DCA solicitors threatening 'charging order' !!

antrobus

Jayen4 wrote: »

Hmmm.....Thank you for that,Antrobus (and Eggbox)......back on subject,as we should be ! What is this £1000 'threshold'....does that mean that they can't apply a charging order to anything below that value ?? (That's how I read it....

There is a newly minted (in force since April) financial threshold of £1,000 for a charging order that applies if the debt has arisen as a result of an "agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974". So (for example) if you are a bank and a consumer owes you £500 on their credit card, you can't get a charging order; but if you're an energy company and a consumer owes you £500 on their electricity bill, you can.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06614

eggbox

antrobus wrote: »

In general charging orders only apply to assets which are subject to some kind of register of ownership, where there is a registrar that can be prevented from transfering legal title by virture of the order.

I do agree (and I was incorrect as I believe building society funds are exempt?) but even on land (property) the above only applies if there is sole ownership. It doesn't apply if there are Joint Owners (unless the debt is jointly owned) as the Charging Order isn't allowed to be attached to the legal estate and isn't, therefore, allowed to registered on the Land Registry.

Joint owners are free to transfer ownership providing they have sold for value and comply with the Restriction of creditor notification.

Jayen4

Yes there is now a £1000 threshold limit under which a creditor can't apply for a CO

JuicyJesus

Jayen4 wrote: »

That would be because until that situation arises, I won't know......simples.;)

Best retirement planning I've EVER seen.

Jayen4

antrobus wrote: »

There is a newly minted (in force since April) financial threshold of £1,000 for a charging order that applies if the debt has arisen as a result of an "agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974". So (for example) if you are a bank and a consumer owes you £500 on their credit card, you can't get a charging order; but if you're an energy company and a consumer owes you £500 on their electricity bill, you can.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06614

Thanks again, Antrobus and Eggbox. The only thing that is registered in my name is my car.....absolutely nothing else is...no property or any other tangible assets. Plus,remember that this is a third party interloper (DCA) that thinks it can still extract a profit from me.

Jayen4

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Best retirement planning I've EVER seen.

Hmmm......and of course,you have absolutely everything planned to enth degree and can also see x number of years into the future,can you ??
You know,I feel sorry for people like you,where everything must fit into specific little boxes !

iolanthe07

Hmmm......and of course,you have absolutely everything planned to enth degree

Well, I have, pretty much - though of course none of us know when we are going to meet the grim reaper. Before I retired I made sure I could live comfortably, if modestly, for the rest of my and my wife's life. I suggest you do the same.

John1993_2

Jayen4 wrote: »

Thanks again, Antrobus and Eggbox. The only thing that is registered in my name is my car.....absolutely nothing else is...no property or any other tangible assets. Plus,remember that this is a third party interloper (DCA) that thinks it can still extract a profit from me.

Why do you have this weird belief that debts cannot be assigned? They can be, and I'd be stunned if the terms and conditions to which you agreed did not spell that out for you.

Jayen4

John1993 wrote: »

Why do you have this weird belief that debts cannot be assigned? They can be, and I'd be stunned if the terms and conditions to which you agreed did not spell that out for you.

There is a subtle difference tho'.....
The bank gave up on the 'debt'.......and then along comes Mr DCA ,who then 'buys the alleged debt'.....So that means that they are now trying to impose a unilateral (sp?) contract,to which I have never agreed ! They cannot and will not produce any legitimate contract! You see ??

The bank 'sold' the alleged debt for pennies on the pound....they are no longer concerned...they have written it off on their books.
These DCA companies are nothing more than opportunistic profiteers ! That is their raison detre (sp?).....the core of their dirty little 'business'. They are really an irrelevance to me......they ones that I have to watch out for are the utterly corrupt judiciary/courts !

Hanky_Panky

Jayen4 wrote: »

There is a subtle difference tho'.....
The bank gave up on the 'debt'.......and then along comes Mr DCA ,who then 'buys the alleged debt'.....So that means that they are now trying to impose a unilateral (sp?) contract,to which I have never agreed ! They cannot and will not produce any legitimate contract! You see ??

The bank 'sold' the alleged debt for pennies on the pound....they are no longer concerned...they have written it off on their books.
These DCA companies are nothing more than opportunistic profiteers ! That is their raison detre (sp?).....the core of their dirty little 'business'. They are really an irrelevance to me......they ones that I have to watch out for are the utterly corrupt judiciary/courts !

Yes you did, whether you realise it or not. It will have formed part of the original agreement you signed up to - as this was a mortgage it will have been done with the added benefit (to you) of having your solicitor to advise you as well.

I have seen your really very poor argument on here many, many times. I can only conclude that you are:
a) A whack job
b) A troll

Brock_and_Roll

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they" J-J Rousseau.

I suggest the OP read this famous treatise. A position of complete freedom is impossible to achieve without entering into a social contract. The OP cannot have freedom to live in peace and quiet and the same time I have the freedom to shout and go on muderous sprees. So a society we give up elements of our freedom in order to protect other elements. We have laws (including the long standing rights to equitable assignment of contracts) and we have police, armies etc. These have to be paid for as well, so it could be argued that if you want to live outside the system, you should no longer enjoy their protection.