Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    blueback
    Charging Order? The myth
    • #1
    • 26th Jul 09, 11:28 AM
    Charging Order? The myth 26th Jul 09 at 11:28 AM
    I feel that this is so important that I thought a new thread should be made to highlight the importance of understanding the law on Charging Orders and how many people are stuck with their property in the false believe that they have had a Charging Order put on their property.

    In particular the thousands of Northern Rock customers that have had unsecured debt turned into secured debt by their tactics.

    If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction.

    The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor.

    However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to decieve you believing you are stuck with a CO.

    However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them

    Quote:

    Restriction


    The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :-
    No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).
    You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer.

    If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered.


    So I hope I have provided benefit to everyone who has had a restriction entered against them (especially NORTHERN ROCK CUSTOMERS) who believe wrongly that they are Charging Orders.

    You now have the freedom to go and sell your houses with the knowledge that the vultures can do nothing

    I also think this VERY IMPORTANT point needs highlighting by the moderators as many many people are stuck with houses that they believe they cannot sell
Page 168
    • Pinkypo
    • By Pinkypo 22nd Jun 17, 10:36 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Pinkypo
    Thank you. I'll email them now, unfortunately I don't hold much hope. I have already sent two emails with no response. Their service is terrible and I am at my wits end. There isn't enough equity in the house and the thought of parting with that much money is getting to me
    • Hootin_Heck
    • By Hootin_Heck 23rd Jun 17, 2:50 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Hootin_Heck
    Land Registry question for LRR
    For the Attention of LRR...

    Our mortgage was a together mortgage with NRAM which comprised of a secured element and an unsecured element. From what I have read, normally what happens is that when selling the house, the secured part is paid, and the unsecured part de-links at a higher interest rate and paid back separately.

    NRAM are saying that they cannot de-link them because of a charge on the property...which there is NONE for the unsecured element.

    There are 2 restrictions for 2 separate personal loans with NRAM which we think is confusing them.

    Now on the Land Registry (Proprietorship Register) it states the following
    (16.04.2007) The price stated to have been paid on 11 December 2006 was
    £xxxx
    "X" is the full cost of the mortgage including the unsecured element.

    Does this entitle them to demand the unsecured element? Or is that just normal to list the full amount paid, including any unsecured element?

    This is holding up the sale of the property... NRAM are being quite stubborn over this.

    I guess that was a long winded way of asking the charge on there for the mortgage, does that only cover the secured amount?

    Thanks in advance
    Last edited by Hootin_Heck; 23-06-2017 at 2:57 PM.
    • Pinkypo
    • By Pinkypo 23rd Jun 17, 5:04 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Pinkypo
    Thank you to LRR and Egg box.
    I received this response from the solicitor
    "Yes that is correct. Usually on these type of restrictions only written notice is required. We already wrote to them to provide such notice and therefore this has been complied with. They came back saying how much they wanted. Some people in these circumstances wish to repay them at the same time on completion. If you do not want to then we will advise them of this and won’t do this."
    I called and she said that now we have instructed them that we will not be paying they will contact the buyers solicitor. I asked if the sale will still go through and she said it still could do. She did warn that the creditors could come after us for full payment. Can they? they are all in repayment. Also with the buyer solicitor knowing that we wont be paying the charges, will they tell the buyer to pull out?
    • Burnsy1978
    • By Burnsy1978 23rd Jun 17, 5:51 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Burnsy1978
    Hi everyone,
    I'm new to this site and would really appreciate some help on a matter concerning an interim charging order. In 2009 I was made redundant from my job during the recession. At the time of redundancy I was in the middle of a hire purchase agreement on my car. I kept payments up for as long as I could afford but sadly fell into arrears. As a result of this, I made the decision to give up the car and give it back to the finance company. I sent them a letter saying that I would give the car back as full and final payment as I had already paid more than 50% of the total amount payable, this is the law under the CCA 1974. I received a letter back saying that was fine and they were willing to accept this agreement. A few months down the line I received court papers saying the lender was making an application for a charging order on my home. As I have never been to court in my life before and didn't have a clue what the process was I went in to the hearing quite blind. As I had no idea how to defend myself the judge made judgement in their favour. Now as my house is jointly owned I have since read they wouldn't get a final charging order anyway. I haven't had credit since this incident and a few other debts which spiralled. Now my credit score has improved and is getting back to where it should be, this interim charging order has come back to haunt me after I applied for extra funds on my mortgage for home improvements. I have the land registry document which does state that the lender has a "restriction" on my property. Is there anyway I can get it removed?
    Thanks in advance
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 30th Jun 17, 12:59 PM
    • 1,203 Posts
    • 610 Thanks
    eggbox
    Thank you to LRR and Egg box.
    I received this response from the solicitor
    "Yes that is correct. Usually on these type of restrictions only written notice is required. We already wrote to them to provide such notice and therefore this has been complied with. They came back saying how much they wanted. Some people in these circumstances wish to repay them at the same time on completion. If you do not want to then we will advise them of this and won’t do this."
    I called and she said that now we have instructed them that we will not be paying they will contact the buyers solicitor. I asked if the sale will still go through and she said it still could do. She did warn that the creditors could come after us for full payment. Can they? they are all in repayment. Also with the buyer solicitor knowing that we wont be paying the charges, will they tell the buyer to pull out?
    Originally posted by Pinkypo
    Pinkypoo

