Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

stillkicking

Yes the restriction is a standard form K and whilst the timing of the notification is important, the crucial element is to obtain the services of a solicitor/conveyancer willing to act as you wish. Your best bet on that is to look back through the thread to posters who've had success and DM them for their soliciotrs details.

If you are attempting to sell without settling the debt upon sale, then it's wisest to leave notification until the very last moment as this gives the creditor less time to act. 

Regarding the question about whether the same solictor can act for both parties, firstly, have a read HERE

But it would be useful to know why you ask the question (as there is no legal requirement to use solicitors) and also what "different" advice you've been receiving?

stillkicking

eggbox said:

stillkicking

Yes the restriction is a standard form K and whilst the timing of the notification is important, the crucial element is to obtain the services of a solicitor/conveyancer willing to act as you wish. Your best bet on that is to look back through the thread to posters who've had success and DM them for their soliciotrs details.

If you are attempting to sell without settling the debt upon sale, then it's wisest to leave notification until the very last moment as this gives the creditor less time to act. 

Regarding the question about whether the same solictor can act for both parties, firstly, have a read

But it would be useful to know why you ask the question (as there is no legal requirement to use solicitors) and also what "different" advice you've been receiving?

Thanks for the reply eggbox,

I have been told by different solicitors that it must be paid to remove the restriction or the purchases solicitor won’t go through with the sale. I will have a read of the link you put on.

eggbox

The response you have been given is representative of what the vast majority of solicitors but its not 100% the case as posters on here will confirm. Several have found a solicitor willing to act and who usually manages to convince the buyers solicitor to go along with the sale. So don't give up on that.

What was the reason for enquiring if a solicitor could act for both parties?

stillkicking

eggbox said:

The response you have been given is representative of what the vast majority of solicitors but its not 100% the case as posters on here will confirm. Several have found a solicitor willing to act and who usually manages to convince the buyers solicitor to go along with the sale. So don't give up on that.

What was the reason for enquiring if a solicitor could act for both parties?

I thought if it was possible to use the same solicitor/ conveyances, it’s one less person / company in the chain who might not understand the process and hold things up.

eggbox

Its a good idea but the Solicitors would probably say its a conflict of interest and refuse? But if you do get one on board they should help persuade the buyers solicitor.

bluey1406

Hello, I'm desperate and hope some one (Land Registry Rep??) may be able to help me. I am selling my house and have just been made aware of a restriction of this nature on the (jointly owned with husband) proprietorship register of my property. I had no idea that this had been registered until today. 

I actually used to be a conveyancer so feel that I know that this can and should be dealt with, without the need to seek redemption figures, give undertakings etc as has been clearly set out at the beginning of my thread, so my question is not really around that as such. 

However, my solicitor appears to have other ideas and has written off to SCM Solicitors (AKA Lloyds TSB) to "seek their requirements".  Apart from being entirely unnecessary,  I suspect that this will go into an abyss and never be responded to, as I am not even sure SCM exist any more??  The restriction is dated 2012.  Is there specific and legal advice somewhere that I can quote to my solicitor (and her to my buyers) to evidence that there is no need to "redeem" any such charge (well its not a charge of course it is a restriction) and that the certificate (as is quite clearly stated within the wording of the restriction) just needs to be provided by the solicitor and boom, no problem!  I am supposed to be exchanging contacts tomorrow but this could cause a delay for weeks and it really doesn't need to 😭  Many thanks for any guidance and advice.  

Land_Registry

bluey1406 said:

Hello, I'm desperate and hope some one (Land Registry Rep??) may be able to help me. I am selling my house and have just been made aware of a restriction of this nature on the (jointly owned with husband) proprietorship register of my property. I had no idea that this had been registered until today. 

I actually used to be a conveyancer so feel that I know that this can and should be dealt with, without the need to seek redemption figures, give undertakings etc as has been clearly set out at the beginning of my thread, so my question is not really around that as such. 

However, my solicitor appears to have other ideas and has written off to SCM Solicitors (AKA Lloyds TSB) to "seek their requirements".  Apart from being entirely unnecessary,  I suspect that this will go into an abyss and never be responded to, as I am not even sure SCM exist any more??  The restriction is dated 2012.  Is there specific and legal advice somewhere that I can quote to my solicitor (and her to my buyers) to evidence that there is no need to "redeem" any such charge (well its not a charge of course it is a restriction) and that the certificate (as is quite clearly stated within the wording of the restriction) just needs to be provided by the solicitor and boom, no problem!  I am supposed to be exchanging contacts tomorrow but this could cause a delay for weeks and it really doesn't need to 😭  Many thanks for any guidance and advice.  

You should refer them to Practice Guide 76 section 4 which explains how a form K will be overreached on a sale. It just has to be complied with as per the restriction’s wording. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charging-orders

The restriction’s wording is quite clear re compliance so it’s important for him/her to read that wording, not just think ‘restriction’ means consent, and read PG 76 re it then being overreached 

bluey1406

Land_Registry said:

bluey1406 said:

Hello, I'm desperate and hope some one (Land Registry Rep??) may be able to help me. I am selling my house and have just been made aware of a restriction of this nature on the (jointly owned with husband) proprietorship register of my property. I had no idea that this had been registered until today. 

