Banks wants a charging order on my property

[labman]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

I agree wholeheartedly with your first and last sentences. However, to prove mis-selling of the loan would be virtually impossible - I don't suppose anyone forced him to sign for the loan. I believe firmly the bank are acting more than reasonably, but as you say, the OP will make their own decision and I'm sure we all wish them good luck.

[ed.]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Ian I completely agree in many ways but you've thrown your ire out there, and not backed it up. You cannot live civariously through an OP.

But if a member wants to rock the boat that could be hugely to their detriment, they will make i known. And it's for the member to do that, not for anybody to encourage them to do so, because encouragement doesn't tell them how wrong that could go for them.

In my humble you are pushing the OP to do what you;d do, but you haven't laid out what could go wrong...and what mostly would go wrong....hence my response.

Do that, and as you say, they'd be informed and could take a choice. But throwing out aimless teminology designed to simply get blood boiling? No chance, not in my book.

Ian I remember your name, it's been about 12 months since I was around properly, and I remember you. But you didn't propose an alternative for discussion. That's my problem. Lay out your alternative and yes a decision can be made. But you didn't do that dude.

Lay out the options dude, then I can join in. But simply ranting without details (rightly, we've all been burnt) when an OP has an option they should take, isn't the way to do it.

By all means PM dude, as said it's 'we' who take the risks, but we don't tell people to follow us unless we have a judgement they can enter as authority.

We never risk losing a settlement on another OP because of our viewpoint. The OP will make it clear if that's not enough for them, but they need to kow up front the risks of continuing and again you didn't give that.

[wales01man]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

I dont agree with this threatening legal action bit the OP has more to lose than the bank as written above it may fail without a previous judgement to refer to in my view there are few choices here,
Take the banks offer?
Let them go through the legal process maybe lose then costs will be added and a higher interest charged?
Try the suggested legal route and fight the bank probably a long process with huge costs chances of winning Your Guess?

The bank will win in the end either the debt will be paid or they will without the OPs consent they WILL get the debt secured my position if in this situation with the assets the OP has would be to accept the lower interest rate and negioate a payment plan that suits them

[dontletthem]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Thanks everybody. I've decided to allow the charge with a guarantee that they won't force a sale and also with interest fixed at 3% rather than 3% above base which they originally wanted. I offered £4000 as a Full and Final but they rejected it.

[labman]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Good decision IMO - well done!

[ed.]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Have you got that in writing? If not, make sure you do. Don't trust a bank to not renage when it suits them, so get it in writing friend.

[dontletthem]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Thanks, yes I have it in writing so can't do much more than that.

[Nikolai]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Well all I want to say is that 3% is a very low rate of interest, so well done to you.

[dontletthem]

Re: Banks wants a charging order on my property

Thanks but I'm annoyed with myself in that I have the credit card debts at 0% with affordable monthly payments but did not understand that overdrafts are treated differently and it is harder to get reduced interest rates. I have worked out that credit cards are covered by the Consumer Credit Act and if it goes to court then interest is automatically set at zero and so they are much more amenable to negotiation. With overdrafts it is different but no one explains this to you when you are agreeing the overdarft and giving the guarantee. Am I right on this on this or have I missunderstood how it all works?