Charging Order? The myth

abby16_2

Thanks

Have now received letters from NR solicitors. Each letter has authority attached to it for us to sign, but basically my letter gives authority for the proceeds to be shared in equal amts i.e 50/50 and mine would come to me. OH ltr is given authority for his share to go to one of the creditors with the CO. There is another creditor but this isnt mentioned but that CO was probably issd approx 10 days before the sale went through.

I dont have any dts re sale because to be honest we didnt think the house would go so quick and that there would be any profit. On the day it was repossessd just handed keys to balliffs and was glad to be out of it. So this has come as a bit of shock to us.

Spoke to NR solicitor but cant seem to get a straight answer from them but she said if OH doesnt agree to his share going to the creditor it would go to court. The point she keeps making is because house was repossessd this is different and it would be for the courts to decide and that the funds would be transferred to the courts until it is finalised.

We know that we have still got to pay the debt but why not do it in our own time. All through process it was like talking to a brick wall when you spoke to NR i think it is a matter of principle now.

eggbox

abby16

As you will see from my dealings with the SRA above, solicitors are a slippery bunch at best!

However, as stated you will get your 50% of the proceeds from the sale. It also makes no difference that the house was repossesed regarding your OH share. So I would be inclined to write to NR refusing your OH's authority to pay any money to a third party (if they had to do it by law they wouldn't be asking his permission!) and request the return of your OH's share that THEY are legally obliged to now return.

Explain that as there was only a Restriction registered on your sold property they are under no legal obligation to pay any third party from your OH's proceeds. If the creditor with the CO wishes to pursue the matter through court then that is a matter between the creditor and your OH; it has nothing to do with with NR.

harisumo

NR are a brick wall to deal with, they took me to court for an unsecured loan after just one missed payment and refused to accept any reasonable offers of repayment, all they were intent on doing is obtaining a Charging Order against me. It's a waste of time trying to communicate with them you really won't get anywhere.

eggbox

Hopefully, this thread will go some way to redress the balance on creditors who act like NR. As I have said on here before, my ex has a CO off MBNA but hasn't paid them a penny even though she pays her other two creditors who were more reasonable.

abby16_2

Thanks for that. I will get my oh to write to the solicitors and will let you know what the outcome is

Sparklyfairy

eggbox wrote: »

As you will see from my dealings with the SRA above, solicitors are a slippery bunch at best!

Slippery indeed! Such a common thread with the likes of NR & MBNA...:mad: Both seem to be hell bent on charging orders!

abby16_2

The CO arent with NR but it was them who repossessed our property but they are all as bad as one another in my eyes.

redpete

eggbox wrote: »

My opinion is that if there is a, definite, legal obligation placed on a solicitor, in the above situation, it wouldn't make sense to avoid confirming that. If, however, there is no legal obligation placed on a solicitor in this situation it would help solicitors to carry on paying off these charges (despite not having to) by stating "we can't give legal advice".

As you will see from my dealings with the SRA above, solicitors are a slippery bunch at best!

But in this particular case I think the SRA are justified. You are asking them to give an opinion on a point of law; that sounds like legal advice to me, something that is not in their remit to give.

eggbox

redpete wrote: »

But in this particular case I think the SRA are justified. You are asking them to give an opinion on a point of law; that sounds like legal advice to me, something that is not in their remit to give.

No I asked them to give confirmation; either solicitors have a legal obligation to pay off CO's attached to the Restrictions in Form K or they don't. It's not a matter for subjectivety.

The SRA code handbook, they referred me to, states that solicitors must "act in the best interests of their clients" and must also "comply with the law". Handing over thousands of pounds of their clients money to a third party isn't in their clients best interest so, unless there is a legal obligation to do so, I can see why they don't want to answer the question.

However, I had the same nonsense from the solicitor at the Land Registry where it took three attempts before she had to confirm to me the LR rules on selling a house with a From K Restriction. She also tried to use the "we can't give legal advice" and it could have been left there. But a little better phrasing of my question and she had no choice but to confirm the law as it stands on Restrictions.

But anyone reading this who is in the process of selling their property with a Restriction; please just ask your solicitor to confirm where it states that they have to, legally, pay off the CO and just tell us all here.

eggbox

abby16 wrote: »

The CO arent with NR but it was them who repossessed our property but they are all as bad as one another in my eyes.

I know how you feel abby16 and many on here have related how unreasonable NR can be. But I think it's important to stress that the loan you had with NR was a "secured" type and stamped all over it would have been the "Your home is at risk if you don't pay etc, etc". Couple that fact with the mortgage loan being on a, relatively, low interest rate to reflect the security NR had in place; then it's at least a fair arrangement.

The reason so many people on this thread are determined to sell up without paying off the attached CO is because the loans they were attached to were "unsecured", didn't carry any warnings of non payment and, also, carried a lot higher interest rate to reflect that risk. For those creditors, when things go wrong for them (which would be the risk part) to then be able to then gain "security" and put people's homes "at risk" with the backing of the legal system is definitely not fair.

As I have said before, if creditors who are able to gain a CO in this way were forced to recalculate the loan agreement to reflect a rate that would have applied to a "secured" loan; then there may be less determination by people in this position to work the law in their favour.