Order for Sale v Bankrupcy? mbna

[merlin100]

Hi all,

need an answer to this if you dont mind. Cant find anything anywhere on the net.

 

After having a CO on my home for the last 7 years,

I now get a letter from Wright Hassall solicitors threatening to serve me first with a Statutory Demand

followed by a petition to obtain a Bankrupcy Order.

 

I would have thought that somewhere down the line I may have been fighting an Order for Sale, rather than Bankrupcy.

 

So is there a reason in the solicitors favour for going down this route or is this standard?

 

Then then list charges for which I will be liable -

 

Statutory Demand £60

Petition £540

Bankrupcy Court Fee £220

Bankrupcy Petition Deposit £700

Bankrupcy Searches £52

Process Server £84

Application for Substituted Service £35

Agents Fee for Attending Hearing £90

 

They then go on to reassure me they are sympathetic to my situation and aim to negotiate a mutually agreeable repayment plan based on my current financial situation.

Well at the moment I have no income whatsoever. I lost my job last year, cannot get any benefits ( due to my wife working) so Im a bit stuck at the moment.

 

The letter also states that should they not hear from me within the next 14 days the Statutory Demand MAY be issued without further notice.

 

So what do you think? Possible bluff or serious?

[sequenci]

Are they trying to serve a statutory demand on a debt which is already secured by a charging order? If so you can easily set aside the demand on the ground that the debt would already be secured to the satisfaction of the court. Secured debts don't even 'prove' within bankruptcy. You can challenge ALL of the above fees.

[dx100uk]

thatts quite a usual threat from them.

 

they send them out all the time

 

whats the debt all about please.

 

dx

[merlin100]

Hi sequenci, and thanks for replying.

Yes, the debt is a CO which has been on my home for around 7 years.

Could you explain more as to the reason the SD can be easily challenged? I did wonder why a SD was necessary in respect of a debt already secured by a CO, but then did wonder if there was something I didnt know.

 

And can you explain your last line, I dont know what that means. Im mainly wondering why they would bother with bankrupcy rather than an Order for Sale.

It must be for reasons advantageous for them, just trying to work out what that might be.

Thanks.

[merlin100]

Hi dx, it was originally an MBNA credit card taken over by Cabot.

The letter begins like this -

 

Cabot Financial (UK) LTD v merlin100

Our ref - xxxxxx

Outstanding balance £355x.xx

Original Vendor MBNA

[dx100uk]

CRA file - is it showing?

when was YOUR last payment?

 

 

I cant be bothered to even try and sort out your 80+ threads to work out if you've

already got one running on the debt..

 

dx

[sequenci]

Hi sequenci, and thanks for replying.

Yes, the debt is a CO which has been on my home for around 7 years.

Could you explain more as to the reason the SD can be easily challenged? I did wonder why a SD was necessary in respect of a debt already secured by a CO, but then did wonder if there was something I didnt know.

 

And can you explain your last line, I dont know what that means. Im mainly wondering why they would bother with bankrupcy rather than an Order for Sale.

It must be for reasons advantageous for them, just trying to work out what that might be.

Thanks.

 

They are trying to bankrupt you over a secure debt.

secured debts do NOT get included in bankruptcy.

 

I'm guessing that they are idiots who don't realise there is a charging order

(this could be useful for you - as you already know they could simply go for an order for sale).

 

Most SDs are sent simply as a scare tactic, by the way.

 

We will be able to help regardless of the action they decide to bring.

[merlin100]

Hi sequenci, yes I bet you are right there.

 

Theres no mention of a CO within the letter.

 

So let me get this right - a CO cannot be subject to a bankrupcy petition yes?

 

If thats correct,

my best bet would then be to ignore them for now.

 

I dont particularly want to open a can of worms by inadvertently giving them information

they dont seem to be clever enough to discover themselves,

just for them to possibly use it against me.

 

Ill have a further look into any Laws/rules/regulations that exclude a CO from bankrupcy ,

just so Im armed to the teeth if/when they come after me.

 

Just a thought

- wouldnt it be a shame if they paid all those upfront costs into the court

under the assumption that they will be getting it back off me

- only for me to play this trump card.

 

That would be nice

[merlin100]

CRA file - is it showing?

when was YOUR last payment?

 

 

I cant be bothered to even try and sort out your 80+ threads to work out if you've

already got one running on the debt..

 

dx

 

Hi dx, no I havent got a thread running about this.

 

Ive asked a few general questions about COs in the past

but it seems to be a very grey area with not many people clued up about them (me too).

Time I got clued up.

[jumaji]

It is possible for a Creditor to release their security and proceed with a Statutory Demand and a subsequent Petition.

[merlin100]

It is possible for a Creditor to release their security and proceed with a Statutory Demand and a subsequent Petition.

 

Hi jumaji and thanks for looking in.

Interesting bit of info there, but I would assume that they would have to first go back to court to overturn the original ruling (CO), and that I would be informed of this before the event?

[merlin100]

Hi all,

Ive checked into the original CCJs I got about 7 years ago.

 

One is for £8.5k, and

the other is for £2.5k.

 

This thread concerns an amount for £3.5k.

 

Those CCJS became COs very quickly ( before I found CAG),

so maybe this is a very old debt being chanced at

(in which case its Stat Barred) so nothing to worry about there,

 

Or maybe its the £2.5k debt thats accrued interest over the past seven years.

 

Got some more digging to do but Ill let you know.

[jumaji]

Hi jumaji and thanks for looking in.

Interesting bit of info there, but I would assume that they would have to first go back to court to overturn the original ruling (CO), and that I would be informed of this before the event?

 

Not sure of the in's and out's I am afraid, but I am pretty sure I've heard of that happening before, might have even been something I read on here.

[sequenci]

Hi jumaji and thanks for looking in.

Interesting bit of info there, but I would assume that they would have to first go back to court to overturn the original ruling (CO), and that I would be informed of this before the event?

 

That's my understanding. They would need to apply to discharge the CO first.

[mbanani]

they can either continue with CO or bankruptcy but not both, legally,COURTS DO NOT ALLOW TWO FORMS OF ENFORCEMENT AT THE SAME TIME.

So if they opt for bankruptcy then you have a valid defence to set it aside, as the money already been secured through CO.

hOPE IT HELPS.