Charging Order? The myth

mez55

thanks for the reply fatbelly
i have spoken to the national debt line and they cant help as thy say its a legal matter.
the third party who we are transferring the property to has actually paid off the mortgage, and we can prove this, we will be then reanting the place from him,
my husband will co operate and pay any instalments to the other party involved in the case.

fatbelly

mez55 wrote: »

thanks for the reply fatbelly
i have spoken to the national debt line and they cant help as thy say its a legal matter.
the third party who we are transferring the property to has actually paid off the mortgage, and we can prove this, we will be then reanting the place from him,
my husband will co operate and pay any instalments to the other party involved in the case.

Hi

OK - a charging order is out of the question, then, and so this is now the wrong thread. If your husband gets a ccj and you need further advice, you should start a new thread on debt-free wannabe.

jmc3511

I've read through a lot of this and think I now understand the difference between a restriction and a full CO. My question is that I and my soon to be ex husband have received an application for 'an application to register a restriction against the land from the Land Registry' but the court have sent a notice of hearing relating to a 'Final Charging Order Hearing'. Is that just the courts wording? From what's been said previously the most that can be done is for a restriction to be placed on the property. Also it was my itention to object on the grounds that the property is part of our divorce, but from the earlier threads it seems better to let the restriction happen (the property is on the market to sell anyway) as it won't make much difference anyway.
Any advice?

Sparklyfairy

Hi there, yes, the courts don't differentiate between a "restriction" or a "charging order" - so in your case, at the hearing, when they refer to "a charging order" they mean "restriction."

If I were you, I would just let the restriction stay - then once you decide to sell the property after the divorce settlement you'll have a much better chance of keeping your money.

jmc3511

:jThank you. I appreciate your advice. Seems to make sense. Really pleased I found this thread

wend33

eggbox wrote: »

They are supposed to contact all your creditors for any objections (nobody seems too concerned if they do or not) but your mortgage won't be affected.

You mortgage company, either, won't be too bothered as their debt takes priority as it is registered against your property (meaning you can't sell your house without paying off their debt).

As Sparkly states, however, if all you are receiving is a Restriction just forget about it as its the end of the road for them unless you keep talking to them.

Land Registry only has to serve notice on the registered proprietors of the land, not proprietors of charges (mortgages)

wend33

Sparklyfairy wrote: »

Hi there, yes, the courts don't differentiate between a "restriction" or a "charging order" - so in your case, at the hearing, when they refer to "a charging order" they mean "restriction."

If I were you, I would just let the restriction stay - then once you decide to sell the property after the divorce settlement you'll have a much better chance of keeping your money.

I think people are getting a little confused on this thread - as far as I understand it a charging order is a charging order. The way it's protected at the Land Registry differs depending on what they can/do apply for - usually a notice for sole proprietors, restrictions against the interest of the debtor for joint proprietors. But they are still charging orders...

Sparklyfairy

wend33 wrote: »

I think people are getting a little confused on this thread - as far as I understand it a charging order is a charging order. The way it's protected at the Land Registry differs depending on what they can/do apply for - usually a notice for sole proprietors, restrictions against the interest of the debtor for joint proprietors. But they are still charging orders...[/QUOTE

Hi Wendy, Can I ask what you do?

I agree that yes, a restriction is a charging order, however it is further clarified by being classed as a restriction since the property in question is a jointly owned one with a sole debt. I feel my statement is factual because district judges do not make this distinction during hearings and those about to face a judge due to a charging order (usually for a first time!) should know this. This is based on my experiences within the courts. I hope it clarifies the issue and was expressed entirely in laymans terms - which I'm sure you can appreciate.

wend33

Sparklyfairy wrote: »

Hi Wendy, Can I ask what you do?

I agree that yes, a restriction is a charging order, however it is further clarified by being classed as a restriction since the property in question is a jointly owned one with a sole debt. I feel my statement is factual because district judges do not make this distinction during hearings and those about to face a judge due to a charging order (usually for a first time!) should know this. This is based on my experiences within the courts. I hope it clarifies the issue and was expressed entirely in laymans terms - which I'm sure you can appreciate.

As for what I do I'm afraid I'm going to remain quiet on that front!

As for my point I will cheat and quote Wikipedia: 'A charging order, in English law, is an order obtained from a court or judge by a judgment creditor, by which the property of the judgment debtor in any stocks or funds or land stands charged with the payment of the amount for which judgment shall have been recovered, with interest and costs'
So the way I see it, although application can be made to Land Reg to protect the interest, it is all the property of the debtor that is charged, not just registered property. The restrictions to which you refer state the party with the order has the benefit of that order against 'the beneficial interest of' the debtor. I'm not claiming to be an expert, I just would be happier if people took proper legal advice as to how this may affect their lives and homes instead of saying everything will be all right (I'm forever the cautious one!).

eggbox

wend33 wrote: »

Land Registry only has to serve notice on the registered proprietors of the land, not proprietors of charges (mortgages)

I was referring to what the debtors creditors have to do not what the Land Registry does.

wend33 wrote: »

I'm not claiming to be an expert, I just would be happier if people took proper legal advice as to how this may affect their lives and homes instead of saying everything will be all right (I'm forever the cautious one!).

You might find your happiness short lived if you have a read through this thread (and a few more on CAG) where you will see that a majority of people who have sought "proper legal advice" have suffered through being given incorrect advice regarding CO's made on sole debt/jointly owned property. Indeed, more than a few people have reported back that their own Solicitors (who are being paid to protect their best interests) are openly admitting they didn't know the limitations of a "Restriction" and were treating it the same as a CO on sole debt/ solely owned property when the property was being sold.

Sparkly is only highlighting the positive facts of of how a CO affects people's lives if they receive one under the sole debt/joint owned conditions. Which you will also see, when you read through the whole thread, has given many, many people comfort and allowed them to reorganise their lives with less stress as, up to that point, they had feared the worst.

I take your point on a Charging Order being a Charging Order regardless of the property ownership, but this thread is mainly trying to clarify the distiction of how it affects people with the sole debt/joint property situation and give them facts to take away the confusion.