Charging Order? The myth

junkimunki

eggbox wrote: »

Despite the manic ramblings of JunkiMunki, trying to find anyone who is being forced to sell there house for consumer debt is rarer than rocking horse doo-doo.

Sparklyfairy

Junki - RELAX. You are in exactly the same boat as me (& several others I suspect). We get that you're angry - but seriously, get a grip! You aren't making any sense & YOU are clearly misunderstanding this thread. I'm paying £1 pcm for my restriction & the judge said she WOULDN'T put in a stipulation that "as long as I pay, my creditor isn't allowed to apply for an OFS." Am I stressed? NO. Why? Because OFS are RARE. However, they CAN apply if you are deliberately avoiding payment & may be successful if you have no infirm people or small children in your home...Your manner & tone really puts people's backs up...try a different approach & you might get some useful help.

eggbox

JunkiMunki

Plead heed Sparkly's advice as people just won't bother to read your posts in future. (You will notice they aren't bothering on CAG!)

And to reiterate what you were told on CAG. Your creditor already HAS Judgement on your debt so all your comments you keep repeating to death on unenforcebility etc are, sadly, no longer valid!

You would have had to prove all the points PRIOR to your creditor obtaining judgement in order to prevent it. That cannot now be done retrospectively and no endless repetition of your grievances will change that.

Please let us know that is clear to you now??

junkimunki

eggbox wrote: »

JunkiMunki

Plead heed Sparkly's advice as people just won't bother to read your posts in future. (You will notice they aren't bothering on CAG!)

And to reiterate what you were told on CAG. Your creditor already HAS Judgement on your debt so all your comments you keep repeating to death on unenforcebility etc are, sadly, no longer valid!

You would have had to prove all the points PRIOR to your creditor obtaining judgement in order to prevent it. That cannot now be done retrospectively and no endless repetition of your grievances will change that.

Please let us know that is clear to you now??

Why bother everything that has been said is contradictory to suit.....

eggbox

junkimunki wrote: »

Why bother everything that has been said is contradictory to suit.....

I, personally, couldn't give a (Junki) monkey's if you bother or not as your rambling, incoherent posts have largely only displayed an alarming disregard for what other posters (trying to help) have explained to you about your situation. You just don't seem to understand (or want to accept) your situation?

Garmston indicated to you on CAG that if your verbose ramblings on here are a representation of how you are in Court, then it's easy to see why you have been given short shrift from the legal system. I have to concur with that!

And that you now view other people's advice as contradiction would, also, seem to indicate a huge amount of paranoia. Help is still on hand on here but please don't blame others for your own shortcomings.

Sparklyfairy

eggbox wrote: »

garmston indicated to you on cag that if your verbose ramblings on here are a representation of how you are in court, then it's easy to see why you have been given short shrift from the legal system. I have to concur with that!

here here!!

junkimunki

eggbox wrote: »

I, personally, couldn't give a (Junki) monkey's if you bother or not

well thats perfectly obvious, but all the info that a debt becomes unenforceable without a valid signed agreement from the DCA involved does somewhat seem contradictory to me as the judgment order and other orders were obtained by the original creditor not the DCA's that have been and are involved at this time, all I was trying to state is that the DCA's involved to date have never produced any valid agreements/ documents to the rightful ownership of the debt which was disputed with the original creditor/bank in 2005..............

eggbox

JunkiMunki

It's difficult to understand why, despite several posters explaining the court process to you, you still can't understand your position?

The points you are raising are only valid BEFORE your creditor obtains judgement and, more importantly, if you can prove what you are claiming to prevent judgement against you.

Once your creditor has obtained judgement they are deemed to have proven their claim and you have lost.

What is it you still don't get about that?

happybird_3

blueback wrote: »

The people who bought our house bought it because their solicitor had an undertaking that the restriction would fall away on completion.

The Land Registry does what is says on the tin - BTW, I am just alerting people to the facts, they can confirm it themselves by calling a solicitor that knows the law.

Just wanted to say thankyou we have been through three years of hell. After following your advice we have made it the bank never got a penny

Sparklyfairy

Happybird - I am so so happy for you! Well done! xx