Charging Order? The myth

Land_Registry

martini3804 wrote: »

Hi Land Registry,

Thanks for the comprehensive response and your summary sounds about right. I did have an old debt with egg back around 2004 / 2005 that I buried my head in the sand with (although it was for a significantly lower amount than the current charging order), clearly interest, legal fees etc. mount up. That aside, I now just want to deal with it, pay it if I can and have it removed.

I would assume the CCJ from 2008 is entirely why I now have this equitable charge, so they are both clearly connected.

In terms of what I have done with YBS, Citibank / Canada Square is sent them a written subject access request using the old Egg Banking account number (this is all I have).

I also did the same with Shoosmiths.

In summary, they have all come back with nothing saying they have no record of any account or debt in my name under this account number.

Northampton County Court no longer even have records of the actual claim using their own court reference number.

So again, I am back to square one. I appreciate your comments that creditors will sit with CO's for a long time, well in my opinion this now is a long time. Coming up for 9 years. I am happy to pay it, but who on earth can I pay it to if nobody is able to provide me with a redemption figure or even anything to say they even have anything on record.

You can see my dilemma?

At some point, the Court or Land Registry will have to consider either setting this aside or removing the entry. Otherwise, as I have said in my earlier post, I in theory have a property which can never be sold. It just doesn't make sense.

Thanks

Two things - a subject access request is not in my view enough and as suggested you need to raise and take it further with YBS and use whatever procedures they have to escalate the matter.

There was and remains a debt and the link from Egg to YBS is well established.

And I do not believe we have the powers to set aside the court order - you would need to go back to the court itself irrespective of whether they have a record still or not. You have the evidence that it exists and nothing to prove that it was erroneous. As such the court would be looking for evidence of payments made etc to discharge it and you don't have that as you cannot establish how much it is now for and who to pay.

The only option, as explained is to pursue it with YBS - that is what both we and the court would expect to happen.

martini3804

Land_Registry wrote: »

Two things - a subject access request is not in my view enough and as suggested you need to raise and take it further with YBS and use whatever procedures they have to escalate the matter.

There was and remains a debt and the link from Egg to YBS is well established.

And I do not believe we have the powers to set aside the court order - you would need to go back to the court itself irrespective of whether they have a record still or not. You have the evidence that it exists and nothing to prove that it was erroneous. As such the court would be looking for evidence of payments made etc to discharge it and you don't have that as you cannot establish how much it is now for and who to pay.

The only option, as explained is to pursue it with YBS - that is what both we and the court would expect to happen.

Hi Land Registry,


I have today again spoken to YBS and they have informed me that they only took over Egg mortgages and Savings accounts, this would perhaps explain why they have no records of my old egg account number or indeed my name, address and DOB.


Whilst I appreciate you are emphasizing the point that I must pursue things further with them, I personally cant see how? I have exchanged emails with them, sent a SAR, and spoken to a Manager on the phone. On every occasion they have been unable to find any details and on each occasion have said they only took Egg Mortgages and Savings.


Do you have any more advice on how I could go further with YBS?


I have also written again to Canada Square / Citibank to see if that can throw up any more information, so I will wait to see what the outcome of this will be.

D_M_E

Martini3804 - EGG credit cards were bought by Barclaycard in March 2011 see

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_Banking

Maybe this could be an avenue to explore?

Land_Registry

martini3804 wrote: »

Hi Land Registry,

I have today again spoken to YBS and they have informed me that they only took over Egg mortgages and Savings accounts, this would perhaps explain why they have no records of my old egg account number or indeed my name, address and DOB.

Whilst I appreciate you are emphasizing the point that I must pursue things further with them, I personally cant see how? I have exchanged emails with them, sent a SAR, and spoken to a Manager on the phone. On every occasion they have been unable to find any details and on each occasion have said they only took Egg Mortgages and Savings.

Do you have any more advice on how I could go further with YBS?

I have also written again to Canada Square / Citibank to see if that can throw up any more information, so I will wait to see what the outcome of this will be.

If YBS only took over Egg mortgages and Savings accounts what was your debt for is the next key Q?

As posted you presumably had a CCJ - you posted 'I would assume the CCJ from 2008 is entirely why I now have this equitable charge, so they are both clearly connected.' but I can't recall whether you have explained what the debt was for.

I'm guessing you know as you refer to contacting a variety of other 'lenders' so hopefully you have linked the debt to the correct lender?

cb95amc

@Land Registry

Just had an interesting and frustrating conversation with the Land Registry on the phone.
The Title Number is BD217717
The wording on the restrictions is

RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to
be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for
registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition....

The person from the Land Registry was adamant that the "applicant for registration" refers to the creditor whom obtained the charge not, as I understand it to be, the potential buyer of the property, and they therefore have to give consent etc for the property to be sold. This goes against everything I have read in this thread....In the end I had to give up speaking to them.

If the Land Registry themselves can't get this stuff correct what hope do I have if being able to get the sale of my property completed.

eggbox

LRR & Martini3804

A Court would, I'm 99.9% certain, have the power to remove the charge if its been proven the debtor is willing to pay the debt but there is no creditor claiming the debt and it is, unfairly, preventing the sale to proceed? The process, however, wouldn't be swift which is no good for urgent sale purposes?

