Charging Order? The myth

eggbox wrote: »

Can you post a link to where that info is, please?

It was a site called whatdotheyknow…. think it's a Govt website…. here's a paragraph from the part dealing with applications for ICOs;

What will the court do when it receives my application for a
charging order?
Send your application, when completed, to the court that covers the defendant’s home area even if you obtained judgment in a different court. Court staff will issue your application and refer it to a judge. If the judge is satisfied with the information you have provided, the judge will make an interim charging order. The order will be drawn on Form N86 (Interim charging order). A copy will be sent to you and the judgment debtor.
The order will include the date and time of a hearing at which the judge will decide whether or not to make a final charging order. You must attend that hearing, otherwise the judge may dismiss your application.
If the judge is not satisfied with the information you have given in your application the court will let you know.

D45

If you go to https://www.whatdotheyknow.com and enter EX325 into the search, the info is there…. but apparently the rules were changed last year and this no longer applies because all claims can now be made through moneyclaim online and the procedure is different.

D45

eggbox wrote: »

I think (as with the new rules) the "home" Court only becomes relevant if an objection to the FCO is made? Remember the ICO is able to be sought without the defendants knowledge.

So I doubt any ICO application, not made through the defendant home Court, would be rejected.

You're probably right… the rules can be so complicated, though. D45

Also found this , on the other site….

Originally Posted by Old Cogger
From April 2016 the rules changed again the process of obtaining a charge. What is the main difference now Pls?
There are three key differences:-

An application for a charging order with respect to a judgment made in the county court will need to be made to the County Court Money Claims Centre;

Where an application is made to the County Court Money Claims Centre it will be determined by a Court Officer; and
Where an application is to be determined by a Court Officer this will be an administrative action and a hearing will not be listed.

Under the previous rules, applications were sent to the County Court where the judgment was made, and determined at a hearing by a district judge before the claimant and whichever other party who saw fit to attend. Under the new regime, if the County Court Money Claims Centre receives an objection to the application, the matter will be transferred to the local court of the judgment debtor and the process will essentially revert back to the old regime, whereby the application will be determined at a hearing by a district judge.

Other changes:-

Slight amendments to the charging order application forms (N379 and N380);
responsibility to serve the application on the judgment debtor being transferred from the court to the judgment creditor; and a new requirement to serve the application not just on parties which have an interest in the property but also the spouse or civil partner of the judgment debtor – if known.

Hearings will still be listed to determine applications which are required to be issued outside the County Court Money Claims Centre, such as those referring to judgments made in the High Court.

The reason I am searching for clarification on this is that the judgement creditor has told the court that I caused delays whist he was attempting to enforce the debt and I would like to be able to point out that any delay was caused by his lawyers who made the application at a different County Court to where the judgement was obtained…

D45

eggbox wrote: »

I think the Court would only have sympathy if the delay was caused due to you not being notified that an FCO hearing was taking place (regardless of where the application was made?)

Were you notified that a hearing was taking place?

The ICO was a without notice application…but yes, as per those 2 ICOs, I was aware of the hearing(s) for the FCO. D45