Charging Order? The myth

weimimamma

I am just having a look into that as I feel there should be no fees for me to pay I have a first time buyer and I am not purchasing anything so quite frankly the only thing they have done is sent out the pack to the other side.


I have spoken to the Estate agents who has advised that they feel the same that I am banging my head against a brick wall and should change sooner than later.


Eggbox - I have put a call into R and am waiting for a call back (fingers crossed)


I am a bit in limbo at the moment until I know if the other solicuitor will take on my case or if not have to find one that is knowledgeable about the restrictions as we know they are like gold dust

eggbox

I'm sure R will be able to help?

Dakota - how are things progressing as not heard for a while?

weimimamma

Just has a reply from Ricky he is going to speak to his Directors and get back to me - keeping everything crossed.

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

I'm sure R will be able to help?

Dakota - how are things progressing as not heard for a while?

Hi Eggbox… They're still playing dirty…

They made an application to strike out in October… they are refusing to agree directions or consider mediation until their application is dealt with, so I'm in Limbo…

Then in November, (and without mentioning the other side's application), the court sent a directions order for both parties to prepare for a CMC hearing in March…

So I've written to the court asking what's happened about the strike out app… still waiting for an answer.

Same old, same old…but thanks for asking!

Dakota.

weimimamma

Received contact hooorraayyyy ......

Well perhaps not she clearly has no idea how to deal with restrictions have sent her a couple of snippets but need something clear in plain old english she can understand.

lord help me.

babydaisy

Wonder if anyone could shed any light on whether or this Restriction would be overreached:

The property is in joint names.

There is a restriction to protect a charging order but that is also in the same joint names.

So I am thinking this may have been erroneously entered by the Land Registry as all the examples on this thread have been where the property is in joint names but the charging order is only against one name.

How do we stand with this do you think?

The Restriction has the same wording as has been mentioned throughout the thread.

eggbox

Babydaisy

This has cropped up before and the Land Registry's view is they deal with what is registered on the deeds.

So, yes, in your case the Restriction would become overreached as that is all that is protecting the CO.

babydaisy

Thanks Eggbox, that's great news. Seems to be a lot of confusion in this area.

So even if this was erroneously done that's not my problem as buyer? They will just fall away?

eggbox

Yes, if you look back a few pages the same thing was discussed.

The LR's view is they can only deal with what is registered, not what could (or should) have been be registered.

weimimamma

Well after a post on 30th November sale went down hill..... totally incompetent solicitors, original solicitor left who said he could sort form k's and the new lady did absolutely no work on our file for 5/6 weeks and when I kept trying to contact her she finally told us to find another solicitor - we have now will have to wait and see if he can deal with restrictions - and will be reporting other solicitor to law society.

Restrictions frightened her off I think she had no clue what to do about them and yes I had the oh dear there are a few we shall have to write to them all....

watch this space lord help me why is this so much hard work.