Charging Order? The myth

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

Well I would ensure all attempts by you to settle the matter to save going to Court are clearly documented.

I have all the emails to his solicitor…

If it still has to go to Court, the Judge will then be able to see that you have made a genuine attempt to do so in order to save the matter proceeding to Court.

I have tried and tried, right from the off..

Don't underestimate how much this will influence the Judge, especially if the other side are refusing to negotiate, in how he decides to settle the matter?

And, as ever, keep your negotiation simple eg: if you are happy to settle for just the removal of the Charging Order then offer that to drop the Court claim? If he accepts you get what you want?

Ok...

But what it also does is to put pressure on his Solicitor to explain to his client the risks of not accepting the offer (no matter how much they feel they can win the case?) His Solicitor will have to explain the perils of going to Court and that a Judge may well decide to find in your favour (especially as the previous application to dismiss was not granted?)

Once he's pointed out the costs that may be incurred if the case is lost, then your opponent may decide its not worth the risk?

I just get the feeling they are getting him to string it out for as long as possible, so they make more money…

Just don't expect it to magically happen overnight? Very often the decision to settle is taken at the 11th hour when the threat of losing about to becomes real? So don't get too disheartened if you hear nothing until closer to the trial?

Well, I know this for a fact… what they will do, and what they did in previous proceedings at Land Tribunal, was to offer to step down if I paid the legal fees their client had incurred so far… which was no great offer… they waiting until just before the trial!

What I don't understand is that right at the start of my claim, where he offered just a bare denial by way of a defence against the facts as given to me by my purchasers, instead of agreeing to enter into ADR, he straight away made an application to strike out my claim, saying it was without merit and vexatious, and his lawyers told me they would decide whether or not to mediate after the result of their application… So when the strike out failed, i fully expected them to back down and try to find a way of settling, but oh no… they carried on, racking up the fees, telling me they needed all of the disclosure before they would go for a settlement, and they had all the facts right from the start, i didn't hide anything, and yet, even after all disclosure, they are still dragging their heels… and i truly believe that all the while he is getting rid of his assets, so that if he loses, there will be nothing left to pay my claim…

Why are they not getting him to settle as quickly as he can so that he doesn't end up with a huge legal costs bill?!

Something so weird going on here!! D45

eggbox

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

and yet, even after all disclosure, they are still dragging their heels… and i truly believe that all the while he is getting rid of his assets, so that if he loses, there will be nothing left to pay my claim…

Why are they not getting him to settle as quickly as he can so that he doesn't end up with a huge legal costs bill?!

Something so weird going on here!! D45

You must remember Solicitors look after themselves first and their clients second. But I'm inclined to think their actions are more geared towards making you think that, just because they lost the strike out, they still have enough to win?

So I'm guessing it's more brinkmanship and an effort into grinding you down to drop the case? So just stay calm and explain to his Solicitors that for the strike out to be denied the Judge obviously thought their was a good prospect of you winning your claim (otherwise it would have been struck out?)

So you are simply offering their client the opportunity of not risking losing a considerable sum should you succeed in Court. Explain you feel you have more than enough evidence to succeed but, on health grounds, you would prefer to settle amicably for the benefit of both parties (non of which has to be true just offered as an alternative to Court?)

eggbox

Land_Registry wrote: »

We will cancel the restriction if we are satisfied that the restriction is no longer required. The fact that the named beneficiary no longer exists does not, in my experience, satisfy the requirement that the interest has come to an end.

Thanks for the feedback LRR and I'm not sure if the following concerns the LR but I'll ask anyway?

The issue for several people I have dealt with, however, can be that that debtors can ask for a settlement figure from the DCA (who purport to own the debt) but the DCA fail's to provide any evidence of owning the debt or, often, a settlement figure?

In these scenarios who do they pay the amount CO amount to when the debt is settled and who determines the amount owing to enables the sale to go through?

Land_Registry

eggbox wrote: »

Thanks for the feedback LRR and I'm not sure if the following concerns the LR but I'll ask anyway?

In these scenarios who do they pay the amount CO amount to when the debt is settled and who determines the amount owing to enables the sale to go through?

Sadly they don't concern us as they relate to the detailed settlement of the debt.

