Skip Navigation

When Debt Brings Down The House

<%=this._contentDocument.Byline%>
By Cliff D'Arcy | 28 April 2008

All homeowners will be familiar with the wealth warning that accompanies all mortgages:

"Your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it."

In other words, secured debts, such as mortgages, second mortgages and secured loans, put your property at risk if you do not keep up your monthly repayments. In the worst-case scenario, a lender may repossess (seize) your property and sell it, usually at auction, in order to recover sums owed.

On the other hand, unsecured debts (alias consumer credit), such as credit cards, personal loans and overdrafts, aren't secured against your home. This makes them riskier for lenders, which explains why interest rates on these forms of borrowing are far higher than mortgage interest rates.

So, if you owe a lot of money via consumer credit, then your home isn't at risk, right? Wrong, thanks to a legal procedure known as a charging order!

A charging order is a court order which allows a lender to secure personal debt against property. Thus, if you fall into arrears or default on an unsecured debt, then a lender can turn a hefty credit-card bill into a loan secured against your home. Charging orders can also be granted against land, commercial property or other assets.

Armed with a charging order, a lender can be confident that it will get its money back at some point in the future. Note that a charging order does not force you to sell your house immediately. Indeed, it is quite difficult to repossess a property using a charging order, making these seizures extremely rare. Hence, a lender with a charging order is usually content to sit tight and await repayment when your home is eventually sold.

So, although a charging order is unlikely to lead to your home being repossessed, it does mean that you cannot sell your property until all secured debts -- including any charging orders -- have been paid off. Consequently, a charging order effectively gobbles up some your housing equity in order to replace other debts.

Alas, according to the latest figures from the Ministry of Justice, the use of charging orders by lenders is rocketing. Here are the latest data:

Charging orders, 2000 to 2007

Year

Applications

made

Yearly

increase (%)

Orders

granted

Yearly

increase (%)

2000

15,593

66

9,207

38

2001

21,502

39

15,280

41

2002

30,358

17

21,171

14

2003

34,648

33

24,796

30

2004

45,191

48

32,953

45

2005

65,305

36

48,812

42

2006

92,511

46

66,473

42

2007

131,644

66

97,017

38

As you can see, the number of charging orders granted almost tripled between 2004 (32,953) and 2007 (97,017). Even worse, their use has risen tenfold since the turn of the century. This sharp rise reflects three trends:

1.    the huge amount of wealth tied up in property;

2.    the massive increase in personal debt over the past decade; and

3.    the increasing willingness of lenders to get their money back by any means possible.

Obviously, as pressures build on hard-pressed homeowners, it's highly likely that the use of charging orders will continue to soar. In short, consumers with too much debt risk putting their homes on the line. So, before you stick another few hundred pounds on an already red-hot credit card, ask yourself the following question:

"Could my over-spending and being overly dependent on debt eventually wreck my housing wealth?"

If you are at all unsure about the reply, then it's time to Get Out of Debt today!

More: Find marvellous mortgages via the Fool | The Best Overdraft Rates In Town | Is Your Credit Card Charging More?

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool.

At 21:32 on April 28 2008, reefcoop said:

I think this is a GOOD thing, I have long been sick of those who are careless with their money, being able to just write off 'unsecured' debt, get government benefits and just get on with life without suffering an real long term consequences. While other people who have worked hard to overpay their mortgages, carry little or no debt, and have a 'rainy day' savings pot are just left wondering why they even bother.

I realise that there are some people that get into debt because of bad luck, even this could be dealt with if only they were to face the issue sooner rather than later.

As for any damage it does to your credit file, I don't even think this is severe enough, if you have been financially irresponsible in the past, you shouldn't be trusted with loans etc for a long long time!

In my mind it is entirely fair to secure that debt to your house in terms of a charging order. I would go a step further, and have student loans attached to property equity. I have a sister who has never paid off her student loan 'because she doesn't have to'. She is a stay at home Mum, her husband earns enough money to more than comfortably pay it off, and as she bought in the mid 90's her house has more than tripled in value, yet still she has no intention of paying it off.

If you spend the money you should pay it back, one way or another. We all end up paying otherwise in the long term!

I'd even like to see wages garnished for prolific borrowers who are unable to manage their finances on a normal wage.

We all need to learn to spend less.

At 07:26 on April 29 2008, 87crashdummy said:

well said reefcoop

Responsibility for your actions seems to be lacking in todays "blame" culture.
Bigger penalties would stop people
over commitng in the first place?

