Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

Hi LRR

Thanks and yes you are right we did, sorry.

But could I ask if you have any understanding of how or why the wording of a Form K Restriction was decided upon in the LR rules 2003?

Hi eggbox - the modified form K is not part of the Acts and Rules as it is non-standard
I assume therefore the wording is such as decided upon by the court with due regard to the Charging Orders Act and/or Law of Property Act 1925

eggbox

LRR

No I meant the Standard Form K not a modified one.

Coinmachine

Eggbox I have now heard from Shoosmiths and a bit confused.

There is no reference to earlier Nationwide letter re charging order it simply states that I have failed to pay outstanding amounts or agree repayment terms with Nationwide - nonsense when I have been in a DMP for a year.

It states the full sum owed is now payable immediately and and to contact them with my repayment proosals within 14 days or court action.

I willcall stepchange tomorrow but grateful for your views.

Coinmachine wrote: »

No, not yet, I had a letter in January stating:

'Please continue to make the proposed payment to this account as it will reduce your balance and will indicate your intent to repay this debt'

'Interest is not currently being charged to your account, but due to the balance outstanding it will take considerable time to clear it'

'In view of this, it is our intention to start legel proceedings. If we get a court judgement we may then apply for a charging order on any property you may own. If granted, this will mean that this debt is secured against your property'

'However, whilst you continue to make these payments, subject to regular review of your financial means, we dont intend to take any further recovery action other than that described above'

And then the recent letter stating they have now passed it all to Shoosmiths. In between times having reviewed my DMP at the one year point I am able to increase my overall payment by £75 so taking about 15 months off the length of my DMP.

eggbox

Coinmachine

1) you need to send a letter (with proof and by recorded delivery) that you have been repaying the Nationwide debt through a DMP. You further state that any further attempt by Shoosmiths to ignore this fact will be reported to the Financial Ombusdman Service as harassment. Their response to this will let you know what they are likely to do next.

2) You send Nationwide an s.78 CCA request to supply a copy of the agreement relating to the account also by recorded delivery.

You didn't answer if the debt was taken out post April 2007 (but I'm assuming it was) but they still have to comply with s.78 request before they can take any further action. So it buys you a little time to get help on your situation.

Coinmachine

Thanks yes it is post 2007 I will do all that cant understand why the letter is so different to nationwide previously referring to the charging order etc whereas this one is just pay up perjaps thats standard tactics though

eggbox

Both letters are standard tactics and both are designed to worry you into paying more. Given that you are repaying, its another example as to what depths these company's stoop to.

However, having passed the account to Shoosmiths it may well just be they don't realise you are a repaying account?

Coinmachine

Im no sure its all odd as the nwide letter referred to the dmp and that due to the length of time theyd seek an order and this letter seems to contradict that will keep you updated

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

Hi LRR

Thanks and yes you are right we did, sorry.

But could I ask if you have any understanding of how or why the wording of a Form K Restriction was decided upon in the LR rules 2003?

That's what I'm wondering… surely, there would have been some in depth discussions at LR…

Certainly, we know for a fact that they decided the 14 day cautions were no longer to be used and replaced by the various restrictions…

Then along come BL which decides to reintroduce the 14 day caution & the court just rubber stamps it without, it seems, any consideration at all...

Why should the creditors be permitted to do as they please with the written rules..?

Why are they allowed to 'move the goal posts'?

Can I decide to jump a red light if I feel I have good reason, such as I am late for an appointment, M'Lud? (oh… here's the 80 quid)..

DAKOTA45

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

DAKOTA45 - no restriction has been changed back. A form K was registered and for whatever reason the creditor applied to the court for an order instructing that a modified form K be registered, which was then also registered.

Applying for a form K restriction appears to be quite straightforward. Applying for a modified restriction is presumably more 'arduous' for the creditor to achieve and presumably the court requires a degree of additional evidence to support the creditor's apparent contention along the lines explained in my previous post.

The creditors solicitor has supplied no additional evidence at all.

Their only 'evidence' in requesting a modification being that 'the standard form k restriction is not fit for purpose as it provides no security for the debt…'

They are making a statement here about LRR, but does this provide them with the necessary grounds to make their own modifications to the standard form K restriction?

If not, why are they being allowed to so easily alter that which is set out in writing according to the LRA 2003 (LRR)?

It's very odd…but a nice little 80 quid earner for the court which, of course is then passed on to the debtor...

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

LRR

No I meant the Standard Form K not a modified one.

Perhaps the 'rules' are for guidance only…

Well… that's how it seems, anyway.