On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:03:35 -0700 (PDT), joblard@... wrote:
>On 10 Oct, 15:45, abelard wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:36:09 -0700 (PDT), jobl...@... wrote:
>> >On 10 Oct, 13:41, abelard wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:55:05 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 10, 3:08 am, abelard wrote:
>>
>> >> >> where did this 'law' come from?
>>
>> >> >> this looks to me to border on fraud....
>>
>> >> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/3168301/Debris...
>> >> >> "Another pointer to a collapse in solvency is the charging order. It
>> >> >> is a legal process, allowing creditors of unsecured loans that are in
>> >> >> default to tie that debt to an asset owned by the defaulter. In many
>> >> >> cases this will be a residential property. These jumped from 9,689 in
>> >> >> 2000 to 97,026 last year."
>>
>> >> >The law has always been so. Debt is debt which is always available for
>> >> >recovery unless the debtor is protected by a bankruptcy order.
>>
>> >> >Taking out an unsecured loan does not absolve the debtor from his
>> >> >obligations. If he defaults for above a statutory minimum and his
>> >> >creditor finds that he has assets then he may seek an order from the
>> >> >County Court and send in the bailiffs (or go in himself - not
>> >> >advised!) with one important caveat. He has no more right to seize
>> >> >those assets than has any other creditor. It is therefore strictly he
>> >> >who gets there first!
>>
>> >> >That is why if a loan is secured it carries a lower interest rate. The
>> >> >lender in return for his loan assigns rights to the collateral
>> >> >conditional upon the lenders default. This assignment protects the
>> >> >collateral against other creditors.
>>
>> >> looks like at least sharp practice to me....
>>
>> >> you give an unsecured loan....you charge far higher interest...
>> >> that is insurance against the proportion that fail to fully
>> >> service the loan
>>
>> >> you take a secured loan against 'your' house...you get far lower
>> >> interest rates...
>>
>> >Not so; a quick check suggests secured and unsecured loan are on offer
>> >at about the same interest rate (7.5% - ish).
>>
>> wow....however, i don't believe that undigested....
>>
>> there is a considerable credit checking industry......
>>
>> perhaps they're using this 'law' to check whether the borrower has a
>> property they can potentially attach as part of the checks...
>> imv that also would be dubious practice....
>> ie misrepresenting a secured loan as an unsecured loan
>>
>> credit cards tend to run nearer 20%...
>>
>> maybe you'll post your comparisons or comment on the details
>> of the alleged offers...
>
>Sure.
>
>Secured loans: http://www.netloans.co.uk/ details two secured loan at
>7.9%; http://www.uswitch.com/loans/secured-loans/ has one at 7.8%
>fixed for 5 years.
>
>Unsecured loans: Asda finance http://www.asdafinance.com/personal-loans.html
well, i've looked as far as p.3 on that one....
and then is the question....'are you a homeowner'....
i'm unconvinced this is a genuine offer of an 'unsecured loan'...
but i'm not going to give them the intrusive data they seek to see
if the loan would pass...or test it if i fed fictional information
into their machine form....
>offers unsecured loans from 7.9%, also fixed for 5 years;
>http://www.money.co.uk/loans.htm lists loans at 7.8% and 7.9%
>
>Certainly credit card rates are much higher than either.
regards..
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |