Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Whoever obtained the CO should be the one registered on your deeds? If they have, subsequently, sold your debt then the information should be updated but this isn't always the case? The point I was making about re-assignment was that if the debt has been sold on (but not re-assigned by a Court if a CCJ was obtained) then the new owner cannot, legally, pursue an Order For Sale.

Choochybaby69

Can a creditor block the sale of a property and if yes for what general reasons please?
Thanks, Paul.

eggbox

To attempt to do so a creditor would have to apply to a Court for a freezing order.

The reason they wouldn't do so is because a freezing order is very expensive to apply for also carries financial risk for the creditor who has to agree to pay damages for any loss suffered by the defendant if it is later shown that the injunction should not have been granted.

Applying for a freezing order is, therefore, a high risk move as demonstrated by the lack of evidence of these being applied for if you Google the subject.

A freezing order is also designed to stop someone disposing of an asset that may be valuable to avoid paying a creditor. But the logic of a CO is that a creditor believes he has security for his debt so they, therefore, want you to sell the asset as that's when they expect to get paid?

They should only discover, therefore (in the instance of a Form K), that they haven't been paid after the asset concerned has been sold? Its difficult to see, therefore, how a freezing order could be applied effectively by a creditor in this circumstance?

Choochybaby69

So why do people not simply sell the property to a relative or trusted friend at a low price and re-purchase it later and is this feasible?
Thanks, Paul.

eggbox

A combination of not realising they can do it but also the ,likely, difficulty of finding a relative who has enough spare cash to purchase a house?

But having a friend or relative willing to purchase your house for cash is, undoubtably, the easiest way around this situation as there is no mortgage company involved.

Choochybaby69

So could they purchase it for the amount, as in to pay off the outstanding mortgage but not the debt, as in charging order, which if I am right, is only paid after the mortgage if there is sufficient moneys paid for the property?
Thanks, eggbox, Paul.

eggbox

Yes that's correct.

For some strange reason I see a lot of people on these boards believing they have to sell their property at a "fair market rate"? You can,however, sell your property for whatever value you like as long as it clears any "equitable" charges on the deeds. As a Restriction is not an EC then it presents no problem.

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

To attempt to do so a creditor would have to apply to a Court for a freezing order.

The reason they wouldn't do so is because a freezing order is very expensive to apply for also carries financial risk for the creditor who has to agree to pay damages for any loss suffered by the defendant if it is later shown that the injunction should not have been granted.

Applying for a freezing order is, therefore, a high risk move as demonstrated by the lack of evidence of these being applied for if you Google the subject.

A freezing order is also designed to stop someone disposing of an asset that may be valuable to avoid paying a creditor. But the logic of a CO is that a creditor believes he has security for his debt so they, therefore, want you to sell the asset as that's when they expect to get paid?

They should only discover, therefore (in the instance of a Form K), that they haven't been paid after the asset concerned has been sold? Its difficult to see, therefore, how a freezing order could be applied effectively by a creditor in this circumstance?

But can a freezing order be applied at the Interim CO stage and before the decision is made to finalise the CO?

Apparently, an ICO is to prevent disposal of the property until it has been dealt with at the FCO hearing…

I think I've asked this before as many people only get an ICO and it never progresses to a FCO… So… if they sell their house which only has an Interim CO, are they breaking any laws? As yet, that question has not been answered…

It's a weird situation…


D45

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

Yes that's correct.

For some strange reason I see a lot of people on these boards believing they have to sell their property at a "fair market rate"? You can,however, sell your property for whatever value you like as long as it clears any "equitable" charges on the deeds. As a Restriction is not an EC then it presents no problem.

Exactly… and I guess there must be a way where you could set up that kind of scenario for a small fee…

I was going to do it with my sister and rent my home back for a while… but she decided to do up her own house instead… doh!

A cash buyer is the only way, though... D45

eggbox

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

But can a freezing order be applied at the Interim CO stage and before the decision is made to finalise the CO?

Apparently, an ICO is to prevent disposal of the property until it has been dealt with at the FCO hearing…D45

An ICO is the primary action a creditor takes to, supposedly, prevent the debtors property being sold when they are seeking to obtain a Full Charging Order. However, as hopefully LRR will confirm; an ICO can only be registered, on jointly owned/ sole debtor property, in the same manner as a Form K Restriction would be for a Full CO. It should, therefore, be treated in the same manner, and become overreached, should a sale occur for value of the property concerned?

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

I think I've asked this before as many people only get an ICO and it never progresses to a FCO… So… if they sell their house which only has an Interim CO, are they breaking any laws? As yet, that question has not been answered…D45

The reason I have always felt ICO's don't progress to a Full CO is because the time and cost of doing so doesn't really obtain the creditor any extra benefit? Especially as there seems to be no time limit on the Restriction notifying an ICO remaining on the property deeds?

With both an ICO and a Full CO, a Court has made an order giving the creditor the right to collect his debt owed from the debtor's asset from which it has been made against. It is, however, still the creditors responsibility to collect the debt not the Court's. Therefore, should a debtor decide not to pay the debt it is incumbent on the debtor to go back to Court to try and get the debtor to pay up. If the creditor decides not to do so; the Court (Law) doesn't do anything else towards recovery.