"Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
news:P3pGj.28678$XI.7066@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
>> news:yPfGj.28566$XI.10906@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
>>>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote in message
>>>> news:as4Gj.28242$XI.21938@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> Consider yourself corrected. No I did not say that. And why are you
> calling me "he"? Or did you mean someone else?
>
> You seem to think (and here lies your mistake) that if an asset can be
> seized in order to repay a debt, this means the debt is (or was or must
> have been) secured on that asset. This is incorrect. If you don't pay
> your council tax, the council can (after due process) send in the
> bailiffs and take your telly. Your council tax debt was never,
> however, secured on your telly.
Yes it was, thats why they took it.
Otherwise I would bave the b*stards up in the courts (which my council
tax pays for incidently).
>
>> 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'.
>
> There is a much more subtle difference. The procedure for going about
> doing the seizing is different. With a secured loan, the borrower
> gives the lender permission *in advance* of receiving the money,
> that he can seize the specific asset(s) against which the loan is
> secured, if the borrower should break the terms of the agreement.
> With an unsecured loan, the lender needs to get that permission from
> a court after default has occurred.
As he does with a loan secured on your house.
>
>>> 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.
>
> There is a difference between seizing and repossessing. They can sell
> the house from under you without going to court. For example in theory
> they could sell it to a BTL investor who might be happy to take on the
> property with yourself as a pre-installed tenant. But that is not the
> type of arrangement likely to attract a purchaser, and so realistically
> they would have to be able to offer the house with vacant possession.
>
> So they need to kick you out first, and in order to do that they have
> to go to court to get an eviction order. But they don't need a court
> order to then sell the house. They already have that authority (and
> indeed it's on the strength of that authority that the eviction order
> would be granted).
>
>>> 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?
>
> Yes, plenty. Loans are secured on cars. You can get a marine mortgage
> for your yacht. You can secure loans against savings (for example if
> they are tied up in a long term bond but you want the money now) or
> investments or your gold watch. But you're right about one thing:
> you can probably not secure a loan against your underpants.
But is is all immaterial, you are talking about differences in procedure,
not end result.
It's like going to prison via Luton, or via Bedford, you are still going
to prision
It's like the misleading government warnings,
"THINK CAREFULLY BEFORE SECURING OTHER DEBTS AGAINST YOUR HOME. YOUR HOME
MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON A MORTGAGE OR ANY
OTHER DEBT SECURED ON IT."
It's a lie, it implies your home is not at risk if there is no loan secured
on on when in reality
it is.
>
|