Times: Homes at risk as banks seek more security for credit card debt

From The Times March 22, 2008 Homes at risk as banks seek more security for credit card debt James Charles Hundreds of thousands of indebted Britons are at risk of losing their homes if they fall behind on their credit card and personal loan repayments after moves by the high street banks to protect their weakening balance sheets.

The banks' increasing concern about the risks of the implosion of Britain's £1.4 trillion debt mountain has led to a huge surge in the number of court orders moving unsecured debt on to a basis that secures it against a borrower's home.

Figures from the Courts Service indicate that the use of charging orders by British banks surged by 580 per cent from 2000 to 2006, the most recent year for which figures are available. Industry sources say that the banks' increasing use of the tactic to safeguard loans that they view as risky has accelerated since the credit crunch began last summer.

Charging orders are sought by lenders through the courts when a borrower misses loan or credit card repayments. If a judge approves the applications, the debt becomes secured against the borrower's home, to be repaid from the equity of its eventual sale. In extreme cases, lenders who have obtained a charging order apply to the courts to force the sale of the home.

Historically, charging orders were used only as a last resort, but solicitors have confirmed that there has been a surge in interest in charging orders. One nationwide law firm that requested anonymity said that it applied for double the number of charging orders in 2007 compared with

2006 for clients that included high street banks.

Michael Green, a partner in Weightmans, another firm of solicitors that specialises in debt recovery, believes that lenders are increasingly "twitchy" about bad debt. He said: "If people default on credit card payments or loans, then banks now want more security." In 2000 there were

16,014 applications, rising to 92,933 applications in 2006. These have included applications from almost all the high street lenders, including HSBC, Alliance & Leicester, Nationwide and NatWest.

Experts fear that overburdened consumers are struggling to cope with the combination of debt obligations and the rising cost of living. Borrowers in Britain owe £225 billion on credit cards and personal loans and spend 10 per cent of their income on interest payments.

Chris Tapp, of Credit Action, the debt charity, said that banks have become less willing to write off debt via insolvency agreements, which explained the huge rise in charging orders.

He said: "The slight fall in insolvencies recently could be linked to a policy by banks to chase debts by whatever means are available, including the courts, rather than simply allowing a debt to be written off."

Mr Tapp noted that, as mortgage lenders, most banks and building societies will also be aware of the huge rise in equity tied up in borrowers' homes.

Some homeowners who remortgage after fixed-rate deals end have found that surveyors are reducing the value of their properties, leaving them unable to take out larger loans.

Eric Leenders, of the British Bankers' Association, blamed smaller lenders for the increasing use of charging orders in recent years. He said: "This is a potential consequence of the redistribution of unsecured lending. Five years ago most lenders came from the banking industry, now just two thirds."

Reply to
Papadillos
Loading thread data ...

But the customer was to pay higher interest for unsecured loans.

Reply to
Smolley

Maybe someone needs to remind the banks of the old adage "you cannot have your cake and eat it". Either the banks should charge higher interest rates, as they do on credit cards, for unsecured loans and accept the accompanying risks. Or they should make the loans secured and charge lower interest rates commensurate with the lower risk. They should not be allowed to have it both ways.

Reply to
Graham Murray

They will presumably charge a lower rate once the loan becomes secured. The higher rate is still justified before this step is taken.

After all, the process of moving the debt from unsecured to secured status will involve the bank in a court action to obtain the charging order, and court action is never cheap.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

It's too late for that, the banks are a starving family of six and the last cake was eaten ages ago.

Reply to
allan tracy

Thats not the point, the customer took out an unsecured loan. It is not right that it can later be secured on his home unless the customer agrees to this new arrangement.

It like hiring a car for the day and then finding that the contract has changed and that you actually have to by the car. It's totally wrong.

You paid the higher charges because it is unsecured and then appaerently they can secure it on you home. A complete con.

>
Reply to
Lord Turkey Cough

It totally stinks, it looks like something that has been dreamt up to try and save bankrupt banks.

Reply to
Lord Turkey Cough

I have no doubt that the customer will agree.