    Sorry for late reply but thread updates not being emailed to me again (keep having this problem!!!)

    Your Solicitor seems to be helpful but you need to (politely) explain she didn't need to contact the creditor as the Restriction requires the buyers side to notify the sale?

    The creditor could come after you for full payment but its extremely unlikely if you are repaying. The key factor, however, is they have lost their security over the house. So its crucial that you don't invest your sale money into new assets they can go after again to encourage them to do so?

    The only reason the buyers Solicitor would advise their client to pull out is if they don't understand the limitations of the Restriction. So you need to make sure your Solicitor explains that once the terms of the Restriction are met, it will be removed upon sale through overreaching.
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 30th Jun 17, 1:31 PM
    • 1,203 Posts
    • 610 Thanks
    eggbox
    Hi everyone,
    I'm new to this site and would really appreciate some help on a matter concerning an interim charging order. In 2009 I was made redundant from my job during the recession. At the time of redundancy I was in the middle of a hire purchase agreement on my car. I kept payments up for as long as I could afford but sadly fell into arrears. As a result of this, I made the decision to give up the car and give it back to the finance company. I sent them a letter saying that I would give the car back as full and final payment as I had already paid more than 50% of the total amount payable, this is the law under the CCA 1974. I received a letter back saying that was fine and they were willing to accept this agreement. A few months down the line I received court papers saying the lender was making an application for a charging order on my home. As I have never been to court in my life before and didn't have a clue what the process was I went in to the hearing quite blind. As I had no idea how to defend myself the judge made judgement in their favour. Now as my house is jointly owned I have since read they wouldn't get a final charging order anyway. I haven't had credit since this incident and a few other debts which spiralled. Now my credit score has improved and is getting back to where it should be, this interim charging order has come back to haunt me after I applied for extra funds on my mortgage for home improvements. I have the land registry document which does state that the lender has a "restriction" on my property. Is there anyway I can get it removed?
    Thanks in advance
    Originally posted by Burnsy1978
    Burnsy 1978

    For the creditor to have obtained an interim charging order he will have to have, firstly, obtained a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you for the debt claimed; it is this that is affecting your credit file not the interim charging order.

    You should, however, have received papers from the Court advising you of the creditors court action, for the CCJ application, to enable you to defend the claim. Did you receive anything?

    If you received the papers but ignored them it should be okay as long as you still have the letter stating they were accepting the car's return in full and final settlement? This is because you will be able to make an application to set aside the CCJ on the basis you didn't owe any money because of what the letter states?

