Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

LRR

If a Court orders the BI to be transferred would a Restrictioner not consenting make any difference to the transfer going ahead (assuming the Restriction is a Std Form K as these are?)

No - the transfer can still go ahead but the form K restrictions remain until applications are made to withdraw or cancel them

Taffybiker had not added the additional details so just wanted to understand their position a little better, especially as when the application to cancel the outgoing debtor's form K restriction came in we would serve notice on the creditor

I presume the creditor who had responded was responding to the solicitor who figured their consent was needed - in the case of the Transfer though we know it's not

eggbox

Thanks LRR I'm sure Taffybiker will confirm the details later tonight when he picks up the post.

Taffybiker

I will indeed eggbox

It was Shoesmiths acting on behalf of Alliance and Leicester.

I must say I am so glad I joined this thread. Things look much more promising now than they did last week. :j

eggbox

Taffybiker

Thanks for the update and to help as LRR asked, did they cite anything additional as to why that was their position?

Taffybiker

No, they gave no reason but when I personally spoke to the other one, they said the order was placed while my ex still had some beneficial interest in the property so the "Charging Order" still stands.

antonette254

Hi
back in 2009 Nat-West applied a Charging Order to my home for a loan I defaulted on. The mortgage from NRam is jointly held by myself & my two sisters. I live in the property with my kids. I would like to apply for a remortgage, but I am unsure as to how the CO will affect this. I have been repaying the debt to Nat West since the CO was applied, but I will have a good few more years to pay before it is cleared. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

eggbox

What a mortgage company always want is the 1st charge on a property so it has the power of sale should the mortgagee default and it has to repossess the property.

If the lending can be included as an extension of the existing mortgage there shouldn't be a problem (providing NRam are willing to lend given you have a CCJ in place?).

However, some remortgaging requires the existing mortgage to be redeemed before new lending can happen. If NRam use this policy for remortgages they then won't allow as the mortgage would then become (by date) secondary to the Charging Order (or Restriction if you are a joint owner) registered on your deeds.

antonette254

thank you so much for your response.I no longer have any CCJ's on my file as they were applied in 2008/09 so last ones dropped off this year.

I'm sorry but I am new to this so I don't really understand all the terminology all I know is that a CO was granted . How do I find out more information about it?

I'm was going to try with a broker to find a suitable lender so it doesn't necessarily have to be NRAM.
Thanks again

eggbox

antonette254

Basically, a mortgage company always wants to be the first charge holder on your deeds. This is because they will then be the first in line when you sell up or your house is repossessed. It's unlikely any mortgage company would lend without this basis being in place.

So if further lending is required, unless Nram allows further lending on the same mortgage (which will mean the first charge they have in place will cover the whole lending) then its no problem. But some banks like to redeem (end) an old mortgage when new borrowing is required and create a new mortgage in its place.

The problem here is that any new mortgage would be behind (by date) the Restriction you have registered on your deeds notifying that one of the owners has a Charging Order against them for a debt. So it would cease to be the first charge on your deeds (meaning it would be behind the CO debt regarding priority as to who will be paid first) As such lenders then won't allow further borrowing.

If you have plenty of equity in your property further lending shouldn't be a problem for a "secured" loan if the amount is relatively small in comparison. But lenders will still see that you have a debt registered against your property and may decline on that basis. Your best bet is to be upfront with Nram and see what they come back with?

Taffybiker

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Thanks Taffybiker - I'll do some digging around this as whilst the court order is pretty clear as to what the court wants to happen there may have to be something extra added or included to 'prove' that the beneficial interest has come to an end in some way.

I appreciate your efforts LRR. Did you manage to find anything more about this?