Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

sentient73 wrote: »

I have spoken to the Land Registry this morning. They were not able to answer this specific question, and they said that only a court can apply a Charging Order, and that if something was being applied outside of court then it is more likely to be a notice. I'm now trying to find out what type of notice it would be, and what the implications of a notice are in relation to my situation.

Have a read here


http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/professional/guides/practice-guide-19

eggbox

wembley14 wrote: »

Thanks for the additional info eggbox.
This shows that the buyers solicitor is not acting in their best interests, if she is not willing to use the laws that are there. So what possible benefits is she actually achieving for her clients.

She isn't as there is no way a Restriction of this sort can be left on the title deeds if sold for value. She is, also, protecting the third party creditors interests above her own clients. This is why the SRA have to be informed to make Solicitors aware of what they are doing.


Unfortunately, too many people are not challenging their Solicitors on this issue which means the status quo will prevail.

wembley14

Thanks for that reply eggbox,
I agree with what you say. I have looked on law society website and I can't report this solicitor until I have made an official complaint to the solicitor and her firm. As she(buyers solicitor) is not working for me I'm not sure I can complain. Unless because she is connected to the sale I may be able to complain as she is jeopardising the sale through her insistence of restriction being removed.
cheers.

eggbox

wembley14 wrote: »

Thanks for that reply eggbox,
I agree with what you say. I have looked on law society website and I can't report this solicitor until I have made an official complaint to the solicitor and her firm. As she(buyers solicitor) is not working for me I'm not sure I can complain. .

She is, though, preventing a transaction proceeding that concerns you and with advice that could be viewed as incorrect thus jeopardising her own clients best interests in otaining the sale they want. Reason enough for a complaint I say.

wembley14

Eggbox I agree what you say. I will be sending both conveyancers an official complaint.
I have also checked my title at LR and there are 2 restrictions put on by my creditor, but one is slightly amended with the stipulation ' no disposition of the registered estate is to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by creditor or its solicitors that written notice of the disposition was given to the creditors at least 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DISPOSITION.'

This change of the wording came 5 months after the original in 2009. Does this mean the creditors have now got an effective restriction for securing their debt. Maybe that's why buyers solicitor is digging her heels.


Reading back at BLUEBACK'S original thread the wording of his restriction was different. just wondering if the LR are now allowing non standard forms for restrictions.
What do you think?.
I was hoping the creditors would be informed around the sale date and not two weeks beforehand.

eggbox

wembley14 wrote: »

Does this mean the creditors have now got an effective restriction for securing their debt. Maybe that's why buyers solicitor is digging her heels.
.

Not really, as it always used to be a 14 day notification. The Restriction wording only differs from the standard form K in as much as the creditor has to acknowledge they have been notified 14 days prior to the sale. Whilst this would give the creditor more time to contact your solicitor to request payment, it's important to remember it cannot prevent the sale proceeding as the Restrictions terms have been met. The Restriction then has to be removed by the LR whether you have settled or not (which is why you are right to complain to the Solicitors concerned)

If your Solicitor says he has been instructed to pass all sale proceeds to yourself (as there is no legal obligation to pay at the point of sale) the creditor is still left with virtually no time to react (and probably wouldn't know what to do anyway?)before you've been over to Vegas and put it all on Red number 7

wembley14 wrote: »

Reading back at BLUEBACK'S original thread the wording of his restriction was different. just wondering if the LR are now allowing non standard forms for restrictions.
What do you think?.
.

Non standard forms are only allowed if they are "reasonable". What the creditor has asked for is reasonable as it's only asking for a bit more notification and and to supply confirmation they have been informed. It doesn't alter the fact there is no automatic right of repayment to the creditor at the time of the sale and your Solicitor, in my opinion, would be culpable if he acted against your instructions.

paigesaunt

Absolutely right egg box, I bought my BR husbands share from the official receiver for £1, plus £210 legal fee's.

joan1920

If what you are saying is true does this mean that I could have purchased the debt on my home owed to the lender when it went into receivership for £1 please clarify

wembley14

Hello just an update.
Although, nothing has happened, only more frustration. I have spent last two days on phone to find an appropriate conveyancer.
It would be a lot easier to find rocky horses sh*te


They have all said the same as each other that restriction needs to be removed before completion "sorry can't help you". Its as if they are all in with the creditors.


Buyer is becoming more distraught. His solicitor is not budging.
We are now at wits end. Why the hell do we need these people?

eggbox

wembley14 wrote: »

They have all said the same as each other that restriction needs to be removed before completion "sorry can't help you". Its as if they are all in with the creditors.

No, they are scared of upsetting creditors so they tow the line. That both the buyer and seller suffers is not a concern to them.


And I'm sure no one offered a valid (or legal) reason why the Restriction is required to be removed prior to a sale when that requirement isn't in the terms of the Restriction?