Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

Keaton - I am unconvinced that a change to their computer system would make a difference here as if you are effectively remortgaging the outcome would be the same. It is more likely to be simply a case of how they decide whether to lend or not and that has more to do with risk than with what type of computer system they have?

DAKOTA45's suggestion to clear the HFC debt by securing more under the remortgage may be a way forward although I assume this may not be an option as you did not comment

Keaton_2

Hi LRR

According to the Halifax mortgage adviser they would normally just do a product transfer which would mean that the existing mortgage remains and doesn't need to be redeemed. However, because of the change of computer system they cant do this on their old systems so that's why they need to redeem - which essentially means a remortgage - which is where the trouble starts.

Securing more on the mortgage isn't an option as the terms of the DMP means we can't take out additional credit or treat one creditor more favourably.

Thanks

DAKOTA45

Hi WEMBLEY14… (and others),


I wonder, if you have the time or inclination, you could please tell me some more about how you managed to nail those crooks (BL)?

I am determined to go back to the court, especially since I came across the following Civil Procedure Rules….

You will see that they should have made any application by appeal and at least within 14 days of the decision (not 5 months after as they did with you)!

Any help would be very gratefully received…especially with the wording on the N244 Form…


Thanks in anticipation!

DAKOTA45


CPR 28 Variation of directions

4.1 This paragraph deals with the procedure to be adopted:
(1) where a party is dissatisfied with a direction given by the court,
(2) where the parties agree about changes they wish made to the directions given, or
(3) where a party wishes to apply to vary a direction.

4.2
(1) It is essential that any party who wishes to have a direction varied takes steps to do so as soon as possible.
(2) The court will assume for the purposes of any later application that a party who did not appeal and who made no application to vary within 14 days of service of the order containing the directions was content that they were correct in the circumstances then existing.

4.3
(1) Where a party is dissatisfied with a direction given or other order made by the court he may appeal or apply to the court for it to reconsider its decision.
(2) He should appeal if the direction was given or the order was made at a hearing at which he was present or represented, or of which he had due notice.
(3) In any other case he should apply to the court to reconsider its decision.
(4) If an application is made for the court to reconsider its decision:
(a) it will usually be heard by the judge who gave the directions or another judge of the same level,
(b) the court will give all parties at least 3 days notice of the hearing, and
(c) the court may confirm its decision or make a different order.

4.4 Where there has been a change in the circumstances since the order was made the court may set aside or vary any direction it has given. It may do so on application or on its own initiative.

4.5 Where the parties agree about changes to be made to the directions given:
(1) If rule 2.11 (variation by agreement of a date set by the court for doing any act other than those stated in the note to that rule), rule 3.8(4) (extensions of time by written agreement in circumstances
within rule 3.8(3)) or rule 31.5, 31.10(8) or 31.13 (agreements about disclosure) applied the parties need not file the written agreement.
(2)
(a) In any other case the parties must apply for an order by consent.
(b) The parties must file a draft of the order sought and an agreed statement of the reasons why the variation is sought.
(c) The court may make an order in the agreed terms or in other terms without a hearing, but it may direct that a hearing is to be listed.

DAKOTA45

Keaton wrote: »

Hi LRR

According to the Halifax mortgage adviser they would normally just do a product transfer which would mean that the existing mortgage remains and doesn't need to be redeemed. However, because of the change of computer system they cant do this on their old systems so that's why they need to redeem - which essentially means a remortgage - which is where the trouble starts.

Securing more on the mortgage isn't an option as the terms of the DMP means we can't take out additional credit or treat one creditor more favourably.

Thanks

Hi KEATON

Talk about "Computer sez No"!!

I think they are just being difficult… When I asked to be moved to a better rate with my lender, there was no problem at all, even with the restriction in place…
I don't believe they can't work out a way to do this without redeeming the mortgage… What rubbish!!


Pffft!!!:mad:

Keaton_2

Hi DAKOTA45

I know it does seem a bit strange.

Funny how they've managed to give thousand of other existing customers new mortgage numbers without any trouble.

