Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
> news:as4Gj.28242$XI.21938@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> You clearly don't know what "secured" means. Since you've just mentioned
>> "dictionary definition", may I suggest you go and find a dictionary and
>> read up on the subject. Try .
>>
>> If you lend me money and I don't pay it back as agreed, then you can come
>> and sue me for it, and if you obtain judgement against me and I still
>> don't/can't pay, you can have me declared bankrupt and get your money
>> that way. The official receiver will seize all my assets, sell them,
>> and distribute the proceeds between himself (for his fees and expenses),
>> yourself, any other of my creditors, and myself (if there's anything
>> left).
>> Of course if my debts (plus bankruptcy costs) exceed my assets then you,
>> and all my other creditors, will get back less than you are owed, and I
>> will get nothing (but my slate will be clean).
>>
>> What I have just described is an unsecured loan.
>
> Ah so it is a loan secured on your assets, now we are getting somewhere!!!
No. An unsecured loan is a loan which *is not* secured against your assets.
A secured loan is a loan which *is* secured against your assets. Simple!
Your assets can still be seized even with an unsecured loan, but only with
a court order. With a secured loan, the securing assets can be seized
*without* a court order.
>> Now, what a charging order of the variety we've been hearing about does,
>> in connection with an unsecured loan, is to act as a less drastic
>> alternative to the bankruptcy procedure. Instead of forcing repayment
>> of the loan as soon as default has occurred, it offers the soft option
>> of *converting* the unsecured to a secured debt, in recognition of
>> the fact that I do have assets, but that their forced sale would not be
>> in everybody's best interests.
>
> Ah!! So you would be forced to convert the loan into an unsecured loan.
> so they could sieze your assets.
> I get it now!!!
No, you don't get it. In this last sentence of yours you say "so they could
seize your assets". This suggests you think that assets can only be seized
if a loan is secured against them. This is not so. If a court orders you
to pay, and you don't, then the bailiffs can be ordered in and seize
whatever they like. With a secured loan you don't need a court to order
anything. You can just seize the assets yourself.
> Ah so the only difference is you have to get a rubber stamp from
> courts before you seize assets. Ie prove you were owed the money,
> which is the same as you would have to do with a secured loan
> if you seizeure was challanged.
No, you can't challenge a secured seizure. The best you could do, if
you were to allege that a seizure was unlawful because the securing
document was invalid, is sue back after the event. You could also
try to get the polis to prosecute for theft, but unless you can convince
them up front that the security is forged, they will treat it as a
civil matter and keep out of it.
The only "rubber stamping" necessary with a secured loan is the special
case where the securing asset is someone's home, when an eviction
order is needed. But a possession order is not required, as the lender
already has authority to take, just not to evict.
|