Charging Order? The myth

I do understand what you are say, however, it would be useful if the LR could confirm that a Restriction would become overreached if the details are exactly as related and there is definitely no other concerns registered.


This could then gives a starting point to investigate why, if the Restriction hasn't been removed, what the possible reason for that is (such as the applicant not getting it right or the LR not getting it right)


But to try and extract an answer , is there any reason why a Restriction, on Beneficial Interest, and worded exactly as Wembley's is, wouldn't be overreached (upon a sale to a third party for value) where a standard worded Form K Restriction, if registered instead, would be overreached?

The wording of Wembley's Restriction is


NO DISPOSITION OF THE REGISTERED ESTATE IS TO BE COMPLETED BY REGISTRATION WITHOUT A CERTIFICATE SIGNED BY OR ON BEHALF OF

---

OR ITS SOLICITORS THAT WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DISPOSITION WAS GIVEN TO THE SAID

---

AT LEAST 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DISPOSITION (THE SAID FINANCIAL SERVICES BEING THE PERSON WITH THE BENEFIT OF AN INTERIM CHARGING ORDER ON THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST OF MR

---

BY THE

---

COUNTY COURT UNDER CLAIM

---

OR WITHOUT A FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT WHICH ORDERED THIS RESTRICTION.


but it is still relating to a sole consumer debt on jointly owned property where, in the majority of cases, a Standard Form K is registered. The point of my question was, the only difference here is that the creditor has to give notification rather than the buyer of the property. So I'm really asking does this wording difference (and if that is he only difference) affect overreaching?


Also, are there particular reasons why a creditor would use this type of wording rather than a Standard Form K. Or, to put it another way around, is a Standard Form K only allowed unless certain other requirements or circumstances dictate?

Thanks LRR that information sheds an awful lot of light on the problem! You must understand we laypeople have to persist with asking certain questions because, as besswales has just confirmed on another similar thread, the professional help isn't always adequate.

besswales wrote: »

just a quick update on this thread--- well finally sold the house and moved out at the end of June and life feels sooo much much better!!! My advice to any one with a restriction is to make sure your solicitor understands the process involved mine didn't and the advice of the people on here was invaluable in pointing her in the right direction. Once again thankyou to everyone who took the time to help on here..

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Hopefully wembley14 will be able to resolve the issue but it again seems to eb a wider understanding of the legal/court issues that is required which relies on legal advice, which of course costs.

That legal advice costs money is, certainly, a hinderance to many people; but the real problem remains that Solicitors are, largely, ignorant of the facts regarding CO (certainly on jointly owned property) and don't take kindly to Joe Public putting them right.


That's why your input continues to be so helpful to us "laypeople" when we're confronted by a Solicitor/Conveyancer who isn't up to speed on these particular matters.