Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

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

Timing seems to have already been an issue but that is probably more to do with wider issues around separation/divorce etc I suspect.

Two parties involved of course so the ex still has a role to play and could, if TaffyBiker for example looked to delay things, go back to court to get the judge to execute the Transfer.

eggbox

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Two parties involved of course so the ex still has a role to play and could, if TaffyBiker for example looked to delay things, go back to court to get the judge to execute the Transfer.

I get the impression TB isn't the one who has been delaying things?And as going back to Court would cost the ex money (with no benefit for doing so) I can't really see that happening given the time that has already elapsed since the Court order?

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

I get the impression TB isn't the one who has been delaying things?And as going back to Court would cost the ex money (with no benefit for doing so) I can't really see that happening given the time that has already elapsed since the Court order?

I agree - that's why I said 'looked to delay things' being all too aware that circumstances can change around these things for widely differing reasons

Taffybiker

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

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).

Meaning I will be fully responsible for paying her debt if they can't get it from her? Would they even try knowing that the CO is in place? I can say without fear of contradiction she has no intention of clearing any debt she owes.

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

So what was a Form K restrction will become a full CO that I now will have to deal with?

eggbox wrote: »

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

I don't understand what difference this would make?

She has ignored all letters from solicitors and the court. A judge has signed the transfer because of non compliance on her part.

Where do I stand now?
There is always of course the possibility of further CO's being placed on the property while her name is still on the deeds.

eggbox

Taffybiker wrote: »

Meaning I will be fully responsible for paying her debt if they can't get it from her? Would they even try knowing that the CO is in place?

The problem is the Charge was made when your ex legally had an interest in the property. With a CO in place, most creditors are happy to sit back and wait to be repaid. But if there is no prospect of an earlyish sale to recover funds their only other alternative is an attachment of earnings if the debtor is employed (if you get my drift)

Taffybiker wrote: »

So what was a Form K restrction will become a full CO that I now will have to deal with?

No, its always been a full charging order but was only allowed to be registered on your deeds as a Restriction as the property was jointly owned. That won't change.

Taffybiker wrote: »

I don't understand what difference this would make?

The difference is simply this; if you leave your ex's details ON the deeds then if you sell the Restriction will be "overreached" upon a sale as you are TWO people selling to a third party. This, effectively, means you can sell your property without having to part with any funds to register a new buyers details at the Land Registry.

Taffybiker wrote: »

She has ignored all letters from solicitors and the court. A judge has signed the transfer because of non compliance on her part.

Unfortunately, the order the Judge signed took into consideration the existing Charge registered.

Taffybiker wrote: »

Where do I stand now?
There is always of course the possibility of further CO's being placed on the property while her name is still on the deeds.

To prevent this you need a Trust deed arranged to notify that your ex's interest in the property is restricted to the value of the Charging Order in place.

neiljules

I have a restriction on my property but RCI have sold the debt on to Capquest last year.

I have never had any contact from either company in 6 years and had to find this out when I rang for a settlement figure. Plus Capquest have quoted 3 different balances so far and are claiming to have held the debt 4 years longer than they have actually held it.

Where do I stand now given that RCI are the ones who still hold the Restriction but Capquest hold the debt? (checked with LR)

eggbox

For Capquest to own the debt you should have received a notice of assignment from both RCI and Capquest. For Capquest to have the right of the Charging Order, the original CCJ granted to RCI will have had to have been reassigned legally by a Court. Which, again, you should have been notified of by the Court.

The original Court order for the CO would have given the amount it was for and the applied interest rate you seem to accept is legit? So you should be able to work out the approximate amount due and negotiate a settlement for paying now rather than the creditor waiting for many to years to, maybe, get paid.

neiljules

eggbox wrote: »

For Capquest to own the debt you should have received a notice of assignment from both RCI and Capquest. For Capquest to have the right of the Charging Order, the original CCJ granted to RCI will have had to have been reassigned legally by a Court. Which, again, you should have been notified of by the Court.

The original Court order for the CO would have given the amount it was for and the applied interest rate you seem to accept is legit? So you should be able to work out the approximate amount due and negotiate a settlement for paying now rather than the creditor waiting for many to years to, maybe, get paid.

Thanks,

The first part is the interesting bit as I have never had any contact from either company regarding ownership of the debt.. RCI did confirm when I rang that they do not own the debt any more.
Where do I stand now as I would of course like to pay nothing if I legally get away with it but am more concerned that I want the restriction lifted. If I pay Capquest any money it is pointless as they do not control the restriction.

eggbox

You should write in the first instance to Capquest to request they provide evidence that they have been legally assigned the debt. You should also request a settlement offer.

The Restriction can only be removed whilst you are still living at the property by the Restrictioner agreeing to remove it (which usually involves repayment of the debt or a settlement)

If you sell the property then, as this thread is highlighting, you have other options on whether to settle the debt upon sale

Taffybiker

eggbox wrote: »

The problem is the Charge was made when your ex legally had an interest in the property. With a CO in place, most creditors are happy to sit back and wait to be repaid. But if there is no prospect of an earlyish sale to recover funds their only other alternative is an attachment of earnings if the debtor is employed (if you get my drift)

No, its always been a full charging order but was only allowed to be registered on your deeds as a Restriction as the property was jointly owned. That won't change.

The difference is simply this; if you leave your ex's details ON the deeds then if you sell the Restriction will be "overreached" upon a sale as you are TWO people selling to a third party. This, effectively, means you can sell your property without having to part with any funds to register a new buyers details at the Land Registry.
Unfortunately, the order the Judge signed took into consideration the existing Charge registered.
To prevent this you need a Trust deed arranged to notify that your ex's interest in the property is restricted to the value of the Charging Order in place.

I don't have any plans to sell up. I just wanted full disassociation with my ex, but it would seem that is not going to be possible unless I settle her debts, which I am not prepared to do.


If I were to leave her name on the deeds, can I still sell the property as and when I am ready without her signature?