In message <3eKdnVt6fYtRgXjanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>, Smolley
writes
>
>"Papadillos" wrote in message
>news:C40AC3E9.6EB6%papadillos@hotmail.com...
>> From The Times
>> March 22, 2008
>>
>> Homes at risk as banks seek more security for credit card debt
>>
>
>
>But the customer was to pay higher interest for unsecured loans.
>
>
The new measures being brought into law now also make it possible for a
creditor to obtain a charging order without the default on a court
judgement that is required today, so the whole concept of unsecured
loans for homeowners is largely a fallacy. They pay the extra interest
anyway, but then the debt gets charged against their house if they
default.
At the moment, most creditors just sit on their charging orders and wait
for the home to be sold. Few go on to apply for Order for Sale and most
District Judges wouldn't grant them anyway but things are changing
quickly and one day soon some bank accountant is going to add up all the
money they have tied up in thousands upon thousands of charging orders
and decide that they would be best liquidating those assets. Depending
on the reaction of the courts, people could be losing their homes
because of being unable to pay a debt that was agreed on the basis of it
being unsecured.
How will the courts react? I don't know for sure, but they certainly are
free and easy with charging orders, often agreeing to anything the
creditor asks for to help them secure such an order. It would only take
one or two hard-line judges to start issuing Orders for Sale as a matter
of routine and a whole new problem appears.
--
Mike_B |