At 09:36 on April 29 2008, yve001 said:

I am in agreement. I have frequently done an extra eve job alongside my main job, we have let spare rooms to friends and squrilled money away for issues around the corner. We currently overpay the mortgage by £300 per month, partly so if/when we need to pay more at the end of our current fixed term deal we are used to the hiher payments. We have bought our 18 yr old Son up in the same manner so he will be solvent and hard working through out uni life and onwards.
Too little emphasis these days on cause and effect and concequences. Both in the financial aspect of life and work/manners etc.

At 09:37 on April 29 2008, triumph5ta said:

Many years ago, in what now seems like a previous life I worked for an Estate Agent. Sometimes clients would try not to pay the fee. In such cases the Estate Agent would instruct his solicitors to apply to the courts for a charge on the property. Usually just the threat of this made the client pay up.
Since those days 20 years ago I have never used an estate agent to sell property but thats another story!

At 09:47 on April 29 2008, Hardtruth said:

Spend only what you have earned and buy only what you can afford. Not too difficult really is it?

At 10:42 on April 29 2008, Terrapin1 said:

Credit is often seen as a lifeline to people who simply do not earn enough. The 'stealth' attack on wealth is in part due to SKY tv and their ripoff nonsense, mobile phone contracts,and the delusion that anyone actually needs a phone, and buying from catalogues which would seem to be a front for Amercian loan sharks.
I think you will find household debt equates to the amounts spent(mispent) on the above.

At 10:46 on April 29 2008, petewey said:

Interesting - although I support the concept of these lenders trying any means to get their funds back. I must outline a fact that these lenders may not sit tight and wait for their money. It should be made more clear by any lender that they can take this action if necessary, although maybe they would get less business if they did....

An ex partner of mine through no fault of her own ( ex husband's unsecured debt)found herself with a charging order from a leading bank with their aim to get the funds back and push for the sale of the family home to do so. It took over £8,000 of legal fees to delay their demands for the home to be sold.

Beware of the charging order!!!!!

At 12:51 on April 29 2008, jonbrackenbury said:

I am not sure why the other people posting here are complaining that they are not being rewarded for leading a frugal lifestyle. The idea of life should be to have the best possible lifestyle at the least personal cost. Hence I applaud those who can delay or avoid debt repayments. This article warns that the best apprach is to have negative net worth at all times and definitely to rent rather than own property assets. I have always followed this approach and have fantastic cars and holidays while my peers spend their money on huge mortgage repayments. My rent is nearly 40% less than my neighbour's mortgage interest alone! If he misses a few payments he loses the house anyway and his equity will be used to pay his unsecured creditors. I on the other hand lose nothing.

At 16:21 on April 29 2008, AlysonThomson said:

I am a Debt Collector and, as far as I can see, the renters still get off Scot Free and most of the people I collect from are in that category.
Ah! Just remembered, the article did say "Or other property" so, hopefully, Jonbrackenbury's "Fantastic cars" can have charges applied against them too.

At 16:44 on April 29 2008, nelson89 said:

Leading a frugal lifestyle should give you the reward of financial security and freedom.I don't think spendthrifts should complain about being punished for doing the opposite.Charging orders are sometimes the only way lenders can reclaim their money from people who basically refuse to pay back loans etc.I agree with AlysonThomson's post although I doubt Jonbrackenbury's "fantastic cars" cars actually belong to him. They're probably on HP!

At 11:11 on April 30 2008, jonbrackenbury said:

Both my fantastic cars are on monthly lease payments (not HP or loan). If I stop making the payments they get taken away from me but I have nothing more to lose. No house or assets to get repossessed. I always ensure I spend my money on holidays or consumables which have no worth to a baliff. A frugal lifestyle does NOT give security. In fact it gives the opposite. You have something to lose if things go bad like redundancy etc. That house you have been paying off will simply get repossessed if you miss just a few payments and sold for a knock down price leaving you with negative equity in all liklihood. you would have struggled your whole life, gone without luxuries and still be left with a big debt and no assets.

At 12:37 on April 30 2008, clarcombe said:

It is an interesting POV from JonBrackenbury. I am assuming that you are single (or at least have no dependants).

Imagine the impact on your family of being evicted due to not being able to pay the rent, or losing your family car.

