Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Please let the board know the reply as it helps people in a similar position!


But your LR Deeds definitely show your partners interest in the property takes priority (as registered first) over the CO and is therefore secure.

Land_Registry

Spongebob64 wrote: »

(05.10.2007) Equitable charge created by an Interim Charging order of the **** County Court dated 20 September 2007 in favour of Northern Rock Plc.
NOTE:-Copy filed.

No mention of the final charging order though ???

Spongebob64 - re your final quote

Where a final charging order is made, the court is confirming that the charge created by the interim charging order should continue.
Although the process under the COA 1979 produces two separate orders there is, in reality, only one equitable charge. This charge takes effect conditionally when the court makes the interim charging order and then becomes unconditional on the making of the final charging order.

In our view it is probably unnecessary, therefore, to protect both charging orders and as a result it is rare for the Final CO to be registered as the interest is already protected by reference to the Interim CO on the register.

So the fact that the entry refers to the Interim CO only is probably not that significant.

eggbox

Hi LRR




What confuses people is where they find an interim CO has been registered (ie they find it appears on their LR deeds) but there has been no notification to them of any final charging order hearing (where all interested parties are supposed to have the opportunity to object?)


There are dozens of instances on message boards such as this where people have related this information and is often written by people who weren't the debtor but, as they were a joint owner, they were supposed to have been notified in order to raise any objections but haven't been.


How does this happen and what is the situation if a creditor has not made the CO final?

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

How does this happen and what is the situation if a creditor has not made the CO final?

The simple answer is we do not know how or why this may happen. From a purely registration perspective the important part for the creditor is the protection of the Interim CO on the register. The answers presumably lie with the court process and the CO legislation.

As you already appreciate we record the information on the register but we are not part of the court process itself and nor are we an enforcement agency.

And as posted if they don't register a Final CO it does not appear to have any effect from the registration perspective so presumably if there is any effect in not making it Final it would not be something of which we would be aware.

I suspect, although based largely on your own previous observations in this thread, that the pursuit of the debt is very much reliant on other matters rather than the effect of the entry on the land register itself. That entry puts others on notice of it's existence and the Interim CO is perhaps seen as sufficient for achieving this. Anything else appears not to involve registraiton with us.

Spongebob64

I've had an reply back from Mortimer Clarke. They have included a letter from NRAM detailing the transfer to Marlin and letter from Marlin with details of transfer as well.

No answers to any specific question regarding my situation, just a note to say they look forward to receiving correspondance from my debt management company (which I don't have) or I can complete the enclosed income and expenditure form.

eggbox

The assignment of the debt from one company to another allows them ownership of the debt only (meaning they are legally entitled to ask you to pay them and not the previous owner). But if they wish to pursue you through "legal" means they need the CCJ re-assigned by a Court first. Until that is done NRAM still have the CO.


The fact they haven't given you information of this, and the fact you haven't been notified by a Court of any re-assignment as is required, suggests they haven't done so?

kookykathryn

Hi everyone,

I am still trying to sort out my issue with the restriction and selling. It is looking like I have to pay the debt first.

I have offered the debt company a payment in full but for less than the amount and they have said this:

"Please be advised that if you were to pay off your balance with a discount, your credit will show as partially satisfied. However if you were to pay the full outstanding amount, it would show as satisfied."

Is that correct?

thanks

eggbox

kookykathryn


Why is it looking like you may have to pay the debt?


Your sneaky creditor is also trying to bluff you into paying the full amount. If you did arrange a discount it should ONLY be accepted as a "full and final" settlement. So the debt would have to be shown as satisfied.


But remember that the CCJ will be registered on your credit file for 6 years regardless of any "satisfied" note.

fatbelly

kookykathryn wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I am still trying to sort out my issue with the restriction and selling. It is looking like I have to pay the debt first.

I have offered the debt company a payment in full but for less than the amount and they have said this:

"Please be advised that if you were to pay off your balance with a discount, your credit will show as partially satisfied. However if you were to pay the full outstanding amount, it would show as satisfied."

Is that correct?

thanks

I don't see why you have to pay the debt first. That's what this thread is all about. However, the quoted paragraph about your credit file is correct. The information Commissioners Office says that 'partially settled' is the correct mark when a debt is settled by a full & final settlement deal.

This to distinguish between those who settle at a discount and those who settle in full.

It's paragraphs 50, 51 in this document

Filing defaults with credit reference agencies

eggbox

With respect, Fatbelly, I don't think that is what section 50 and 51 does say? Section 50 actually states,


"Where there is a default but a lender has formally accepted in [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]full and final [/FONT][/FONT]settlement a smaller amount than was owed under the terms of the original agreement, then it would be unfair to process personal data to record an outstanding balance on a default when the matter had been formally and finally concluded."




And section 51 only states a partial settlement if,



"the lender has accepted as part of a negotiated settlement a payment that is less than the outstanding amount and the customer has agreed as part of the settlement how their credit record will be affected"


which is not the same as a Full and Final settlement where the debt (for whatever amount) has been totally and finally settled.