Alibear

You can, but my worry is that all too often you can forget about an old account and its only the yearly letter that reminds you. I recently had to try and establish all the accounts of a relative who had slowly got dementia (not realised by us at the time). Without the letters, the task would have become increasingly difficult.

I assume you mean keep in separate banking group rather then a separate account - even if joint with someone else.

Thats what I thought, but even more worrying is they can take from other joint accounts!

Just received this in my latest business statement - to take effect from 1st May 2014. "9 Condition 29 (previously 28) will be amended to read: 29 When we can use money between accounts 29.1 Except in the case of Client Accounts or accounts held in trust, if any money is overdue for payment on any other account you have with us (such as a loan, mortgage, credit card or overdraft) we may take the money you owe us out of your account. We can do this where you have accounts held in your sole name as well as joint accounts you hold with another person. 29.2 We can also apply Condition 29.1 to pay money you owe on other accounts which you hold with any other member of the Santander Group of companies in the UK." I can see a few arguments caused by this. I may be paranoid but I sense a number of banks positioning themselves. Also in the same T&C "33 Dormant accounts 33.1 If you do not make any transactions on your account for one year in the case of current accounts and three years in the case of savings accounts then we may treat your account as being dormant to remove the risk of fraudulent activity. This means that we will stop sending you statements and letters." Which also means that without any physical reminders - they hope you will forget that you ever had any money with them.

Interesting - was one of them Spanish and began with an "S"?

You are correct in the grand scheme of things - but they can't stop you from redeeming a mortgage, or preventing a second charge lender from recovering costs when they have been defaulted against - apart from applying early redemption penalties - if applicable when the property is sold. Sure, no credit card firm wants you to clear your debt off every month or settle earlier than antiscipated - but they cant stop you if thats what you want to do.

There is no reason for the first charge lender to appear or object. (Just as if you decide to sell and move to another property - the mortgage is settled and a new mortgage secured on the new property) The second charge is of no interest to them.

Many thanks - now makes sense. Although MF Global proves that nothing is really safe - good point.

Nothing - but where to place it or keep it.

This is all normal and correct and just refers to possible arguments to prevent a charging order being made. The first charge cannot prevent the sale IF a second charge has been defaulted upon - even if the first charge payments are up to date.

a) Builders build on monthly valuations with 5% retentions - therefore it is unlikely (although not impossible) to be fully exposed. As this discussion was meant to be about an original unsecured debt of £1K I think this is jumping to extremes. Anyhow - the Contract is between the builder and the householder. The builder applies to the court for a judgement. Gets granted (although in the meantime your wife may get a job - or you may arrive at some form of repayment schedule - as its not in anyones interest to end up in court). A charge is placed on the house - which normally means that at the time of sale or remortgage - the charge is settled. You can do if you wish - thats up to you - otherwise the above is what normally happens

Yeah - you won't see them for dust.

Assumes you are employed (rather than self-employed). Assumes you had insurance. Assumes insurance actually agrees to pay - ( they are notoriously slippery when it comes to paying out) The point being, if it was originally £1k or unsecured debt, that subsequently gets it placed as a 2nd charge on the property (by the creditor), who then triggers action to force a sale - i don't think this is acceptable.

I don't think that is correct. First Charge just means that they are paid out before other charges sitting behind it. Therefore if you fail to make payments on a second charge - they can force the sale - they just get paid out from the balance after the first charge is settled. Many people don't realise that second charges are far more inflexible in their attitude to people missing payments - and for obvious reasons - they are second in line to getting paid out.

Basically - this just makes me realize that you should keep as little in them as possible - which is easier said then done.