I actually used to be a conveyancer so feel that I know that this can and should be dealt with, without the need to seek redemption figures, give undertakings etc as has been clearly set out at the beginning of my thread, so my question is not really around that as such. 

However, my solicitor appears to have other ideas and has written off to SCM Solicitors (AKA Lloyds TSB) to "seek their requirements".  Apart from being entirely unnecessary,  I suspect that this will go into an abyss and never be responded to, as I am not even sure SCM exist any more??  The restriction is dated 2012.  Is there specific and legal advice somewhere that I can quote to my solicitor (and her to my buyers) to evidence that there is no need to "redeem" any such charge (well its not a charge of course it is a restriction) and that the certificate (as is quite clearly stated within the wording of the restriction) just needs to be provided by the solicitor and boom, no problem!  I am supposed to be exchanging contacts tomorrow but this could cause a delay for weeks and it really doesn't need to 😭  Many thanks for any guidance and advice.  

You should refer them to Practice Guide 76 section 4 which explains how a form K will be overreached on a sale. It just has to be complied with as per the restriction’s wording. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charging-orders

The restriction’s wording is quite clear re compliance so it’s important for him/her to read that wording, not just think ‘restriction’ means consent, and read PG 76 re it then being overreached 

Thank you so much.   I have in fact just found that Practice Guide and have forwarded it to my solicitor, advising that it is clear that the charge/restriction can easily be over-reached.  If she doesn't understand this then frankly, she shouldn't be practising!  I am awaiting a response from her and I will change solicitor if I have to.  I actually think that solicitors who do not understand this need to be reported to the OSS as they are quite clearly not acting in their client's best interests and people are incurring significant losses as a result, which is really not good enough.

bluey1406

Further to my earlier post, I wonder if anyone could confirm the position with regards to the actual repayment of the debt. Or to phrase another way, the CCJ/ICO was issued 10 years ago.  I have to say that until today I had no idea that the ICO was on the title and certainly have no memory of ever being advised that this would be happening.  The CCJ would obviously have expired after 6 years so in 2018.  Again I have no memory of making any payments toward this debt, either before or after the CCJ was obtained (we had some financial difficulties in 2008 and by 2012 they were largely resolved).  I don't even remember being contacted after the CCJ was obtained to discuss any repayment options.  Maybe they felt that the "charge" on the house was enough and they would get some money eventually so didn't bother?

I know that statute barred relates to debts that have gone unclaimed/no payments made against for more than 6 years (I think!) but does this also apply to the enforceability of the CCJ via the ICO??  Sorry hope that makes sense, almost confusing myself!

Thanks in advance.

bluey1406

bluey1406 said:

Land_Registry said:

bluey1406 said:

Hello, I'm desperate and hope some one (Land Registry Rep??) may be able to help me. I am selling my house and have just been made aware of a restriction of this nature on the (jointly owned with husband) proprietorship register of my property. I had no idea that this had been registered until today. 

I actually used to be a conveyancer so feel that I know that this can and should be dealt with, without the need to seek redemption figures, give undertakings etc as has been clearly set out at the beginning of my thread, so my question is not really around that as such. 

However, my solicitor appears to have other ideas and has written off to SCM Solicitors (AKA Lloyds TSB) to "seek their requirements".  Apart from being entirely unnecessary,  I suspect that this will go into an abyss and never be responded to, as I am not even sure SCM exist any more??  The restriction is dated 2012.  Is there specific and legal advice somewhere that I can quote to my solicitor (and her to my buyers) to evidence that there is no need to "redeem" any such charge (well its not a charge of course it is a restriction) and that the certificate (as is quite clearly stated within the wording of the restriction) just needs to be provided by the solicitor and boom, no problem!  I am supposed to be exchanging contacts tomorrow but this could cause a delay for weeks and it really doesn't need to 😭  Many thanks for any guidance and advice.  

You should refer them to Practice Guide 76 section 4 which explains how a form K will be overreached on a sale. It just has to be complied with as per the restriction’s wording. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charging-orders

The restriction’s wording is quite clear re compliance so it’s important for him/her to read that wording, not just think ‘restriction’ means consent, and read PG 76 re it then being overreached 

Thank you so much.   I have in fact just found that Practice Guide and have forwarded it to my solicitor, advising that it is clear that the charge/restriction can easily be over-reached.  If she doesn't understand this then frankly, she shouldn't be practising!  I am awaiting a response from her and I will change solicitor if I have to.  I actually think that solicitors who do not understand this need to be reported to the OSS as they are quite clearly not acting in their client's best interests and people are incurring significant losses as a result, which is really not good enough.

Dear LR Rep, further to your very helpful reply, can I just confirm whether an RX3 is needed to remove the notice? I called the Land Registry earlier this afternoon and was advised that it would.   I am now not sure that this is correct, as I feel that from your answer and what I have gleaned in general, no RX 3 is needed and it would just be the AP1 in standard form with associated TR1, Mortgage Deed etc from the Buyer's solicitor along with the aforementioned certificate signed by the conveyancer?

Thanks again for the help.