Charging Order? The myth

DAKOTA45

Another question, please!

There is a 'Restriction' showing on the property, the wording of which I don't fully understand. If anyone could translate for me, please?

(01.03.2016) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate by
the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered without a
written consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the
Charge dated 25 February 2016 in favour of Barclays Bank PLC referred to in the Charges Register.

C: Charges Register continued:

4 (01.03.2016) Proprietor: BARCLAYS BANK PLC (Co. Regn. No. 1026167) of
P.O. Box 187, Leeds LS11 1AN.

5 (01.03.2016) The proprietor of the Charge dated 25 February 2016
referred to above is under an obligation to make further advances.
These advances will have priority to the extent afforded by section
49(3) Land Registration Act 2002.

End of register

Very odd… just wondering, now that the creditor is on the back foot, whether he is busy transferring his assets…

D45

Land_Registry

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

Just that the proprietor had further purchased (in 2005) a large amount of land which does not show on the (ancient) plan details at LR.

Say, for instance the proprietor of property title EX656144 should purchase further land, EX553257, adjacent to his property, would both pieces of land now be listed under the first title number, or listed under both, or would a new title be needed?

It's difficult to find an owner of land where the details of ownership have not been registered.

It would seem that the 2nd title here is still listed as being owned by the vendor, who sold the land in 2005.

Does that make sense?

D45

Makes sense but all three possibilities exist plus they could be amalgamated under the second title as well.

the only way to be sure is to check the title plan(s) - if you searched the register only for the vendor?s title then it would still show the 2005 detail. If they sold part of that land off then it would be registered under its own title or have been amalgamated into the buyer's own title.

Have you checked any title plans? You refer to 'ancient plan details' but again unsure what that means

Land_Registry

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

Another question, please!

There is a 'Restriction' showing on the property, the wording of which I don't fully understand. If anyone could translate for me, please?

(01.03.2016) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate by
the proprietor of the registered estate is to be registered without a
written consent signed by the proprietor for the time being of the
Charge dated 25 February 2016 in favour of Barclays Bank PLC referred to in the Charges Register.

C: Charges Register continued:

4 (01.03.2016) Proprietor: BARCLAYS BANK PLC (Co. Regn. No. 1026167) of
P.O. Box 187, Leeds LS11 1AN.

5 (01.03.2016) The proprietor of the Charge dated 25 February 2016
referred to above is under an obligation to make further advances.
These advances will have priority to the extent afforded by section
49(3) Land Registration Act 2002.

End of register

Very odd… just wondering, now that the creditor is on the back foot, whether he is busy transferring his assets…

D45

Unsure why very odd as these entries are common when a legal charge has been secured against the title.
The restriction is standard for lenders so if there was a sale, lease, another legal charge then the registered owner would need the lender's, Barclays here, consent for it to be registered.

Charges register entries are also standard re the lender's details and includes an obligation to make further advances more details of which would be available from the lender or within the terms of the legal charge itself

Our Practice Guide 29 explains legal charges in more detail from a registration perspective

Note - a charging order is not a 'disposition' so the restriction would not prevent a Notice/Restriction being registered to protect the creditor's interest. I only mention in case anyone links the two in the context of this thread

DAKOTA45

Thank you, LRR… it's just that the tables are turning and it could be that the Creditor will now owe me a six figure sum and I'm just thinking ahead as to how I might enforce that debt if his assets are being protected/disposed of by way of him remortgaging up to the max and purchasing property abroad…I don't know for sure that this is what has happened but I have my suspicions, as he has disappeared. (He's a close neighbour).

This is a very recent restriction and seems to tie in with my counterclaim against him…. he had his property on the market prior to this restriction.

Its just that the 'proprietor' is named as Barclays here… hence the confusion.

D45

eggbox

I'd just like to update the board of another sale success from a seller who has been following this thread and has been requesting advice through a PM.

Interestingly, he used the firm that, until recently, employed the conveyancer who stated he could help board members sell a short while back but, subsequently, then had to renege on that offer when his new firm bottled it after worrying creditors might take action against them?

So I'll be investigating if they are willing to help other board members wanting to sell and I will update the outcome on that when I have that information?

Land_Registry

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

Its just that the 'proprietor' is named as Barclays here… hence the confusion.
D45

The Proprietor of the Charge is Barclays, namely a lender who has secured their loan against the title/property.

The registered proprietor as named in the B Proprietorship Register is the legal owner of the title/property. If the neighbour has 'disposed' of the property then it's the B Reg name you need to consider

If looking to register your own interest against the title/property then the legal charge is relevant as it will presumably have priority over any later registered interests

DAKOTA45

LRR … What type of a restriction is this, please? The wording is different to any other kind of restriction.
"The Proprietor Of the Charge dated…… is under an obligation to make further advances"
Doesn't a 'restriction' only apply when there is joint ownership of the title?

D45

Land_Registry

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

LRR … What type of a restriction is this, please? The wording is different to any other kind of restriction.
"The Proprietor Of the Charge dated…… is under an obligation to make further advances"
Doesn't a 'restriction' only apply when there is joint ownership of the title?

D45

D45 - it is not a restriction but an obligation relevant to the registered legal charge

The parties to a charge can agree that the chargee (the lender) is under an obligation to make further advances. For example, on a property requiring renovation the parties may agree that the amount secured by the charge will be advanced in instalments when the renovation work is completed.

The existence of this obligation may be shown by entry on the register. When such an entry is made any subsequent advances by the chargee (who is obliged to make the further advances) will have priority, over any later registered charges as to the sum advanced pursuant to this obligation.

DAKOTA45

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

D45 - it is not a restriction but an obligation relevant to the registered legal charge

The parties to a charge can agree that the chargee (the lender) is under an obligation to make further advances. For example, on a property requiring renovation the parties may agree that the amount secured by the charge will be advanced in instalments when the renovation work is completed.

The existence of this obligation may be shown by entry on the register. When such an entry is made any subsequent advances by the chargee (who is obliged to make the further advances) will have priority, over any later registered charges as to the sum advanced pursuant to this obligation.

Thank you, LRR…


I am totally convinced that this is being used to prevent the enforcement of the debt that will be owed to me if the court finds against him..

I wonder if there is anything I can do? Probably not.

D45

Hootin_Heck

A little bit of progress today...confirmation from the solicitor on how they will proceed regarding the restrictions.
"As you are aware there are a number of charging orders that have restrictions registered against the title to the property. These are in favour of XXXX, XXXXr and XXXX. All restrictions require notice of the sale of the property to be given to the party that has the benefit of the charging order to enable the buyer to register themselves as the owner of the property. I will send the notices once contracts have been exchanged. As you have not instructed me to repay any of these debts, I will not make contact with the beneficiaries before contracts are exchanged unless you want me to obtain settlement figures from them and repay the debts on completion. Please let me know as soon as possible if you would like me to do this"

I like it