Charging Order? The myth

Jackie235

Ok so the solicitors have said they are sending notification to shoosmiths re the transfer and the transfer of the property was sent to LR last week. Shoosmiths made a mistake on the application for charging order by only putting one of the four accounts on it, so they are now trying to add the others after the fact albeit the property is now sold, they even lied to my solicitor in an email statement saying they had ‘final’ charging orders for all four amounts to try to get them to pay them the money out of any proceeds. Can I report them to the solicitors regulation authority or something like that?
They just seem to think they can do what they want!
If they now try to add more restrictions what will happen?

eggbox

The best thing you can do now is nothing and just let the sale process take its natural course. It is of no concern to, either, the buyer or the Land Registry if the creditor doesn't get paid from the proceeds from the sale. So just ignore Shoosmith's and don't get into ANY conversations about anything with them. They've also resorted to lying as they know they are in a perilous position if you don't play ball and pay up as they expect?

Let me explain why it is you should do nothing. It can come as quite a shock to ordinary members of the public to learn that if they take someone to Court, because they are owed money, that when they win and get a judgement in their favour saying they are, legally, owed the money; that the Law does absolutely nothing else to help them reclaim the money? If the debtor refuses to pay you then have to pay more money to try and enforce the debt.

In Shoosmith's case they now understand this is what they would have to do. The question is, is it worth pursuing? If they've taken a person to Court and received a CCJ and then a CO and still received nothing when the house is sold (as the Law is weak in securing payment of their debt) then its highly likely they will not pursue the debt further. The main reason for this is there are hundreds (if not thousands) of other debts they are collecting on?

Shoosmith's only real options are Bankruptcy (which DCA's don't go for as it can be messy, expensive and bad publicity for the original lender) or a Freezing Order on the sale to take back to Court. These are even more expensive but carry high risk for the creditor as they can incur considerable costs if the Court finds the freezing order prejudiced the seller.

So they will most likely huff and puff to try and unnerve you but they are not going to do anything as they will know that, like Elvis, the sale proceeds have now left the building and they are back to square one trying to get you to pay up?

eggbox

Oh, and I forgot to say that Shoosmith's adding another Restriction will make no difference. Firstly, they would only be able to add a Restriction whilst your details are still showing on the deeds; but any new Restriction added will be automatically removed (as long as complied with) when the new owners details are registered as it will become overreached in the same way as those already registered will be removed.

Jackie235

Thanks so much for your help eggbox, finding this thread and your help has massively helped my situation and I don’t know how to thank you! I have everything crossed that it goes the way it should and that I can negotiate an affordable repayment to pay the money back and I’ll never look at a credit card again! Funnily enough, I was going through all my paperwork with the move and found all of creations letters and their constant offers of increasing my credit limit! For a time they just kept throwing more at me and the more I spent the worse it got, i know I’m responsible for my mess and burying my head but I think some accountability should lie with them for irresponsible lending! We shall see.
Thanks again, I have a new found fight in me and I will t be lying down soon for shoosmiths and their bully tactics!

eggbox

Jackie235

Its worth restating this thread is aimed directly at "unsecured" lending by banks and loan companies (which are still the banks) and the unfairness of customers paying high interest rates but then having the loan turned into a "secured" debt if it should fail. Its not trying to help people escape other type of debts where they owe other people money (such as a builder whose done work on their house but hasn't been paid?)

I had a poster contact me a couple of weeks ago who's suffered a CO from credit card debts from the recession. Although his CCJ's have now dropped off his credit file he does still have a default on his file from 2013. Yet he had noticed that over the past year he was beginning to get the "apply for a credit card" letters again.

He would still like a credit card (as used right they are useful which I'll explain below) but he was being offered rates of between 24-29% which with the BOE base rate still at 0.75% is bordering on loan shark territory!

But then his own bank sent him a "permanently" low rate CC offer of 9.9% pa. As he said to me, it seemed to fit the bill and wouldn't punish him too hard for any enforced borrowing? But the kicker came when he was told he had been accepted and his credit limit was...................£17,000! This high amount (he feels) was due to a lot of money going through his account due to banking a high amount of sales receipts from his self employed business. The majority of which, however, would be paid out to suppliers just a few days later?

