We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Credit Card Debt
Comments
-
Lemonjelly, I was somewhat surprised when you wrote in one of your posts that Northern Rock are advertising unsecured loans. They certainly are not!
Further, as it stands at present an unsecured loan is just that - unsecured. Courts do not have the power to force a house sale on what was an unsecured loan, even if there has been a default on the repayments. This has been explained further back by various members. It's unlawful.
0 -
honeypopper wrote: »Lemonjelly, Northern Rock are not giving out unseccured loan. Dunno what lit you've been reading when you've gone into a branch but you ain't read it properly. NR ain't giving out unsecured loans so please get your info right before posting. Some people could believe that, and you're wrong.
AIUI, NRK no longer offer unsecured loans but they certainly did, both as a part of their Together mortgage package (the infamous 125% 'mortgages) and as a stand alone debt product.
There was a post some way back before this thread degenerated into the usual troll-fest claiming NRK had never offered unsecured debt which was also wrong.0 -
Lemonjelly, I was somewhat surprised when you wrote in one of your posts that Northern Rock are advertising unsecured loans. They certainly are not!
Further, as it stands at present an unsecured loan is just that - unsecured. Courts do not have the power to force a house sale on what was an unsecured loan, even if there has been a default on the repayments. This has been explained further back by various members. It's unlawful.
Thermidor that is absolutely wrong. And here is another link from Her Majesty's Court Service explaining how it works: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/enforcement/charging/index.htm
Any creditor can obtain a charging order on home or property. A secured loan is already secured on a property. An unsecured loan can be secured once a CCJ has been granted by the county court.
Simple example, my mate borrows £4k off me. He then repeatedly stalls on paying back. He owns his own house. After fobbing me off, I decide to apply for a CCJ. He doesn't attend court, judgement in my favour.
He then doesn't respond to the judgement. My option then could be to have him declared bankrupt which means the OR takes control of his assets, & can sell them to repay creditors) or I can obtain a charging order, again from the county court. My interest - to the value of the judgement - is then registered with the Land registry.
If there is an ongoing problem, or a need for me to recover my cash fast(ish), I can apply to the county court to issue an order that the house be sold, to realise my interest in it.
I am shocked that there appears to be a queue of people on here repeatedly stating unsecured loans are simpkly that, and effectively can never become anything else!
Look, if they were unsecured, and could never become anything else, why pay anything back? Ever?
You believe that unsecured loans are always unsecured - fine. I dare you to test it. Take out a loan, & pay nothing, repeatedly, at every stage of the creditors recovery process, if you are sooooooo certain. But don't come bleating when you've been repossessed.
Honestly. Sometimes I despair, I really do. It seems there are tons of people borrowing money left, right and centre, and they have absolutely no idea of the potential implications of this, or of creditors powers of enforcement.It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
AIUI, NRK no longer offer unsecured loans but they certainly did, both as a part of their Together mortgage package (the infamous 125% 'mortgages) and as a stand alone debt product.
<Quibble mode on>
AFAIK, the 125% mortgages were precisely that, ie a mortgage for more than the house was worth. So, the security was poor, but the whole loan was secured.
</Quibble>No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
<Quibble mode on>
AFAIK, the 125% mortgages were precisely that, ie a mortgage for more than the house was worth. So, the security was poor, but the whole loan was secured.
</Quibble>
Please read the whole thread as I have already posted this once:
NR 125% Mortgages were made up of a 95% Mortgage loan (secured) and 30% Unsecured personal loan - both are completely separate but at the same interest rate.0 -
Please read the whole thread as I have already posted this once:
NR 125% Mortgages were made up of a 95% Mortgage loan (secured) and 30% Unsecured personal loan - both are completely separate but at the same interest rate.
<Dismissive mode on>
Now you're just trying to blind me with facts. I'll stick with my ridiculous presumptions, thank you very much.
</dismissive>No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
<Quibble mode on>
AFAIK, the 125% mortgages were precisely that, ie a mortgage for more than the house was worth. So, the security was poor, but the whole loan was secured.
</Quibble>
Not according to the 2007 results announced to the stock exchange that I quoted previously - according to that it was a mortgage + an unsecured loan.
I'm not sure you could logically have a loan secured against more than the value of the security. Maybe that's a philosophical conundrum for another day GDB2222.
Good night!0 -
Not according to the 2007 results announced to the stock exchange that I quoted previously - according to that it was a mortgage + an unsecured loan.
I'm not sure you could logically have a loan secured against more than the value of the security. Maybe that's a philosophical conundrum for another day GDB2222.
Good night!
I stand corrected on the nature of the loan package.
On the other point, it makes sense to secure all the loan, even if the value of the collateral is below the value of the loan. If you get lucky, the collateral will rise in value (ie house prices go up) and you end up with a fully secured loan.
Night, night.No reliance should be placed on the above! Absolutely none, do you hear?0 -
On the other point, it makes sense to secure all the loan, even if the value of the collateral is below the value of the loan. If you get lucky, the collateral will rise in value (ie house prices go up) and you end up with a fully secured loan. .
perhaps implying that NR could have been people to beneift from a possibilty of making unsecured loans secured? (had prices risen instead of, well...., what happened!)0 -
I'm not sure you could logically have a loan secured against more than the value of the security. Maybe that's a philosophical conundrum for another day GDB2222.
Companies such as FirstPlus were handing out secured loans up to 125% of property value - obviously on the assumption that property only goes up - needless to say, FirstPlus are no longer trading.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards