Sunday, May 24, 2009
Charging orders
Independent: In debt? You could be forced to sell your home
Conversion of unsecured debt against homes continues. Article suggests 97,000 orders a year and rising. Those in negative equity least at risk of a forced sale. Suggested that debt companies are waiting for rising house prices. Should capitulation eventually occur concerning acceptable prices, these are likely to be viewed as pre-booked auction sales. The government currently use the same tactic to recover monies.
Posted by stillthinking @ 09:38 AM (873 views) Add Comment
8 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. Davids said...
Every one with a credit card debt should spend an hour or two on this site. It asserts that credit card agreements are not legal contracts and that to make them so, they first have to trick you into entering a legal form of contract (which they may try to establish verbally, and which they will have recorded).
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/
Once you are aware of your true situation you will then not make the mistake of being cajoled into entering into a legal contract in the first place which, as I said, a credit card agreement is NOT (well, according to this site - I am no legal beagle and take their info at face value).
Apparently, if telephoned/hassled: be polite but firm; do NOT enter into a discussion; request an INVOICE (not a statement); insist on all communications in writing in future; then hang up. Repeat as necessary.
Forewarned is forearmed.
2. tyrellcorporation said...
Lenders aren't totally stupid, they realised how exposed they were becoming to debt defaults 3-4 years ago. The trend for unsecured debt to be transferred into 'one easily managed account' (remember all those TV adverts) started in earnest about 2 years ago. Once credit card debt, etc, gets bundled in with mortgage payments the debtors house effectively becomes collateral, the lender ends up bearing little or no risk and the debtor can't simply go for an IVA. I'd love to see the figures on how many people have been sucked in by this ruse.
3. last_days_of_disco said...
This is transformational. This is going to wind back the clock to Dickensian times. Bleak House. Smallweed and associates. Shake me Ruby, shake me up, oh my bones!
Buy a families debt, destroy their lives, its just too awesome. The government created this disaster now they are going to flip over to blaming "capitalists". The vileness of their evil strategy is repugnant.
4. gone-to-colombia said...
Did the Gov create this or did greed and stupidity play a part
5. stillthinking said...
Well, unfortunately unless you want to wipe out a saver, you can't forgive debt. In one way or another.
Sad for those involved, rolling over debts and extending mortgages to 30 year terms, while at the same time extending working age to 70, is basically creating a class of indentured workers. Sadder though that their attitude at the time, restrictive against planning, supportive of housing shortages(...), removes the moral imperative to help them. They are, after all, in the pit they attempted to dig for others.
6. icarus said...
tyrellcorp - good point. It would be interesting to see lenders' calculations on this one. How many houses can they seize and sell without adding to HPC and pulling the rug from beneath their own feet - devaluing their mortgage books AND making it more difficult to extract the equity from debtors' houses?
7. Yoss said...
If the loan agreement was sold as unsecured (And hence attracted a higher return for the lender for taking unsecured risk), surely companies later using 'Charging Order Legislation' to secure that risk have effectively committed fraud?
For selling a product, under false pre-tense? I thought the FSA was set up to police such things if they don't then Advertising Standards should be looking at it.
Does this legislation remove the requirement for an unsecured loan market? after all there is clearly no such thing.
8. garch said...
A sensible policy. It's time for debtors to feel the sharp edge...