But the amount he said, "sobered him up" and he refused the card as, in his words, the temptation to, unnecessarily, use the card would be too great with that kind of limit? He knows he could have requested a lower limit but he just felt he was being lined up to spend, spend, spend! Which is basically what the banks are encouraging you to do and is especially so when your limit increases without you applying for such?

I, personally, use a credit card after watching a documentary featuring Frank Abagnale, Jr. who was the character Leonardo De Caprio played in "Catch me if you can". As he explained, a debit card exposes all of your money to fraud and risk. If its used to take all your money out of the bank through fraud its you that has lost the money and you have to try and convince the bank to give it you back?

With a credit card you don't expose your own money to risk or fraud. if the CC gets defrauded its the banks problem to retrieve the money as Which explain,

If you’ve had your credit card stolen or discover that you’ve lost it, you should report it missing straight away as it could affect where you stand legally if the card is subsequently used by a thief.

Your card provider should always refund you in full for any transactions that take place after you've reported your card missing.

If you don't realise for a number of days that your card has been lost or stolen, you should still be able to get your money back. Although, you could be liable for the first £50 of any sum spent on your credit card before you reported it stolen. In practice, many banks waive this £50 contribution so it's worth checking the terms and conditions or checking with your provider to see if you have to pay. If your credit card provider thinks you're responsible for the transaction or that you've authorised someone else to buy the item using your card, then it needs to prove this - you don't need to prove you weren't responsible.

So for this reason I use one to pay all bills for the month but pay the card off in full every month. Its not difficult but you do need to make sure you able to, discipline wise, do this and don't get tempted to miss the payment in full.

Routerman

Hi all,


Re my original post, which I believe was around page 204,


An update, after challenging their right to post judgement interest TBI reduced the interest to £3,500 from over £7,000 with no further interest added but they still maintained they were entitled to post judgement contractual interest.


I then contacted Joanna Connolly solicitors in Liverpool:


https://www.joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk/


They agreed that the claiming of contractual interest on a debt regulated by the consumer credit act, as amended in October 2008, was totally illegal and wrote to TBI, quoting chapter and verse, who then after reducing the interest to £2,000, finally agreed to write off the interest and the remaining principal.


If anyone else has had a charging order with interest added on a Consumer Credit Act regulated debt post 2008, which does not have a specific clause providing for this, then I suggest they contact their creditor to challenge it or have a word with the solicitor mentioned above, whose charges incidentally, were very reasonable.


TBI and Ascot Lawyers seem to be the principal offenders in these cases and I note that this kind of thing started after the law was amended so that anyone could search the Land Registry and find who had property with equity to slap a charging order on.


It also brings into question the integrity of some County Court Judges, particularly in Reading where TBI are located, or perhaps they just aren't as conversant with the law as they should be.



Finally could I add a very big thank you to Eggbox on here who has been very helpful and supportive.


Routerman

BrunoWales

Hi All


About to remortgage with a type K restriction on the property. Reading previous post I assume I will need to get it removed and not just inform the restriction holder - can someone please confirm this.



However the original creditor who's name is still on restriction sold the debt years ago. The debt was not assigned properly so current DCA has not been replaced on CCJ or restriction (both 15 years old) - I have paid nothing towards the debt for 3 years. I rang the original creditor last year and they said they would remove it when they get an e mail saying the debt has been paid. I am not in a position to pay the debt in full.



Would I be able to remove the restriction myself stating the restriction holder no longer owns the debt?


Many thanks

Land_Registry

BrunoWales wrote: »

Would I be able to remove the restriction myself stating the restriction holder no longer owns the debt?

No - the restriction protects the interest created by the CO and you state that the debt still exists.

There is no requirement for the creditor (old or new) to update the register with the new details when the debt is 'sold' for example as the interest is still the same one.

As you are remortgaging I would recommend discussing options with your potential lender

BrunoWales

Thanks for the reply LR - wouldn't the restriction just stay in place if remortgaging?


Would you know what options are available regarding a restriction?

Land_Registry

BrunoWales wrote: »

Thanks for the reply LR - wouldn't the restriction just stay in place if remortgaging?

Would you know what options are available regarding a restriction?

It would stay in place but you'd still have to comply with it.

But my point was made more in the direction of a lender being prepared to secure their loan where a form K restriction was already registered.

We deal with what is registered so it might be more prudent to wait for eggbox to also post with regards experience of how lenders may approach such matters.

Have you already got a lender in position to remortgage and they have confirmed that they are happy to based on the current registered details?