Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Sparkly

I'd have more respect for people if they say they don't agree with what is being discussed on this thread rather than them trying to push the "it can't happen" and the "you will never change conveyancing practices!" stance but then claiming to be neutral on the subject.

But the reason some CAG contributors have now looked at this thread is because I have highlighted two recent cases on here that goes against what they try to claim won't happen. Quite why they can't see there stance gives rise to which side of the fence they are on is a mystery? However, I'm pretty sure many are underlings in Law firms and don't like the fact that mere "plebs" are giving people options. Who knows?

harisumo

My charging order stopped at the Interim stage and has never gone any further and several months have passed now I have never heard anything again.

With regard to CAG I went on there for advice a couple of years ago and my thread just got caught up in this type of thing with endless arguments and disagreements between regular contributors, in the end the advice I was given gave me even more problems and headaches.

This thread is the only one that allowed me to 'see the light' and gradually my nightmares are beginning to subside and I don't feel so naive and gullible any more.

Sparklyfairy

Harisumo, great point. I agree with you re the CAG - so many people arguing about "policy" but no one helping the lone ones looking for advice regarding the very scary prospect of getting a charging order.

Egg, you & this thread no doubt are helping the plebs of the legal world understand their job a little better..!:D

I love it when we can help someone on here & essentially show them the light so to speak.

Harisumo, have you rung the Land Reg & asked why your stuck in the ico stage (is this now the norm from their experience?) & what can you do about it because this is clearly not what was intended when the law was set up to grant charging orders in the first place..seems they are flounting the law imo. Can it be thrown out after a certain period of time? I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it was to save the £100 solicitor's fee & the £100 court costs!:rotfl:

eggbox

It would be interesting to find out why, if it's not for economic reasons, creditors are not making CO's final?

But in a 2011 Goverment Policy Assesment on streamlining CO's it was certainly noted that creditors faced cashflow difficulties because of the solicitor/court/LR costs they have to pay upfront and which they cannot usually recoup until the debtor sells the property. So, given a Final CO on Jointly Owned property won't gain any extra benefit than what the ICO gives it may well be a cost cutting exercise even just to save solicitors costs of attending.

It should be noted that same Policy Assesment was considering making CO's available on debtors who AREN'T behind on instalment plans and also making Final CO's automatic after the ICO stage if no objection from the debtor.

Sparklyfairy

eggbox wrote: »

But in a 2011 Goverment Policy Assesment on streamlining CO's it was certainly noted that creditors faced cashflow difficulties because of the solicitor/court/LR costs they have to pay upfront and which they cannot usually recoup until the debtor sells the property.

Poor, poor things..my heart bleeds!:rotfl:

As for not missing a payment on an instalment order & still getting a charging order, that would be me. How is this policy? How come "those in the know" on the CAG still spout that this doesn't happen? It clearly does & it shows the legal system is a shambles..This entire experience highlighted to me how clueless some district judges are & haven't a clue about civil law relating to financial matters..how can they stay in their job?

Ganymede

I have no issues with anyone, this is an open discussion forum as far as I am aware and I'm merely responding to a point made.

Is there a lot of examples of Claimants obtaining an ICO and then not attending the FCO lately then? If this is the case then if the FCO is dismissed it should be easy to have the ICO removed from the register. All you need to do is send a copy of the Court Order dismissing the FCO to the Land Registry and ask for the ICO to be removed. The Land Registry cannot remove the ICO without a Court Order usually.

As it is not a requirement to register an FCO if the ICO is registered then I suspect this may be leading people to think the Claimant has 'given up' when in reality they haven't.

As for costs at a FCO hearing, this are fixed fees of around £260. The cost of sending an agent to attend is around £80 to £90 which is included in the fixed fee.

Like I say, not agenda just like to help people by getting the facts out there.

eggbox

Ganymede wrote: »

Is there a lot of examples of Claimants obtaining an ICO and then not attending the FCO lately then? QUOTE]

The situation being reported, as Harisumo's gives example above, is that an ICO is sought by a creditor but no FCO is made. I was under the impression a hearing was made for an FCO when an ICO was registered but Harisumo and others are reporting this isn't happening?

And I don't think people are under the impression the creditor has given up when this happens; they are are just concerned as to what their position is? But if the creditor can just stop at the ICO stage then surely it would add fuel to the belief that it's a money saving exercise given they have got what they want anyway?

Ganymede

That is strange as the Court sets the FCO date after the ICO is granted, it has nothing to do with the Claimant. Most Courts are very backlogged and so there could be a couple of months between the ICO and the FCO, other than that I don't have an explanation as it isn't possible.

Like I said if the Claimant only gets an ICO and the FCO is dismissed then it should be fairly easy to get the ICO removed.

Sparklyfairy

Gany, can I ask you what you do?

Also, can you show us where the ico/co fees are listed that creditor's have to pay as you mantioned in post #613?

eggbox

Yes I'd be interested to see that as the "agent" in my Ex's case was a junior barrister and charged £250-00 for her costs for attending the FCO?