Martini also has the option of applying to set aside the CCJ on the basis that he was unable to defend the original claim due to being abroad? Which, if succesful due to the creditor not turning up object; would remove the charge. But this is also time consuming and no good for urgent sale purposes?

So I only have one suggestion but LRR will have to confirm I am correct on the first part and Martini will have to confirm the second part for the suggestion to be viable?

The first part, therefore, is that an equitable charge doesn't prevent a house being sold. If the buyer agrees the charge can remain on the property but they then become responsible for the payment of the charge should they ever sell?

The second part is whether the charge is attracting interest?

If the first is correct and the second part answer is no; then if your buyer agrees (after you have explained the situation you are in) you can make an agreement with them to retain the charge amount deducted from the sale price. They would have to agree, legally, to be liable for the charge amount but they would also hold the charge amount in funds to repay when necessary?

Its a looooooooooooooooooooooong shot but one you have absolutely nothing to lose by sitting down your buyer and their soliciitor to suggest to them in order to save the sale?

martini3804

eggbox wrote: »

LRR & Martini3804

A Court would, I'm 99.9% certain, have the power to remove the charge if its been proven the debtor is willing to pay the debt but there is no creditor claiming the debt and it is, unfairly, preventing the sale to proceed? The process, however, wouldn't be swift which is no good for urgent sale purposes?

Martini also has the option of applying to set aside the CCJ on the basis that he was unable to defend the original claim due to being abroad? Which, if succesful due to the creditor not turning up object; would remove the charge. But this is also time consuming and no good for urgent sale purposes?

So I only have one suggestion but LRR will have to confirm I am correct on the first part and Martini will have to confirm the second part for the suggestion to be viable?

The first part, therefore, is that an equitable charge doesn't prevent a house being sold. If the buyer agrees the charge can remain on the property but they then become responsible for the payment of the charge should they ever sell?

The second part is whether the charge is attracting interest?

If the first is correct and the second part answer is no; then if your buyer agrees (after you have explained the situation you are in) you can make an agreement with them to retain the charge amount deducted from the sale price. They would have to agree, legally, to be liable for the charge amount but they would also hold the charge amount in funds to repay when necessary?

Its a looooooooooooooooooooooong shot but one you have absolutely nothing to lose by sitting down your buyer and their soliciitor to suggest to them in order to save the sale?

Hi Eggbox,


Thanks for the reply. To clarify some of your comments. The debt was for an old Egg credit card which I defaulted on around 2004. This then clearly led to the CCJ in 2008 which has long since expired and been removed from my credit file. The Charging order was awarded in 2011 when I was living overseas, hence why I never defended it.


I will clearly exhaust all options with Barclays, Citibank and Canada Square, I have also written again to Shoosmiths who represented Egg in 2011 to ask if they can help find me a redemption. I have also contacted Cabot who seem to be a common player in old Egg credit card debts, but again this drew a blank.


If none of these activities can track down the owner of the debt, then I will clearly have no alternative but to go to the court. I appreciate this would not be a quick process and most likely mean I would lose my buyer, but one way or another this needs to be resolved.


If I do indeed end up having to go to the Court, what would the process be for this? Does anyone know?


With regards to your "last chance salon" option Eggbox, I shall certainly ask my solicitor if this could be an option. My understanding is that because the charging order was awarded on the back of the CCJ from 2008, then interest stopped at that point due to the original debt being regulated by the consumer credit act. Again, I may be wrong about this, however this is my understanding on what I have read.

eggbox

You are right about no interest on CCA loans but that didn't stop unscrupulous DCA's trying to add it and, insome cases getting it, as many Judges weren't aware of the rules? So it's best to check the Order granted.

Land_Registry

cb95amc wrote: »

@Land Registry

Just had an interesting and frustrating conversation with the Land Registry on the phone.
The Title Number is BD217717
The wording on the restrictions is

RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to
be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for
registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition....

The person from the Land Registry was adamant that the "applicant for registration" refers to the creditor whom obtained the charge not, as I understand it to be, the potential buyer of the property, and they therefore have to give consent etc for the property to be sold. This goes against everything I have read in this thread....In the end I had to give up speaking to them.

If the Land Registry themselves can't get this stuff correct what hope do I have if being able to get the sale of my property completed.

I'm sorry of you were given incorrect advice. If you have the name of the person you spoke to I can query/feedback with them - did you get the name?

I know we have covered the applicant or their conveyancer angle before in this thread although it's more as part of a wider answer rather than that specific Q. Was there a wider reason for ringing us perhaps though?

cb95amc

@LRR

Unfortunately I did not get her name, the only thing I could tell you is that she was Welsh.
I'm guessing your systems wouldn't show who accessed that title number on Friday afternoon?

The reason for my call was to try and get written confirmation that the restrictions on the title would be overwritten once the sale completes etc....
I know it is written here, and I have also seen it written on your support forums, but I was hoping for something quoting the specific title number so I could make sure both solicitors have it.