A totally hypothetical question

chattychappy

eggbox wrote: »

You, as an individual, possibly would. But the question was asked regarding credit card payments being made. For the reasons given, the detection of fraud would be extremely difficult if the load was spread around.

You do NOT NEED to show fraud. I was answering this specific point you made:

eggbox wrote: »

Whilst it would be fraud (as you would be deliberately setting out to not pay) that fraud would have to be detected and then proven. Which I would suggest would have gone totally under the radar pre-recession but may now fall under a bit more scrutiny in these financially harsher times.
...

Once the mortgage has been paid off and "your" property has been transferred legally and solely to your wife's name, then a creditor cannot pursue a Charging Order if your name is not on the Land Registry deeds. (This transfer would be challenged if fraud was suspected but then the game would probably be up anyway!)

(my emphasis)

As I say - you can pursue a Charging Order having used s423 and you do not have to establish that the original transactions were fraudulent.

eggbox wrote: »

Again,you probably would care, but as the overwhelming majority of CCA bad debt never reaches even the CCJ stage then Land Registry details being changed aren't going to be noticed either.

"Overwhelming"? Perhaps. I have seen an increasing number of properties charged because of consumer debt issues. Since October it has become easier because a creditor no longer has to wait for a debtor to fail to pay according to the instalments imposed by a court. I think charging orders will become more routine.

eggbox

chattychappy wrote: »

You do NOT NEED to show fraud.

No you don't, but in the context of the "hypothetical" question asked, unless fraud was suspected you wouldn't get a creditor going to court to try and overturn a transfer of equity.

chattychappy wrote: »

As I say - you can pursue a Charging Order having used s423 and you do not have to establish that the original transactions were fraudulent.

As with the above, a creditor isn't going to do this unless they suspect fraud so the point is rather moot.

chattychappy wrote: »

"Overwhelming"? Perhaps. I have seen an increasing number of properties charged because of consumer debt issues. Since October it has become easier because a creditor no longer has to wait for a debtor to fail to pay according to the instalments imposed by a court. I think charging orders will become more routine.

No perhaps about it according to the Q3 court statistic figures from 2012 (which also show Charging Orders are actually falling too). And whilst you are correct regarding the October 2012 changes to CO's, with the OFT currently of the case of RBS
and Natwest over their use of CO's I don't think a rise is necessarily certain (but I wouldn't expect too much of a drop either!)


Your point about s423 is understood; what I think you are, maybe, over emphasising is the usefulness (or lack of) this is to a creditor given the time, effort and expense that creditor would need to spend trying to reverse the process.

chattychappy

Never mind!