thank you so much for posting this otherwise I would never have known (not being a Times reader!)

I'm actually a customer of Nationwide and want to look into this more so that I can let them know what I think. I've never used consumer credit like this, but I'm definitely not on the banks' side and understand why people do. I've worked in banks in what I thought were non-sales roles, only to find out that there's no such thing in modern banking - or at least there wasn't until the recent credit crunch.

it was the banks who persuaded everyone to borrow all that money ridiculously. then after you've borrowed the money they managed to persuade this pathetic government to change the rules about how this money can be recovered. all in all a hideously corrupt state of affairs.

I have absolutely no sympathy for the banks and their inhuman practices.

Just a couple of things, the order being referred to is not a technicality of the consumer credit act. It is a charging order which effectively secures an unsecured debt on a property. At the moment a charge can only be attached to a property if a county court judgement is obtained first. Creditors cannot go straight for a charging order. At the point where county court papers are served, an offer can be made of payment by installments. The courts are often more reasonable than the creditors because the court will consider the ability to repay the debt in deciding whether to accept the offer (if the creditor has refused). The county court claim form should be returned before the 14 day deadline. If the form is returned late, the creditor will get a judgement for payment in full. That, at the moment, is when creditors will often decide to go for a charge.
If the creditor gets the charge, they can then decide to go for an order for sale. Usually (whatever the times says) creditors don't go for sale orders because courts are traditionally reluctant to grant them. Sometimes sale orders are granted, but usually the courts will consider very carefully before this is done. On the whole, judges know that a sale order leaves people potentially homeless. There are opportunities throughout this process for negotiation with the creditor and the court. I am a debt advisor for a major charity and I agree its scary if the first hurdle of obtaining a judgement for payment in full is taken down leaving the way free for creditors to go straight for a charge. however, as i've said, it doesn't automatically lead the way to losing your property. The majority of charging orders sit on the property without further action until the person who owns the property disposes of it in their own time and only at this point is the debt paid from the proceeds of the sale. Best advice is if a creditor goes for a charge on your property, seek proper independent advice from an organisation like Citizens advice bureau... and don't panic. Not everything always goes the creditors way.

There's nothing loopholey about charging orders, they have been about for years and will continue to be here for years to come. The overriding legal principle is that a debtor shall not be kept from his money. The head legal case is someone who was owed money and who evicted a debtor's family including small children to sell the house and get his money back. So there... no loopholes, just sensationalist reporting...

please note that i am only relaying what i myself read in last weekends sunday times (front page) so any "sensationalism" or "technicalities" should be checked with the orginal. i too was surprised. nobody denies that such measures are on the statutes, but then so are many arcane "victorian" and "star chamber" type laws which (hopefully) will ne'r be used agin... as for the benificence of the courts, there's no doubt that sympathetic judges exist (lord hoffman comes to mind) but the s.t. article points out specifically that the county courts will be less of an obstacle in future, likely next year. which is the more serious, a bank losing its debts, or chidren evicted to pay for it all ?