. Some will have been used only to threaten the debtor, or to levy a surcharge on the mortgage to recoup the debts.

Nationwide, the building society, and Northern Rock, which was nationalised earlier this year, are among the most aggressive in using the court orders.

Mark Sands, head of insolvency at KPMG, the accountancy firm, said: “The power of a charging order can come as a horrible shock to someone. When they took out the loan or the credit card, they were almost certainly not told that their home was at risk if they failed to keep up with repayments.”

The rate at which the courts have granted charging orders has increased sharply in the past two months, according to Citizens Advice, National Debt-line and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service. Last week a homeowner posted a message on a website saying a credit card company had launched a charging order against him for a debt of £1,000.

From next year banks will be given further arbitrary powers because they will no longer need to secure a county court judgment against a defaulting debtor. They will be able to move directly to seek a charging order after two or three months of missed payments.

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: “No one should be allowed to lose their home simply because of a credit card debt. More needs to be done by the government to ensure that lenders simply do not act overzealously, and only take possession of properties as a last resort. The fact that banks can now kick people out of their homes for not keeping up with their unsecured debts is very worrying.”

Alex McDermott, social policy officer at Citizens Advice, said the government had presided over a hidden scandal, because homes repossessed in this way did not appear in the official statistics issued by the Council for Mortgage Lenders.

The Consumer Credit Counselling Service said Northern Rock and Nationwide were particularly aggressive.

Northern Rock confirmed it used charging orders where customers had missed payments on unsecured loans, saying: “Any application for a charging order on an unsecured loan is in strict accordance with the Consumer Credit Act.”

Northern Rock and Nationwide declined to discuss how many homes they had forced to be sold.

[JonCris]

I strongly suspect that the lenders failure to warn unsecured borrowers that their home was still at risk may mean their actions are unlawful as it contravenes all the guidelines to which the lenders subscribe

[Aequitas]

It seems to me that the important statistics we need to know are:

 

1. How many applications are made for orders for possession and sale.

 

2. What percentage of such applications are successful.

[JonCris]

Tories expressing concern about off-shore companies!

 

Quantum mutatus ab illo

 

Quite & I must say that if there was any doubt then the recent publicity about Mendelssohn & Osborne shows they all swim in the same stagnant pool

 

Opposition! nonsense it's all just theater for the masses

 

We have a PM who's future claim to fame will be that apart from ruining the economy, he ennobled a crook & surrounded himself with a bunch of has been's

[Aequitas]

Poor Gordon! Just when he gets to be PM the world goes into recession. Not his fault, really it's not. The same is happening all over Europe whether governed by left, right or centre, prudent or spendthrift.

[JonCris]

course not it's nobodies fault ................other than the fairies at the bottom of the garden

[Aequitas]

It's not the fairies - it's the gnomes.

[JR1]

Just emailed David Camreron. I wish this was reported yesterday.

[banker_rhymes_with]

It's not the fairies - it's the gnomes.

 

...whatever they are, they are all banking delusions.

 

The global failure we are seeing at the moment is a failure of that huge fairy story called banking. It was always a deeply distrusted fairy story but, somehow, we didn't heed the advice from our Ancestors who knew there is no such thing as a good banker.

 

Now we are seeing the very real harm, on a global scale, what really out of control bankers can really do.

 

I fear we have not seen the worst of it yet either.

 

The question is, which bankers do you vote for at the next election? The Yellow bankers, the Red bankers or the Blue bankers. Apart from the pretty colours, they are all firm converts to the discredited Cult of banking.

 

For the first time, we can now clearly see what makes them all so very similar...it's because they are all bankers at heart!

 

I think we need some new politicians.

 

What we really don't need, or want, is any more bankers infesting the Corridors of Power.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[angel_1]

Well hello guys and thanks again Funky Fox for starting the petition it ended with 339 -

 

and we are now at the end of the petition but remember this was only a little battle we must now win the War

 

we cant just give up now - we must keep up the momentum to whoever we can and make some noice

 

however, im still very stunned by the friends and people ive spoken to about this charging order information that they dont believe its going to affect them, well it is already being tried and sometimes being won already in court

 

however, who really is the best party to deal with the problems facing our country? i guess the whole world is at the same global party

 

i dont think we have seen the worst yet neither, so its about doing what we all can

 

keep positive ciao for now MAZ

[mfpa]

I even complained to the ASA about a Lombard TV advert for an unsecured loan which said '...and don't worry, you loan won't be secured against your property..' and they dismissed my complaint. Ho Hum.

 

Could the ASA be legally liable for the consequences of their actions, in the event that such a loan was to subsequently become secured?

 

And could this advert be used as evidence that Lombard had misled the customer?

[FunkyFox]

Could the ASA be legally liable for the consequences of their actions, in the event that such a loan was to subsequently become secured?

 

And could this advert be used as evidence that Lombard had misled the customer?

 

I somehow doubt it very much. They dismissed my compliant entirely and very quickly.

 

My frustration in trying to get the authorities see sense huge, yet I lack the time or the energy to do anything more about it.

 

The advert in question appeared to me to be wholey misleading yet those that manage/police the advertisers did not agree.

[mfpa]

What you should remember is that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment.

 

A previously unsecured debt becomes a debt secured against the individual's home. From that individual's perspective, what are the consequences of that debt being a "money judgment" instead of a "loan"?

[mfpa]

Hi All!

 

I think the next thing to tackle here should be to challenge the interest rate charged in the event of the charging order being being granted.

At the end of the day,the lender has the security that the lender will be paid but should NOT be allowed to charge the same interest rate as that on the original unsecured debt.

 

What do you think folks?

 

I see two possibly equitable alternatives:-

 

* s69 interest of 8% simple from the date of the judgment (if included in the judgment)

 

* the interest rate adjusted to the rate of a secured loan, backdated to the start of the loan. After all, you paid the higher rate in return for the security (sic) of not having the debt secured against your home. You got the "peace of mind" until things went wrong but have ended up with the lower-priced, secured debt at the price of an unsecured debt.

[sequenci]

I see two possibly equitable alternatives:-

 

* s69 interest of 8% simple from the date of the judgment (if included in the judgment)

 

Statutory interest cannot be added to CCA regulated debts.

 

* the interest rate adjusted to the rate of a secured loan, backdated to the start of the loan. After all, you paid the higher rate in return for the security (sic) of not having the debt secured against your home. You got the "peace of mind" until things went wrong but have ended up with the lower-priced, secured debt at the price of an unsecured debt.

 

Since Charging Orders are the creatures of statute there are plenty of arguments to stop interest being added whatsoever.