Maybe the ombudsman can do something.

Thanks

andy262_2

I don't think a day goes by without me coming back to see how people are doing, I'm not sure whether I have made any progress apart from finding a solicitor who has been helping me, after going through my paperwork he asked why my parents are not down as trustees as they have a beneficial interest!! This came about because they contributed towards my purchase quite a substantial amount which went into a loan account prior to the bank loan as this was a condition, solicitor then did the transfer with nothing else said or done regarding parents contribution and I didn't know any different myself and parents thought this was right and safe..

I have a buyer who does not need to borrow and complete as quickly as possible due to a break in and every bit of copper pipe and radiators pinched along with water running through the building for two days.

This solicitor suggested I do an AP! and TR1 with notes explaining how parents interest has come about with supporting evidence, a witnessed deed and contract along with a receipt showing myself and parents that we are trustees. This was then submitted through the land registry portal about two weeks ago expecting a requisition.

We have not heard anything? is this part of the course? this solicitor is getting replies within a week about most transfers although he did say this is quite unusual as an express declaration of trust at the start would of sorted matters.

Thankyou in advance.

eggbox

andy262

LRR may be able to shed some light on this later but it may help to help to confirm your situation a little further by explaining if you are a sole/joint owner, what is registered on your deeds and the sums involved?

Land_Registry

Difficult to understand the scenario here so as eggbox explains a bit more detail would help to understand what the situation is and what you are now trying to achieve?

Whilst it seems odd that your solicitor would be submitting an application knowing that we would raise a requisition we are not that naive so appreciate it can happen.

Whilst a 2 week delay is unusual re such an application it can happen so I would hold on a little longer and I'm sure your solicitor will hear from us shortly

DAKOTA45

Hi LRR

This is what I got back from LR… they seem to have completely misunderstood the situation...

Dear Mrs XXXX
Further to your e mail.
It can be seen that the first restriction placed on the title register was made by virtue of an interim charging order and the second was by virtue of the final charging order. It is noted that they both have the same reference "XXXXXX" and would appear to relate to the same case. It is not unusual that both interim and final charging orders are noted on the register by way of restriction even though they appear to protect the same interest.
The Land Registry will place the restrictions on the register as per applications made.

I have written back;

I acknowledge that the first restriction was placed on the title register by way of an Interim Charging Order, (2 June 2014), and that the second restriction resulted from a hearing for the Final Charging Order which was on 3 November 2014.

However, the judgement creditor then made a further (without notice) application to appeal that decision, requesting a modification to the standard form k restriction, for which there was another hearing on 8 December 2014.

I have recently received notification from Land Registry which states that a Modified Form K Restriction was made on 3 November 2014.

This is incorrect and should be dated 08-12-14, as the hearing for the Final Charging Order on 03-11-14 resulted in a Standard Form K Restriction only.

Can you tell me if XXXX XXXXXXX informed Land Registry about
both the Standard Form K Restriction dated 03-11-14 and the Modified Form K Restriction dated 08-12-14, please?

It appears to me that LR was notified only about the modified restriction but that this was somehow backdated to relate to the previous decision for a standard form k restriction.

This is why I am confused, because unless the later decision on 08-12-14 extinguishes the original decision (03-11-14), it would appear that there are two different types of restriction (a standard and a modified restriction) both with the same reference number.

Land_Registry

Hi DAKOTA45 - it's difficult to know if they have misunderstood without sight of the question asked. I recall suggesting you get a copy of the papers submitted to us and then contact the court as appropriate but you may have asked something else instead?
Happy to take a look if you give me the reference e.g. 150309-123456

The response above is though quite accurate in so far as someone may apply to protect both an interim and final charging order although it is rare to do so where they relate to the same interest. Often the beneficiary will merely register the interim as that comes first and some, nor many, then withdraw that one and register the final one or register both. The choice is theirs.

However, and this may be why you feel that we have misunderstood your question, the scenario here seems to be that the second order was asking for and got a modified form K restriction. If so then it still comes back to what the court decided