Charging Order? The myth

Don't give up just yet. If your bank is acting like an idiot then the best solution maybe a "secured" loan?

These are loans that are secured against your property (similar to a mortgage) but which rates are a lot lower than the, comically, named "unsecured" loans that attract much higher interest rates. Lenders, also don't require their charge on the deeds to be the first one (as the amount they are lending is much lower than a mortgage) as would be the case with a remortgage? Lending criteria is also a lot lower than mortgages so they tend to be easier to obtain?

So you could do this to pay off the CO and then approach the bank for a remortgage for the extra lending required and to settle the secured loan at the same time? Or, it may be a lot easier to just forget the CO is there and obtain the loan you require through the "secured" loan and cut out the remortgage altogether?

If the CO isn't attracting interest then that may be the best option as it will only decrease in value the longer it remains unpaid?

mintminty59 wrote: »

The re mortgage was to satisfy everything I owe out currently , which are all green and fully up to date, and to raise a deposit to move onto a new place.

Sorry, I've got to be missing something here?? Why would you be trying to raise a deposit for a new property from a re-mortgage on your existing property?

Unfortunately, using the "no payments" argument is a non starter as they've "secured" repayment for the debt by attaching a CO to an asset you own? Having done that; the Law views that the creditor has the right to decide if, and when, it takes any further action to collect on that debt?

As the CCJ behind the debt also isn't subject to becoming statute barred; you won't have any legal argument that could remove the CO on a time basis?

Your only chance of removing the CO is to try and get the original CCJ set aside if you believe it's been granted unfairly? This could be because you can DEFINITELY PROVE you, either, don't owe the debt or that you were never notified of the Court action and were, therefore, unable to defend the legal action against you?

If you can prove the first reason then you have no problem? If you can prove the second (but do owe the debt) then you should still apply for set aside of the CCJ for the following reason.

The account concerned will be subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974) as being before April 2007 after when it was updated. As such, the contract will be subject to having to include certain terms and conditions to be enforceable? If those conditions weren't included in the contract then the debt is barred from being recovered through Court action?

So, if you are able to get the CCJ set aside; then you are entitled to request a copy of the contract concerned under s.78/79 of the CCA 1974. If the creditor cannot provide this (which is highly likely after such a long period of time) then they are unable to proceed with any Court action until it is supplied or a "true copy" is provided? Even if they can still provide; the contract stands a high chance of being unenforceable if the T&C's required aren't in the prescribed form?

Some people will tell you that after such a long time you won't get the CCJ set aside but ignore them if you have the proof required?

No, once a CCJ is granted it supercedes any contract. So you need to show grounds that the CCJ shouldn't have been granted (for either of the reasons above) and apply to get the judgement set aside?

Once that is achieved it resets the dispute so the creditor can still apply for the CCJ but you will be able to defend the action brought against you.