"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
news:yPfGj.28566$XI.10906@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
>> news:as4Gj.28242$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!
But he said an unsecured loan is one which is secured on your assets.
Correct me of I am wrong.
If an unsecured loan goes bad your assets can be seized whereas with
a secured loan you assets can be seized if the loan goes bad.
There is a subtle difference, the letters 'un'.
>
> 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.
So a bank can repossess a house without going to court?
I don't think so sunshine.
http://northernireland.shelter.org.uk/advice/advice-4248.cfm
>
>>> 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.
Rubbish.
>
>> 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.
And has there even been a case of a lender securing a loan on
anything other than a house?
Maybe I will see if they are willing to secure a loan on my underpants?
>
|