Charging Order? The myth

kellielangton75

Kathryn

I don’t have any of the original copies. The one I posted was from my solicitor. You can get a detailed copy of the deeds with the charges on that might help. I paid for a digital copy on line. I had paid for the title register from land registry which didn’t have this information on it. My only issue is not knowing if a final charging order was given and with it not having to be registered I have no way of knowing.

KathrynConfused

Hi Kellie, we are in exactly the same position, our Deeds say interim charging orders, the courts cannot confirm anything else as they have no records. So I have asked the creditors for proof but I know you're not in the position to be able to do that  it's so frustrating isn't it? I've spent hours on the phone and researching this. If I find out anything that I think will help then I'll post it

kellielangton75

Thank you. I will update you if I find anything that can help you😊🤞🏻

KathrynConfused

An update for anyone who finds themselves in the same position as us ... I have been in contact with my creditors, I was very reluctant to do this but my hand was forced as our solicitor was going to contact them for redemption figures anyway. The orders show on our Deeds as interim, standard K wording and are sole debts on a joint mortgage. It transpires that they are all Final Charging Orders. We believed that was not possible - but it is. And to confirm, there is no obligation for the creditor to get the Deeds updated so there's no way to know for sure unless you contact the creditor. Fortunately I have successfully negotiated much reduced settlement figures, which is a huge relief. But only with the companies directly. The debt collection agency would not budge by a penny. Hope that helps people. It has been a long journey for us to get to this point!

kellielangton75

I have come across a restriction at the top of the register that I’m confused about. Is this another charging order? I have contacted St. Helens council who said that was paid back years ago and they wasn’t aware it was still on the register. Do these also stop the sale of the house? Land registry said they have been put on with a form k. This is never ending 🤦🏻‍♀️

eggbox

Kellie

They are Restrictions which are notifications that one of the owners has a Charging Order made against there Beneficial Interest (share of the equity) in the property by the creditor named. So yes they are 2 more CO's.

The good news is they don't stop a sale as the Restrcitions are easily complied with and are automatically removed as overreached upon sale.

The bad news is most solicitors will insist on settling the debts before the sale can proceed.

KathrynConfused

Yes, ours have insisted on that. Sigh.

KathrynConfused

We have hit a bit of a stumbling block. We contacted one of the companies who has a charge registered. They have said, in writing that they have no record of it. Our solicitor keeps saying that it has to be settled before we can complete and we keep asking how we are supposed to do that? We just get told again to settle it. Any ideas on what we do now? Apply to get it removed ourselves? Look forward to hearing back from anyone who can help. Thanks 

eggbox

KathrynConfused 

If you delve back into the thread you will see previous posters reporting this problem. Hopefully, Land Registry Rep will confirm if, either, of the following would be helpful?

Firstly, you can apply to remove the Restriction using an RX3 stating that the beneficiary no longer has any claim on the money. The LR would write to the creditor concerned who, hopefully, would confirm they have no record (so no claim) on the money. But a quicker route may be to request the creditor cancels the Restriction themselves using an RX4, given they have no record of the debt?

However, whislt a solicitor is entitled to stand by their conviction that the debts should be settled on sale, to keep insisting this should be the case when you have tried to settle the debts, and they are aware of the reason why the debt is being prevented from being settled; is, in my opinion, the action of a numbskull when the sale can still proceed despite that hinderence.

If you offer money to someone you are supposed to owe it to and they decline to accept it; how on earth can this idiot keep insisting the debt has to be settled when the Law doesn't prevent the sale from still proceeding?  

Land_Registry

eggbox said:

KathrynConfused 

If you delve back into the thread you will see previous posters reporting this problem. Hopefully, Land Registry Rep will confirm if, either, of the following would be helpful?

Firstly, you can apply to remove the Restriction using an RX3 stating that the beneficiary no longer has any claim on the money. The LR would write to the creditor concerned who, hopefully, would confirm they have no record (so no claim) on the money. But a quicker route may be to request the creditor cancels the Restriction themselves using an RX4, given they have no record of the debt?

RX3 or RX4 are the way forward re cancellation or withdrawal respectively