This action is only going to be taken as an alternative to asking the court to declare the person bankrupt, seizing the house and selling it.

You have the Government's decision to change the rules on Bankruptcy for this change in approach from the banks.

tim

Reply to
tim (not at home)

On the contrary.

All the borrower has to do is keep to the terms the loan was taken out on, IE keep his mortgage payments up to date.

If he breaks that contract, the contract is, well ...

Broken.

If this situation arises and the borrower doesn't like it he can always pay the loan off and vote with his feet.

HTH.

Reply to
Derek Geldard

Yes, I agree f**k them.

For far too long now, those that would burn the candle at every end and in every conceivable way have, through the forcing up of property prices, been allowed to set the pace for the rest of us.

At last, those that chose to sail far too close to the wind would appear to be up shit creek where they belonged years ago.

I can feel a tear coming to my eye, not.

Reply to
allan tracy

Err no it is not a mortage. It is an unsecured debt.

Yes, but the good thiing is it was an unsecured loan, hence he paid higher interest than on a secured loan. If he breaks the contract he ends up with a bad credit rating, thats all.

Reply to
Lord Turkey Cough

Ok. So ...

All the borrower has to do is keep to the terms the loan was taken out on, IE keep his payments up to date.

You don't imagine that the secured loan they *may* offer him will be on standard terms, or the terms that they would have given him if his accounts with them were in good standing ?

DG

Reply to
Derek Geldard

Err we are talking about a unsecured loan here, where did this 'secured loan' come from?

No point in offering him one as he doesn't want one. To do so would be wasting his time.

What would be 'standard terms' for a loan he does not want?

Where did his 'account' come from, he does not have an account with them. There is no mention of an account with them, you seem to have imagined this, amongst other things.

He has no account with them so there is no standing. I am not to sure what you are trying to say really it does not make sense.

You seem to be talking about a totally different situation.

Reply to
Lord Turkey Cough

I can't see it's any different, in that respect, from sending in the bailiffs to seize and sell goods to pay off any other unsecured debt. I don't think many customers agree with that either.

The bottom line is that the customer owes the bank money. They may pay a lower rate of interest because they make it easier for the bank to reclaim the money (by securing against an asset) or a higher rate if they don't but they still owe the money.

If they refuse to pay the money back but have assets then the bank is, morally and legally, entitled to go after those assets assuming that the loan was offered fairly

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

Possibly the customers should be told : "You can't pretend you're unable to pay back a loan of £10,000 if you live in a house which would put more than £10,000 in your pocket if you sold it"

I wouldn't stand for that if I was owed money, would you ?

Cheers,

John

Reply to
John Anderton

"Papadillos" wrote

Eh? How are they doing that -- going round smashing the place up?

It's one thing to reduce their *estimate* of the value, but for the surveyors themselves to be actually reducing the *value* of the house itself is another thing entirely....

Reply to
Tim

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote

Presumably, he means the secured loan that the borrower would be offered, to pay off the unsecured loan that the borrower has just defaulted on.

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote

Then how would the borrower intend on paying off the loan that he's just defaulted on, before the court makes him bankrupt -- and the house (and other assets) are all sold off to pay his creditors (including the unsecured loan) ?

Reply to
Tim

Look at the title of the thread.

They'll still be the lender's standard terms. Generally not available to customers the lender has had to take to court, unless maybe they were naff money lender's rates to start with (some lenders specialise in this).

Who is this "He" to whom you refer ?

Look at the title of the thread.

Why introduce him into the discussion then, look at the title of the thread.

Reply to
Derek Geldard

Seeking charging orders was historically a procedure of last resort where someone had defaulted on a loan. What appears to be happening here is that lenders are seeking charging orders for comparably small amounts of debt, and on the basis of repayment irregularities which, not that long ago, they would have overlooked.

The question has to be asked whether the process is genuinely being used as prudent debtor management, or whether it is an attempt to convert existing unsecured loans into secured loans, in order to change the profile of the banks lending in order to improve their own borrowing ability.

Reply to
johnmids2006

I'm not sure why you presume that. They have no such obligation.

Reply to
Mike_B

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.