We deal with the CO being protected on the register and/or removed so have no dealings with regards what happens inbetween those two events.

My understanding from the National Debtline online chat facility is that it's largely down to the debtor speaking to the creditor to resolve what's owed etc. But I've no idea what happens if they won't communicate/confirm - sorry

DAKOTA45

eggbox wrote: »

You must remember Solicitors look after themselves first and their clients second. But I'm inclined to think their actions are more geared towards making you think that, just because they lost the strike out, they still have enough to win?

So I'm guessing it's more brinkmanship and an effort into grinding you down to drop the case? So just stay calm and explain to his Solicitors that for the strike out to be denied the Judge obviously thought their was a good prospect of you winning your claim (otherwise it would have been struck out?)

So you are simply offering their client the opportunity of not risking losing a considerable sum should you succeed in Court. Explain you feel you have more than enough evidence to succeed but, on health grounds, you would prefer to settle amicably for the benefit of both parties (non of which has to be true just offered as an alternative to Court?)

Thanks, Eggbox…

The judge at the RCJ actually told him that my claim was neither vexatious nor without merit… and he added; "How can the claimant settle her debt towards you when you are preventing her from selling her home?"… he also had a go at his barrister, asking why he was citing that the claim was "without merit", when the claimant has provided evidence showing that something obviously went on between the defendant and her purchasers?!

They are playing games...:mad:

Hopefully justice will prevail… eventually. D45

chkymonky

Land_Registry wrote: »

Sadly they don't concern us as they relate to the detailed settlement of the debt.

We deal with the CO being protected on the register and/or removed so have no dealings with regards what happens inbetween those two events.

My understanding from the National Debtline online chat facility is that it's largely down to the debtor speaking to the creditor to resolve what's owed etc. But I've no idea what happens if they won't communicate/confirm - sorry

Thanks LRR/EggBox

As a eveidence I have history of letter trails where I have asked new creditor to prove the debt with various letter templates. at the end unable to prove the debt I have a final letter stating my account is closed from the new creditor's solicitor.

will this work as full proff evidence?

Its been 2 years since I have recd that letter of closing account, since then no new creditor has come up and landregistry still belongs to NRAM. now I am in process of remortgage hence the need came to take the name out

Land_Registry

chkymonky wrote: »

Thanks LRR/EggBox

As a eveidence I have history of letter trails where I have asked new creditor to prove the debt with various letter templates. at the end unable to prove the debt I have a final letter stating my account is closed from the new creditor's solicitor.

will this work as full proff evidence?

Its been 2 years since I have recd that letter of closing account, since then no new creditor has come up and landregistry still belongs to NRAM. now I am in process of remortgage hence the need came to take the name out

We can't say if it will work and woukd only consider it if you made an application to cancel the entry and submitted the details as supporting evidence.

eggbox can perhaps confirm though whether you really need to be applying to the court to dismiss the order first? Don't court fees/costs (if any) have to also be considered here. And is that what the form N244 relates to?

chkymonky

Land_Registry wrote: »

We can't say if it will work and woukd only consider it if you made an application to cancel the entry and submitted the details as supporting evidence.

eggbox can perhaps confirm though whether you really need to be applying to the court to dismiss the order first? Don't court fees/costs (if any) have to also be considered here. And is that what the form N244 relates to?

Thanks LRR.

The RX3 and all documents are posted today to Land Registry Glouecester.

in terms of apllying to court , not sure if it will work after so long wven CCj is expred.

Eggbox can advise.

eggbox

Thanks for the update LRR

CHKYMONKY

I would apply to the Court if the LR refuses to remove the Restriction (as they will most likely do because of what LRR has said) using form N244.

There is, unfortunately, a fee to pay (£225 I think from memory) but you request the Court to dismiss the order using the evidence you have that the DCA has closed the account. You also explain you are requesting the dismissal as, due to the above, you are unable to sell your house as you can't get the Restriction removed?

DAKOTA45

Well… Eggbox & LRR…

The modified restriction has well and truly put a spanner in the works and I have to notify the creditor 14 days before exchange.

They then have to produce a certificate to say that they have been notified, before I can proceed…

I'm wondering what shenanigans will follow and whether they are likely to produce that certificate promptly… any advice would be very much appreciated, please.

D45