Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Thank you!

mrsvanderkamp_2

Hi, could I ask whether a lender who has entered a restriction (CCJ for debt in sole name and property is jointly owned) would ever be able to apply for a forced sale, or does a restriction not give that power in the way that a charging order would? Many thanks in advance

eggbox

They can apply as they have obtained a Charging Order. But for the reasons explained in this thread, their chances of succeeding on jointly owned property for a sole debt are virtually zero.

mrsvanderkamp_2

eggbox wrote: »

They can apply as they have obtained a Charging Order. But for the reasons explained in this thread, their chances of succeeding on jointly owned property for a sole debt are virtually zero.

Hi, thanks for the reply, but it isn't a Chsarging Order, it's a restriction laid out as mentioned in the thread ie; "no disposition...unless notice is given in writing..." That's not a CO is it? I thought that that was the difference that this thread was pointing out or have I misunderstood?

eggbox

You have, unfortunately, misunderstood. A Restriction is a notification that a Charging Order exists on the "Beneficial Interest" (the debtors share of the financial equity) of the joint owner with the debt.

Charging Orders cannot be registered against the land (property) where the ownership is joint but only one owner owes the debt. So a Restriction has to be applied for by the creditor to notify that a CO is in place as above.

The joint owners of the property should also be notified that a Charging Order is trying to be obtained after a CCJ has been obtained.

mrsvanderkamp_2

I see, thank you

Branflakes

Hello.


An application has been made to the Land Registry to enter a restriction in the register of a jointly owned property. I am a co-owner along with my partner. Unfortunately he has accumulated a great deal of debt. This is my co-owner's debt not mine!


The letter I received asks me to respond with my consent or objection to the application.


Should I reply either way as the debt is not mine?


Thank you

eggbox

You have the right to object as you have a financial interest in the property. But, unless you have any special reasons why the Restriction shouldn't be registered, they are usually impossible to prevent.


But the Restriction is only made against your partner's share not yours and you have no responsibility for the debt. A read of this thread will explain how and why the Restriction has been obtained, but also the precarious nature of the "security" sought by the creditor.

Branflakes

Many Thanks

donttakemyhouse

Like, I expect, many people before me, I was very relieved to come across this thread today.
Our situation follows a business debt my husband incurred when the company he was working for put themselves into voluntary liquidation to avoid paying him £19000, most of which he owed to a joinery company. The joinery company then sued him for their unpaid invoices. As he was a sole trader and had no other income there was no way he could pay this. He attended court on the day of the initial summons but somehow due to work or something, he never attended when it was sent for fast track. A judgment was awarded in his absence.


We have recently received the notice that they are applying for a charging order on our jointly mortgaged property.


Am I right in thinking there is no need to reply with any objections or attend court on the day of the hearing for the charging order as they will not be able to enforce it as the property is jointly owned.