    Removing the CCJ is the only way to remove the Restriction (apart from settling the debt) so let me know what the situation is on the above and I can advise your next best action?
  • Land Registry
    For the Attention of LRR...

    Our mortgage was a together mortgage with NRAM which comprised of a secured element and an unsecured element. From what I have read, normally what happens is that when selling the house, the secured part is paid, and the unsecured part de-links at a higher interest rate and paid back separately.

    NRAM are saying that they cannot de-link them because of a charge on the property...which there is NONE for the unsecured element.

    There are 2 restrictions for 2 separate personal loans with NRAM which we think is confusing them.

    Now on the Land Registry (Proprietorship Register) it states the following
    (16.04.2007) The price stated to have been paid on 11 December 2006 was
    £xxxx
    "X" is the full cost of the mortgage including the unsecured element.

    Does this entitle them to demand the unsecured element? Or is that just normal to list the full amount paid, including any unsecured element?

    This is holding up the sale of the property... NRAM are being quite stubborn over this.

    I guess that was a long winded way of asking the charge on there for the mortgage, does that only cover the secured amount?

    Thanks in advance
    Originally posted by Hootin_Heck
    Very sorry for such a late posting

    The entry you have referred to is a 'price paid entry' and does not directly relate to any secured/unsecured loans.


    Such an entry is made when the ownership has changed e.g a sale so relates to the purchase price/value stated in the Transfer deed, not any legal charge.

    I would not have expected the price paid entry to cause any confusion or concerns for a lender
    Last edited by Land Registry; 01-07-2017 at 12:55 PM.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • Pinkypo
    • By Pinkypo 30th Jun 17, 9:56 PM
    • 6 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Pinkypo
    Egg box
    Thank you again for all your advice. The house sale completed yesterday. From sending that email to them on the Friday, to completition the following Thursday. It wouldn't have happened without you, so thank you so much.
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 30th Jun 17, 10:07 PM
    • 1,203 Posts
    • 610 Thanks
    eggbox
    Pinkypo

    No problem and I'm glad you have managed to sell okay!
    • Asify
    • By Asify 10th Jul 17, 5:28 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Asify
    Charging Orders and Inheritance
    I have read through the thread, and could not make sense of how this works

    Anyway here is my situation and I hope someone is able to assist

    My Mother past away in 1993 and my father passed away in May last year. Both owned a property which the mortgage is paid.

    My mother owned a 2nd property at the peak of the recession in 1994 and with the interest charges going crazy, the house was repossessed and auctioned off. Especially as my mother past away the year before

    My father agreed a payment plan to pay the shortfall on the mortgage on the second house and that was that.

    Or atleast I thought

    We got a call in 2008 requesting to settle the debt I explained my mother was deceased. So agreed to get my fathers part of the debt removed.

    Anyway roll the clock forward my Father passes away and I am the executor on the will.

    There are two orders in the document - see below

    (28.02.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to Bank of Scotland at c/o HL Interactive Solicitors, 19-21
    Spring Gardens, Manchester M2 1FB and of DX724000, Manchester 39 being

    the person with the benefit of an interim charging order on the
    beneficial interest of made by the Manchester County
    Court on 6 February 2008

    3 (06.05.2008) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to
    be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for
    registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition
    was given to Bank of Scotland PLC at care of HL Interactive Solicitors,
    76 King Street, Manchester M2 4NH and DX724000 Manchester 39
    () being the person with the benefit of a final
    charging order on the beneficial interest of XX made by the
    Manchester County Court on 29 April 2008 Claim Number

    What do these mean, and as my mother is deceased and it appears the charging order is only in my mums name

    Would love to know how to move my probate issue here and what the liabilities are here.

    Your advice would be greatly appreciated
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 10th Jul 17, 9:50 PM
    • 1,203 Posts
    • 610 Thanks
    eggbox
    ASIFY

    The Restrictions are notifying that a Charging Order was made in favour of the creditor concerned attaching to the financial interest of the debtor concerned.

    Land Registry Rep maybe able to offer some guidance as to what happens to the Restrictions now the debtor has, unfortunately, deceased and the probate issue.

