It's not a commonly-known fact that people who fall behind on repayments of credit card or loan debts can have a charging order placed against their home, even though the original debt was not secured against it. It means if you don't pay up, your home could be at risk.

Shocking really. If you take out a loan secured against the value of your home. If you don't pay what is owed then the finance company can take you to court and order that your property be sold to repay the debt.

So most people would prefer not to go down the secured loan route and instead opt for credit cards or unsecured loans, at significantly higher interest rates, kidding themselves that at least if they hit a rough patch there will be no claim on their house. Wrong!

Now, a Government inquiry is to look into whether there should be a minimum level of debt outstanding before any action against a borrower's home can be taken. It's only a brief look as far as these things go as its scheduled to finish by the end of April.

But if they can reach some sort of consensus on this then it is a breakthrough on what is a pretty nasty technicality.

It also shows how disgracefully some credit card companies behave. It was their greedy approach during the glory years of credit offering massive card limits to people who really couldn't afford them that has seen so many plunge into a debt spiral.

Oh, but it's okay for them, because if things start looking rocky for them, they're allowed to increase the rates of interest that you pay on historic debt. So that credit card cheque you wrote a couple of years back with an interest rate of 0% can be increased to 30% at a whim.

Bearing in mind that Bank of England base rates just yesterday were again pegged at 0.5% how can this possibly be justified? Okay, legally it's watertight, but morally?

Oops, thin ice here – credit cards and morality!