Threshold introduced for charging orders

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

I will email Polly Ashford and David Fisher (Director) - Both OFT - and see what they say.....

Will be interesting to see what their view and response would be.

I think it would be a major shake up of the loans 'market' if creditors had to make consumers aware of what could happen should things go wrong.

I also wonder where it would take things if the view was taken that anyone with a CO was not made aware of this risk when they took out a loan. If you can be mis-sold PPI then surely there is a case of being mis-sold an 'unsecured' loan only to find yourself with a charge on your home?!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

Will be interesting to see what their view and response would be.

I think it would be a major shake up of the loans 'market' if creditors had to make consumers aware of what could happen should things go wrong.

I also wonder where it would take things if the view was taken that anyone with a CO was not made aware of this risk when they took out a loan. If you can be mis-sold PPI then surely there is a case of being mis-sold an 'unsecured' loan only to find yourself with a charge on your home?!

I see where you're going mate, totally agree. I will email later from AAD email account as they can respond to us as a business but not to me as an individual

Will post my letter and any response in here

[nightwatch]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

I'm with you all, something has to be done,anyone in debt will now be worring that they are going to loose their home for such a small amount, only takes one bad apple to say to a judge, 'they missed a payment we want to force a sale'

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

I'm with you all, something has to be done,anyone in debt will now be worring that they are going to loose their home for such a small amount, only takes one bad apple to say to a judge, 'they missed a payment we want to force a sale'

True but judges still work to overarching principles so they'd not enforce a sale, not unless it was in the debtors best interests...

You still don't see many enforced sales in respect of CO's - which is a good thing (as things stand now of course)

[nightwatch]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

True Niddy, but a lot of debtors don't know this, or about this site

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

e-Petition started but cannot click confirm link as yet as need to get to lappy at home. I will add the e-Petition details when confirmed and live.

Text is as follows:

We call on the government to stick to the original promise to raise the threshold of Charging Orders (CO's) to £25,000. Justice Minister Helen Grant reckons by increasing the threshold it would lead to more Bankruptcy (BR) petitions being presented so we also call on the BR threshold to be raised to £25,000 as well.

The problem we have is that allowing DCA's to go for a charge on an unsecured debt is tantamount to mis-selling as all unsecured credit must therefore come with a warning that it could become secured and thus you could be in a much worse financial position. Additionally, higher APR's for unsecured lending should be abolished as all lending would technically become secured meaning lower rates should be offered across the board.

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

e-Petition started but cannot click confirm link as yet as need to get to lappy at home. I will add the e-Petition details when confirmed and live.

Cheers Niddy!

I'll add my X as soon as you post the link

[SXGuy]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

Niddy are you going to use governments e-petition site? i hate that place, you never get an answer as a reply, its always a quote about what the government are doing.

Remember when they increased fuel duty by 2p to compensate for the VAT rate dropping from 17.5% to 15%?

Well they never removed that rate increase when VAT went back up, and a massive e-petition was done, took 4 months for a reply, during this time, government elections came, labour out and libdem came in.

Their reply? "it was something the last government done"

Where was their reasoning for their answer? how is that an answer? government e-petitions are an illusion that they are giving the public a way to voice their concerns without actually taking note.

You need at least 100,000 signatures for it to even be debated in parliment which is another joke.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

Yea I've started e-Petition - see 2 posts up.

Waiting for it to get checked I think.

[5corpio]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

great News

[PlanB]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

Yea I've started e-Petition - see 2 posts up. Waiting for it to get checked I think.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

Totaly unfair , on the side of the banks again

Yup and why I hate this Government, Capitalism and Thatcher as it all started on her watch.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

I am in and as I already have a C/O for 2.5k with 70k equity this could affect me too.

[PlanB]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

e-Petition started but cannot click confirm link as yet as need to get to lappy at home. I will add the e-Petition details when confirmed and live:

Is this an AAD tweeting opportunity

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Threshold introduced for charging orders

I will email Polly Ashford and David Fisher (Director) - Both OFT - and see what they say.....