    Under normal circumstances the Restriction can't be removed unless the debt is settled or the property is sold. But the property will form part of your father's estate and the creditor will now have to make a claim against that to realise their debt.
  • Land Registry
    Nothing happens to the restrictions until an application is made to cancel/withdraw. As eggbox posts the interest(s) they protect are still in play so if the property is to be sold to a third party or transferred to a beneficiary then they need to be complied with
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • Asify
    • By Asify 11th Jul 17, 9:25 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Asify
    Hi Both thanks for your feedback, The charging order is only in my mothers "beneficial interest" so I am assuming they can only realise the debt against my mothers Equity? My father did not have any restrictions on his name so I am assuming his equity is safe?

    Eggbox in this instance would you advise that I contact the creditors?
    • DAKOTA45
    • By DAKOTA45 12th Jul 17, 6:59 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    DAKOTA45
    Asify… what if you just made an application to LR to remove the Restriction, then wait and see if the creditors get back to you? D45
    • Asify
    • By Asify 12th Jul 17, 3:40 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Asify
    Thanks Dakota, they LR stated on my last call that the debt would need to be settled in order for the restriction to be removed. They suggested that I talk to the people the restriction was put in place for and we would need proof the debt was paid?


    The crazy thing is I have called the bank and they are unable to trace any records so not sure what to do next

    I have had conflicting information so if this is wrong let me know
    Last edited by Asify; 12-07-2017 at 4:53 PM.
    • DAKOTA45
    • By DAKOTA45 12th Jul 17, 10:18 PM
    • 459 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    DAKOTA45
    Weird that there are no records! Perhaps they have been lost… If you are selling, just let the creditor know after the property has been sold, and there's not much they can do about it… D45
    • Asify
    • By Asify 14th Jul 17, 2:53 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Asify
    No they found it, however the strange thing when I asked for a figure they gave me the figure void of interest @ 66,000 pounds

    Then I asked about settlement and they said I need to propose a figure?

    So then they called me again saying they would remove the CO, as mum had passed before the CO was granted

    Is this too good to be true? They have asked for proof of Death which I have sent. They said they will even handle contacting the LR to get the CO removed,

    I wait to see if this is even possible?
    • DAKOTA45
    • By DAKOTA45 15th Jul 17, 9:40 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    DAKOTA45
    No they found it, however the strange thing when I asked for a figure they gave me the figure void of interest @ 66,000 pounds

    Then I asked about settlement and they said I need to propose a figure?

    So then they called me again saying they would remove the CO, as mum had passed before the CO was granted

    Is this too good to be true? They have asked for proof of Death which I have sent. They said they will even handle contacting the LR to get the CO removed,

    I wait to see if this is even possible?
    Originally posted by Asify
    Sounds good! Send a copy of the letter and Form RX3 to LR and get the charge removed. D45
    • DAKOTA45
    • By DAKOTA45 15th Jul 17, 9:47 AM
    • 459 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    DAKOTA45
    For LRR, please;

    In 2008, a neighbour whose septic tank was faulty, asked if she could run an outflow pipe across my garden. She did the same with the neighbour on the other side.

    We both granted deeds of easement, and the pipe crosses both properties.

    Here's the thing;

    Whilst looking through the recent title deeds for both the properties the pipe crosses, I note that only my deeds show the easement as being listed.

    Does the other neighbour need to report these things to LR… I was wondering as there must be something in place for the person whose pipe it is to enter the land for maintenance, etc.

    Also, what would happen if the land was sold and the new owner was not aware of there being a pipe buried on the land and the rights that go with it.

    I suppose what I'm saying is this;

    Is it essential that deeds of easement are notified to LR?

    Many thanks. D45
  • Land Registry
    D45 - it should be registered against both the benefiting land and the subjective one. If it's not registered it may not constitute a legal easement so it not bein so could pose an issue at a later date if the landowners dispute things
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,116Posts Today

8,870Users online

Martin's Twitter