Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

Taffybiker wrote: »

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

Apologies for the slow response

Our view is that the trust cannot come to an end while your ex's interest is encumbered by a charging order. You will continue to hold her beneficial interest on trust for her subject to the interest of the person with the benefit of the charging order.

If you want the restriction on the ex’s beneficial interest removed after the transfer then you would have to provide evidence that the beneficial interest was no longer charged (ie. that he or she had paid off the debt) together with either an application to withdraw the restriction from the debtor (which they won't provide) or an application to cancel the restriction relying on the evidence produced.

eggbox

Hi LRR

Thanks for the update. Reading the Court order that was how I, unfortunately, read it as they made it subject to the CO. But it does raise a few issues.

So to start with, can I ask if the transfer proceeds to remove Taffybikers ex but is he is still holding the ex's BI on trust; that if he were to then sell the property the Restriction would still become overreached (when complied with and the property sold for capital monies) as has been discussed on this thread.

I'm asking as TB would become the sole owner after the transfer, despite holding the ex's BI on trust, and I'm just wondering if transferring to his sole name may put him in a "weaker" position upon sale.

PatJay

A quick question please. If I was to change ownership from joint ownership into single ownership to the non debtor (eg from husband with debts to wife with no debts) with the Land Registry, before any possible court proceedings, would this nullify any chance of a charge being put on the property?

eggbox

The simple answer is yes for "loan" type of debts as the Charge has nothing to attach to.

Tax/Council debts, however, can allow dealings to be scrutinised (I believe) seven years respectively.

PatJay

Yes it would be a credit card type. Thanks eggbox.

eggbox

it's also less likely Court proceedings will occur if a creditor knows you have no asset to Charge to.

PatJay

Ah right, I didn't realise that but I suppose that makes a lot of sense.

eggbox

It's not a definite by any means, but they are businesses at the end of the day and have to use their resources as effectively as any other business would have to.

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

Hi LRR

Thanks for the update. Reading the Court order that was how I, unfortunately, read it as they made it subject to the CO. But it does raise a few issues.

So to start with, can I ask if the transfer proceeds to remove Taffybikers ex but is he is still holding the ex's BI on trust; that if he were to then sell the property the Restriction would still become overreached (when complied with and the property sold for capital monies) as has been discussed on this thread.

I'm asking as TB would become the sole owner after the transfer, despite holding the ex's BI on trust, and I'm just wondering if transferring to his sole name may put him in a "weaker" position upon sale.

It is only overreached where it is by two or more proprietors for capital monies so in this case overreaching would not happen

eggbox

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

It is only overreached where it is by two or more proprietors for capital monies so in this case overreaching would not happen

Thanks LRR that should give Taffybiker some food for thought as to when to implement the transfer?