Secured or Unsecured ?

WillimS · 15 February 2011 at 2:23PM

I have had loans secured and unsecured, the only difference is that the unsecured carry a higher interest rate. Now can anyone please tell me WHY no one has ever challenged this law?? "Secured loan" means its borrowed on the strength of your property so you get a better APR. but "Unsecured loan" means exactlly the same thing except you are paying a higher rate of APR.
If you fall behind payment with either a secured or unsecured loan they come after your property if you have one. I think "unsecured loans" are misold and I hope Martin challenges this loophole, I myself have had a charging order placed on my property for a "unsecured loan" I was mislead into believing that if I fell behind for whatever reason with payments that they could not touch my property, this was not the case. I therefore beleive that on that basis I was misold the loan and also I do not beleive that there is such a product as a "unsecured loan" its a myth, and lots of loan companies are fooling the people. COME ON MARTIN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!! P L E A S E
I myself would never of taken on the loan only for the wording of "unsecured"

dmg24 · 15 February 2011 at 2:27PM

What did you think that the bank would do if you could not pay it back? You were not mis sold the loan, you chose to enter into something that you did not understand.

chalkie99 · 15 February 2011 at 2:30PM

WillimS wrote: »

]I myself would never of taken on the loan only for the wording of "unsecured"

Sounds like you just wanted the money and didn't want to pay it back.

"Mis-sold" must be the most over used word on this site.

iolanthe07 · 15 February 2011 at 2:42PM

If you own property then no loan is truly unsecured. This is not new, and it is perfectly fair and reasonable for a lender to try and recover a debt with whatever legal means are available to them. Banks are understandably unpopular at present, but they are all losing huge sums through people not paying back their debts, and this ultimately adversely affects all of us.

Tixy · 15 February 2011 at 2:57PM

The loan was unsecured and you could have probably prevented a charging order being applied.

When your creditor went for a CCJ did you complete the court forms and ask to pay in installments. Did you then keep up with the installments ordered by the court? If you had done these things then a charging order would be unlikley to have been granted.

When they applied for the charging order did you turn up and try to defend against it?

If you default on repayments, don't keep your lender informed and don't do these things and you own a property then you can expect a charging order might well be applied for and granted.

WillimS · 15 February 2011 at 6:29PM

No one takes out a loan who owns their own house with the intentions of not paying it back, but in the event of unforeseen circumstances then you take have to take that into account, please don't defend lenders as they know full well that the majority of borrowers have no idea about APRs or interest rates, they rely on ignorance, and in my case like others that exactly what it was, you would need to hirer a solicitor to sift through the small print of any loan or credit agreement, hence the reason why me and the vast majority of others are paying the price for our ignorance, and the fact that finance companies make their living out of mugs like us.

Apples2 · 15 February 2011 at 7:02PM

WillimS wrote: »

No one takes out a loan who owns their own house with the intentions of not paying it back, but in the event of unforeseen circumstances then you take have to take that into account,

WHY???

If it were as simple as you would like, we would all take out £30K loans then simply stop repaying.

"Oops, sorry, unforseen circumstances... shall we just call it quits and forget about it?"

Your post irked me enough to accuse you of throwing a strop because you don't like having to repay the money you borrowed.

Your reasons for not repaying are yours and yours alone, nobody else gives a hoot, not me, not the other MSE members and certainly not the lender.

dmg24 · 15 February 2011 at 7:32PM

WillimS wrote: »

No one takes out a loan who owns their own house with the intentions of not paying it back, but in the event of unforeseen circumstances then you take have to take that into account, please don't defend lenders as they know full well that the majority of borrowers have no idea about APRs or interest rates, they rely on ignorance, and in my case like others that exactly what it was, you would need to hirer a solicitor to sift through the small print of any loan or credit agreement, hence the reason why me and the vast majority of others are paying the price for our ignorance, and the fact that finance companies make their living out of mugs like us.

If someone does not understand what they are doing, they should not enter into the agreement. Surely it doesn't take a genius to work that out?

Tixy · 15 February 2011 at 9:02PM

WillimS wrote: »

please don't defend lenders

Who is defending the lenders?
We are just saying your loan was not mis-sold just because the APRs on unsecured loans are higher than on secured loans.

Besides as you had to default on your loan I would have thought you'd be very pleased to have an unsecured loan. With a secured loan you'd have likely lost your home, but with the unsecured loan and resultant charging order you still have your house and can still live in it, all be it with a charging order.

So did you take the proper action at the time to try to prevent this charging order?