Warning-Your Home May Be at Risk if You Fail to Pay Even On Un-Secured Debts

RAS

Link to the relevanat Act of Parliament.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/tribunalscourtsandenforcementact.htm

I have doubts if those involved live in the real world and it was of course enacted in a rapidly rising housing market with excess credit sloshing round all over.
Apart from the personal issues for people, I wonder if the Government has the first clue about the likely economic impact of this.

The following looks really important - people need to be refering to section 93 (6)

93 Payment by instalments: making and enforcing charging orders

(1) Subsections (2), (3) and (4) make amendments to the Charging Orders Act 1979 (c. 53).
(2) In section 1 (charging orders), after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Subsections (7) and (8) apply where, under a judgment or order of the High Court or a county court, a debtor is required to pay a sum of money by instalments.
(7) The fact that there has been no default in payment of the instalments does not prevent a charging order from being made in respect of that sum.
(8) But if there has been no default, the court must take that into account when considering the circumstances of the case under subsection (5).”
(3) In section 3 (provisions supplementing sections 1 and 2), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Subsections (4C) to (4E) apply where—
(a) a debtor is required to pay a sum of money in instalments under a judgment or order of the High Court or a county court (an “instalments order”), and
(b) a charge has been imposed by a charging order in respect of that sum.
(4B) In subsections (4C) to (4E) references to the enforcement of a charge are to the making of an order for the enforcement of the charge.
(4C) The charge may not be enforced unless there has been default in payment of an instalment under the instalments order.
(4D) Rules of court may—
(a) provide that, if there has been default in payment of an instalment, the charge may be enforced only in prescribed cases, and
(b) limit the amounts for which, and the times at which, the charge may be enforced.
(4E) Except so far as otherwise provided by rules of court under subsection (4D)—
(a) the charge may be enforced, if there has been default in payment of an instalment, for the whole of the sum of money secured by the charge and the costs then remaining unpaid, or for such part as the court may order, but
(b) the charge may not be enforced unless, at the time of enforcement, the whole or part of an instalment which has become due under the instalments order remains unpaid.”
(4) In section 6(2) (meaning of references to judgment or order of High Court or county court), for “section 1” substitute “sections 1 and 3”.
(5) In section 313(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45) (charge on bankrupt’s home: certain provisions of section 3 of Charging Orders Act 1979 to apply), for the words before “section 3” substitute “Subsection (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of”.
(6) This section does not apply in a case where a judgment or order of the High Court or a county court under which a debtor is required to pay a sum of money by instalments was made, or applied for, before the coming into force of this section.

pania

All i can say is thank god i don't own a house. the things the government is allowing companies to do and the speed that legislation alters and swings in the banks and creditors favour leaves me speechless. Yes we owe money, yes we may have debt that we are struggling to repay, but the bottom line is people are TRYING to repay it but of course the fat cats wouldn't understand that. grrr grrr GRRR!!!
Every time I see in the papers of another person that has committed suicide due to debt I shudder that it was someone on here. how many more lives do we need to loose if someone who is already at the end of their tether hears about this too. The government need to stepin and put in place concrete legislation asap for the recovery of debts and set boundaries companies have to work within.

I'd love to see martin get to work on this one.

Deep_In_Debt

I've signed the petition too. As other poster has said, I took unsecured credit to ensure that my home wasn't at risk. The courts definitely seem to be favouring the creditor now.

I think the credit crunch and people reclaiming bank charges has got creditors worried so they are trying to get their money back in other ways.

RAS

DID

To some extent if the money was going to the original creditor, I would not like it but .....

What really hacks me off is the idea of a DCA that has bought debt for peanuts being able to enforce the entire sum against someone who has only accrued equity because of the housing market and may well be on benefits.

thepinkladez_2

ok i am being really dumb!! where is the petition? i want to sign it too! god i think my head is made of cotton wool today!

RAS

Hi

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/chargingorders/

And once you have done that, book an appointment with your MP and explain what this will mean to you personally.

thepinkladez_2

thank you for the link ras.

sorry hard day at work, my head hurts!

err not sure on the appoinment with mp as i am not very good at that type of thing!

Gemmzie

Oh !!!!

This is not good for us _pale_

Runnybabbit

Nothing surpises me anymore with this darn government- the quicker we get rid, the better.

I suppose it's the same as Darling introducing the tax for vehicles over a certain engine size - yep I'm one of them - yet he BACKDATED it to include vehicles that are 5 years old - which mine is. Fair do'es bring in the tax now on new ones but this is very unfair.

If I'd of known that then, maybe I would have thought twice about buying the damn thing, but as it stands I was never given the choice. :mad: :mad: .

I'm off to sign the petition and maybe someone could start another one that does not allow this wretched man to impose any more tax on vehicles. :mad: :mad:

RAS

Hi

Important not to panic here:

The law is enacted but not effective YET.

it does not apply to CCJs that are in place or applied for before the law is effective.

There is everythng to go for in terms of raising Cain politically: the section on bailiffs has been halted until the registration is sorted for instance.

Do have a go at your MP.
i have been trying to get my head round this and my thoughts are:

Implementation would allow DCAs who bought debt to enforce the whole amount not just the amount they bought the debt for - manifestly unfair.

Think of the unintended consequences of this law?

Many of those with equity and debt are people have lost work, been bereaved, lost jobs, had to give up on ill-health grounds. Many got into additional debt because they were not initially entitled to support from the state and PPI did not pay out.

They only have equity because of the recent increase in house prices and may well only be getting their interest covered by benefits. They have no scope to re-mortgage in the current climate or take out additional loans, they cannot down-size because of the benefit rules only cover mortgages that exist at the time of the claim. If sales orders are enforced, the damage to the housing market will be huge and whilst some will have to come off benefits in the short-term, the Government will find itself having to pay increased benefits when they go into rental accomodation, as well as increasing the havoc in the housing market.

Even more people will be stuck in negative equity which prevents them moving and adversely affects the job market.

Do you think they are really going let that happen, which ever party is in power and see their voting base decimated?