It is understandable to have a frivolous attitude to money due to not being able to get on the property ladder, but there may well be a price to pay when you have a family and then approach retirement.

At 13:17 on April 30 2008, nonjudgemental said:

I always like to hear from those who separate the emotion from any debate. Unfortunately, many of the postings I've just read don't do that. Let's punish them even more, let's take everything they've got because I don't do that, let's make life harder and drive these people into despair, let's hear about how I'm perfect and everyone else needs to be like me! The one thing about debate from afar and without looking into another individual's eyes is that you get to say almost everything you want without thinking. Yes people get into debt but why is that such a surprise to everyone when you look at how, up until recently, that was so, so, easy to do. People can only get into debt when people offer them debt in the form of credit. If those supplying the credit had not been so greedy in their motives to do so then maybe as a society we wouldn't have this problem. Some of you will be thinking what is this person talking about. As an older individual I have witnessed how without producing any real product or service people have created lots of money. That money is created and the jobs that go along with it, through people having debt. Ouch! Did that hurt some of you? Is your employment involved in providing debt for others? Would you need to look for another position if no one ever had debt? I'm not here to judge you, however, as someone who might, at sometime need to support you,whether that be through a kindness, a blood transfusion or just a hand up from a fall I'd like to think that we can all be above condemning another because they have made a mistake. Please try to remember you're talking about people. In the end what they've done is spend too much for whatever reason but they didn't do that to harm people. If we all want to change something for the better then we should all campaign for better ways to lend money in the 1st place. If you want to condemn someone then look at those that made the money so readily available without doing the checks they were meant too. And why did they do that? Because in the end they were probably on bonus to sell more money / credit to people, their jobs depended on it and that oh so beautiful phrase "we need to make more profit than last year!" Do not condemn your friends, family and others you do not know because you have not done so yourself but think of a way of helping those that made a mistake and believe me they all wish they hadn't. Nothing every gets better through punishment whereas helping others learn from their mistakes does make a difference. If you don't believe me think how you felt the last time you made a mistake and someone criticised you for it and then think when someone said don't worry mistakes happen, it's how we all learn we just need to make sure we don't do it again.

At 23:05 on May 08 2008, helpnothinder1 said:

You do not have to live an extravagant life style to get into debt.
However once you are in debt you might as well just give up, you can try to negotiate with creditors, try and offer payment, do your best to get back on your feet, but many of these creditors are evil. They employ solicitors who can charge anything they see fit.
Banks are happy to charge high rates for unsecured loans, but then secure them on your property if they don’t get their money back, best of both worlds.
Banks miss sell product, they should be forced to apply the same standard for unsecured debt and they do with secured debt, e.g. your home is at risk etc.
That would affect business though, wouldn’t it?
Indeed there in no such thing as an unsecured loan for a homeowner, it is a lie.

I was like one of the perfect people once who have made comment.
However I was made redundant, I did not want to sponge of the state so I sold my house and invested in a pub, with Punch Taverns, (that’s another story).
I was robbed blind by Punch, lost about £100,000, "yes I did try and get out" eventually sold at a loss.
We have tried to start again, we both have good jobs make decent money and have tried everything within our power to talk to our creditors and come to an amicable solution. We have never stopped paying what we can afford.
They don’t want to know, we want to pay off our debt, and will, and we are not trying to get away with anything.
Some people just don’t have a clue, and have had no adversity in their sorry little lives. So why comment on things they have no understanding of.
We are not bad people; in fact we are hard working honest people. We worked seven days a week; I had a full time job and a pub to run at one point, working seven days a week, sometimes 16 hrs a day. My wife still has four jobs, we are careful with our money, and the only reason we got into debt is because we wanted to work and did not want to claim dole.
I suggest that you need to stop being so opinionated, and get on with you own perfect little life. YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE!

Join the conversation

Hello stranger. Please[log in]to comment.

Not yet registered? Register now.

 

Switch to a different topic area

Can't find what you need in Get Out Of Debt? Try one of our other personal finance areas.

Latest stories

Get all the latest news and editorial comment as it's published – check out our Latest Stories

© Copyright 1998-2008, The Motley Fool Limited. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only.
The Motley Fool, Fool, and the "Fool" logo are registered trademarks of The Motley Fool, Inc.
Place of Reg: England & Wales. Company Reg No: 3736872. VAT Reg No: 735 7818 01. Registered Office: 30 Great Pulteney Street, London W1F 9LT.


USEQ\EQWEB09