Charging Order? The myth

DAKOTA45

I'M ALL DISCOMBOBULATED…

Sorry- cap lock!

Has the site been reconfigured in any way? I've had to sign in again and it all looks different… and especially now that the most recent stuff is at the top of the page instead of at the bottom…:(

D45

DAKOTA45

As you were… it has all righted itself… dunno what happened there! D45

DAKOTA45

Eggbox… what did you mean when you said CO doesn't affect bankruptcy…?
I am unfamiliar with the rules of bankruptcy… worried that now the creditor has the CO he may also apply to make me bankrupt to cover his further costs if I lose in the current proceedings….

D45

eggbox

Hi Dakota

If you owe any creditor over £5000 they can issue bankruptcy proceeding against you at any time?

But any Charging Order obtained by a creditor, prior to bankruptcy proceedings, takes priority over the bankruptcy. So it's unlikely a creditor will proceed with bankruptcy proceedings if he knows he already has priority on your assets for his debt ( unless they are desperate for the cash which doesn't sound the case with your neighbour?)

Bankruptcy can also be long winded and sometimes expensive option so creditors opt for a charging order instead, in most cases, as it's a simpler and less brutal way of obtaining their proceeds?

But debtors should always be aware that once the debt hits £5k plus then creditor does have the option if they ever so wish to go down the bankruptcy route?

Choochybaby69

I was taken to court myself, with my Wife who is a joint owner, but she has no relation to the debt and it states restriction.They also lodged the restriction separately to the the other partner, but IF he has paid or part paid the debt, how do I find out? Also the debt is increasing at 2% per month, is there anything I can do to stop or freeze it?
The lady I spoke to from Investec said they would not attempt to force a sale, it was the solicitors acting for Universal leasing who tried that in 2010.
thanks again, Paul.

DAKOTA45

Many thanks, Eggbox… This nasty piece of work is not a run of the mill creditor ...he actually stated in his reply to my letter before claim that he would go down that route… but this was before he obtained the CO… so I've no idea what's next…

How does the joint mortgagee fare in the case of bankruptcy? Does there need to be a certain amount of equity so that he gets his share? Or do they take his assets too?

Back in court on Monday for his summary judgment application to strike out.

Wish me luck!

D45

eggbox

It depends on individual circumstances but if you are over 70 you can be classed under exceptional circumstances to prevent a sale of the property? Your partner can also defer the sale for 12 months, too. Have a look below

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy-2/partners-and-bankruptcy/is-your-home-at-risk-if-your-partner-is-bankrupt/

eggbox

And sorry forgot to say good luck for Monday!

so_very_confused

Hi eggbox
To clarify your comment on bankruptcy. If you owe a DCA for two debts both under 5,000 but together exceed this amount can they pursue bankruptcy?
Thanks

eggbox

If the debts are owned by the same company, unfortunately, yes they can. But it's been, overwhelmingly, shown that DCA's prefer to go down the CCJ Charging Order route so I wouldn't worry too much they will go down that route.

I also dealt with a person last year who owed Marlin (DCA) over £45k through 4 different debts they had purchased and they didn't move on bankruptcy (the debts became statute barred in January of this year, too, so they are unable to do that now anyway.)

One of the reasons some DCA's steer clear of bankruptcy is they have to prove that the debt exists. Lowell DCA tried to be clever a couple of years back in issuing loads of statute demands (which is the first step to going after bankrupting someone) on consumer debtors. But one of the solicitors from the Legal Beagles website took them on as the debts were trialable as the original lender had not conformed to the requirements required under the CCA1974 (consumer credit act) meaning the contracts were unenforceable?

So Lowell was landed with thousands of pounds in legal costs as the statutory demands were set aside and (I believe) have reigned in this practice?