"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
news:_tcFj.14916$jH5.11065@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
> news:4%9Fj.27084$XI.333@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Graham Murray wrote:
>>
>>> Papadillos writes:
>>>
>>>> The banks' increasing concern about the risks of the implosion of
>>>> Britain's £1.4 trillion debt mountain has led to a huge surge in the
>>>> number of court orders moving unsecured debt on to a basis that secures
>>>> it against a borrower's home.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone needs to remind the banks of the old adage "you cannot
>>> have your cake and eat it". Either the banks should charge higher
>>> interest rates, as they do on credit cards, for unsecured loans and
>>> accept the accompanying risks. Or they should make the loans secured and
>>> charge lower interest rates commensurate with the lower risk. They
>>> should not be allowed to have it both ways.
>>
>> They will presumably charge a lower rate once the loan becomes secured.
>> The higher rate is still justified before this step is taken.
>>
>> After all, the process of moving the debt from unsecured to secured
>> status will involve the bank in a court action to obtain the charging
>> order, and court action is never cheap.
>
>
> Thats not the point, the customer took out an unsecured loan.
> It is not right that it can later be secured on his home unless the
> customer agrees to this new arrangement.
>
> It like hiring a car for the day and then finding that the contract has
> changed and that you actually have to by the car.
> It's totally wrong.
>
> You paid the higher charges because it is unsecured and then
> appaerently they can secure it on you home.
> A complete con.
It totally stinks, it looks like something that has been dreamt up
to try and save bankrupt banks.
>
>
>
>>
>
>
|