My email goes as follows;

Good Evening,

I am writing on behalf of a consumer forum, allaboutDEBT, in response to the governments u-turn with respect to the Charging Order threshold. Whilst we appreciate this may not be a direct cause of concern for the OFT, we do feel that certain elements ought to be investigated by the OFT because the new legislative guidance seems to favour creditors and banks who have already proven, what with the volume of complaints over the last 5 years coupled with some interesting news coverage, that they cannot be trusted.

Please afford me 5 minutes to elaborate.

I am the administrative forum manager of allaboutDEBT, a consumer debt forum that helps debtors fight back against unscrupulous lenders, dca’s and the system as a whole. We don’t apportion blame nor do we commit any opinion as to the reason they are in debt, we simply clarify and help other likeminded debtors learn the key elements of legislation in order to allow them to take the fight back to their aggressive creditor. We are reasonably new and have in excess of 2000 active members with over 290,000 posts. Our forum and associated website is there for the general public to stop creditor abuse. Hence we are very clued up in what we do and also feel that our views should be taken seriously being we do spend our time fighting aggressive DCA’s and their appointed legal representatives.

We were led to believe that the government had set in motion plans to increase the threshold for Charging Orders to a minimum value of £25,000. Today we learned through Credit Today (link: Threshold introduced for charging orders) that this was scrapped in favour of a lower threshold, namely £1,000. Apparently Justice Minister Helen Grant reckons that by leaving the threshold too high, it will allow DCA’s to apply for Bankruptcy instead. With all due respect, that is hogwash.

We would like clarity on the following points, if you wouldn’t mind, based on the current legislative guidelines in force;

1. 1. By lowering the threshold this would mean that lenders, DCA’s and their solicitors could abuse not only BCOBS but also elements of the Consumer Credit Act, Human Rights & the Financial Services and Markets Act as well as others. In essence how would it be classed as “treating someone fairly” if a lender tried to enforce, by way of a CO, a debt that was say £1,001?
2. 2. Currently, most lending is offered as Secured or Unsecured. It is a known fact that unsecured lending poses a higher risk so the APR is usually associated to the risk, meaning unsecured lending normally always offers a higher APR than typical secured lending. As such, shouldn’t it be the case that all APR’s are brought into alignment and offered at one rate, being all lending is now typically secured as it will become so easy for any lender or agent to enforce an unsecured debt, and make it secured;
3. 3. Similarly, shouldn’t it now be the case that all lending paperwork should have a provision in line with CCA(1974) confirming that if you do not pay then your unsecured debt may well become secured and that you could lose your home if repayments are not maintained – like a current secured loan warning. Surely, this should be standard for all consumer credit agreements entered into? If not, then the warning should be removed from mortgage and other secured loan paperwork as it’d be wrong to have it on one and not the other when both can cause the same devastating effect;
4. 4. Could creditors now be pursued under the Trade Description Act, or be accused of mis-selling again, if they do not make consumers aware that an ‘unsecured’ loan could actually become ‘secured’ if they fall behind with repayments?
5. 5. Should lenders now have to advertise prominently on their websites and associated literature of the risks involved in taking any form of borrowing with them? They must do this on secured products but now that all products are technically secured, this should be carried through to all lending;
6. 6. Have the OFT never considered a counter argument that treats customers fairly, and places them back in the original position of entering the agreement by simply requesting the CO threshold is raised to £25,000 and the BR threshold is raised to the same amount, £25,000? This approach protects customers from unscrupulous lenders and their agents, it also complies with all other associated Acts and best of all, it forces the creditor and their agents to clean up their act and not rush into making someone homeless by legal threats that a debtor can never afford to defend.

It is this approach in point 6 that we are starting an e-Petition on and it is this same basis that we are going to quite vigourously campaign over because we feel yet again the average debtor that does not have any money is being penalised by bullies that can quite simply afford to steam-roller over them.

Please could you be so kind as to address the points raised above, so we can share them with our forum users as something stinks here and we need your intervention to stop these unscrupulous actions from continuing, which lets not forget, is your backbone.

Kind regards


Webmaster
Site Administrator | allaboutFORUMS.co.uk