CCA ,s taken to court ???

longshot

blueback - i see how it's possible now, you didn't let onto the
fact you'd had a charging order for over 3 years.

I agree well done this is the law.

I think you were partly lucky due to the fact property prices

are very low at the moment, if it was different i think they probably would

chase the debt.

Out of interest when they placed the charging order on your property

was it for the full amount of your debt? 15k was it?

tyllwyd

So what happens to the original 15K debt? Has that gone, or does the debt still exist even though you were able to sidestep the charging order/restriction?

blueback

No the debt doesnt go away it just means you pay them back on your terms, not theirs and you have the freedom of selling the house and hanging on to your equity.

Then you ensure that you legally dispose of your assets and rent somewhere. Once you have no assets there is no logical reason to spend money on chasing a debt that they will not get back and they also dont go the bankruptcy route because that also costs them.

Once you realise that you can live better without credit and as a result are relaxed about the worst that can happen and BR is irrelevant if you live within your means, you can sit back and make paper aeroplanes with the DCA letters and when you get fed up with that, you CCA them and it all stops a couple of weeks later.

In this case the agreement was unenforcable anyway (didnt know about executable CCAs at the time of going to court) so they're not getting anything and never will.

TellTheTruth_2

longshot wrote: »

blueback - i see how it's possible now, you didn't let onto the
fact you'd had a charging order for over 3 years.

Out of interest when they placed the charging order on your property

was it for the full amount of your debt? 15k was it?

There is a BIG difference between a Charging Order and a Restriction. It was NOT a Charging Order attached. It was a Restriction. Please read the whole content and not what you wish to understand.

blueback wrote: »

So I have found the answer, if the house is in joint names they can only register a restriction, not a charge.

Nick Smith

FirstTimer4Me

TellTheTruth wrote: »

There is a BIG difference between a Charging Order and a Restriction. It was NOT a Charging Order attached. It was a Restriction.

no wonder i'm confused going by this post and the other one i've just posted on.

i must try and get some sleep

night

blueback

This is taken directly from the Land Registry website. Please note the last paragraph.

Quote:

John and William Smith own a
hardware store in Gloucester.
One of their customers, Mr
Brown, has failed to pay for
goods supplied to him.
To protect their interest, John
and William have obtained a
charging order against Mr
Brown’s beneficial interest in 55
High Street, Stroud which he
owns jointly with his wife.
They have applied on form RX1
for the following form K *
restriction to be entered on
Mr and Mrs Brown’s register:
“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 John
Smith and William Smith at Unit
24 London Road, Gloucester
GL4 5VN, being the person with
the benefit of an interim
charging order on the beneficial
interest of George Brown made
by Gloucester County Court on
15 November 2004 (Court
reference GL/346).”
This restriction means that no
disposition of 55 High Street
can be registered without notice
first being served on John and
William Smith which will give
them the opportunity to recover

the debt owed by Mr Brown.

There is a big difference between given the opportunity and securing the debt, dont you think?

Hope this helps

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/educ_fact_5_131205.pdf