Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Fbaby

Firstly, Orders For Sale are rarely gone after by creditors as they know they are virtually impossible to get. And I do understand your apprehension in not wanting to rock the boat, so to speak, but EGG simply aren't entitled to a CO in the form they have given the circumstances you explain. As it stands, YOU will pay for your Ex's debt if you don't change what is registered at the LR.

If it was me, I would write to the LR in the first instance to see how this error could have occurred? It's not up to the LR to investigate the error but they may be able to shed some light on "how" or "where" the error occurred? As this debt is not yours you cannot be held responsible for it and a CO in the form EGG have got would only be possible if your Ex was the SOLE owner which you say he was not. As long as you have proof of that you have nothing to fear.

With regard to the property being rented, whilst that is an irrelevance given the above, EGG won't know that unless you tell them.

FBaby

That's great, I feel much better about this as I am absolutely certain of the facts I stated here. I have proof of the debt being under my ex's name only, proof that we co-owned the property when the CO was applied, and proof that I am now the sole owner but with the CO still applying.

I am going to follow your advice and get going with the challenge. I will definitely update here with my progress to help support anyone in a similar situation.

blueback

Sorry not been around but thanks for all the success stories on CO,s

For those that asked for help privately,please just follow the advice initially given. Get a solicitor that understands conveyancing law.

NR never got a penny because of their actions and for me they are history

eggbox

Blueback

Thanks for the original information given that started this thread going!.

Can I ask what the follow up was from NR to your conveyancer (and also yourself) when they realised they weren't going to get paid?

s.may

Eggbox

My brother wants to take over my dad's current outstanding mortgage & withdraw more funds, I'm not sure how we can proceed with a sale for value type transaction instead of a transfer?

Ganymede

s.may wrote: »

Eggbox

My brother wants to take over my dad's current outstanding mortgage & withdraw more funds, I'm not sure how we can proceed with a sale for value type transaction instead of a transfer?

There is more to consider here that just the mortgage etc.

Is your father elderly and planning on staying inth ehouse onceit is transferred to his brother? If so then there are IHT issues to consider...

Ganymede

eggbox wrote: »

FBaby

Firstly, EGG aren't thinking anything about this CO because they believe they have an Equitable Charge on your property and will be repaid when the house is sold.

But (just to double check!) You are saying that EGG pursued a CO against your ex (who was the sole owner of the debt) and they were granted a CO against your property whilst he was STILL registered as part owner at the Land Registry? If that is so; then the Courts have made a mistake as an Equitable Charge for a CO cannot now be attached to Jointly Owned property. You, therefore, need to write to the Courts and explain what has happened and to have the matter corrected.

Also, when you checked at the LR regarding the CO did you double check that your Ex's details had been removed? Because if they have I can't see how they can re-attach a Restriction to your property as the person it would be against has no Beneficial Interest anymore. But you need to sort this out now as the longer time goes on the more difficult it may be to put things right.

The Court have nothing to do with how the Charging Order is registered. They granted the CO against a Defendant and then it is up to the Claimant to register it with the Land Registry in the correct way. The first port of all would be withthe LR as they should not have allowed the registration in the first place.

Ganymede

Sparklyfairy wrote: »

Yes they can unfortunately be given a co, BUT what I meant in my last post was where Trident threaten "taking possession of your home" is NOT acceptable & should be reported asap. Before I recv'd my co I NEVER had any threats that my home would be repossessed due to my unsecured cc. This is unnecessary harrassment from a DCA & frankly illegal. I say report 'em! x

I thought a CO was already in place,unless I read it wrong? If that is right then I don't see anything wrong or "illegal" with stating that an OFS may be applied for...

Ganymede

lady123 wrote: »

Im just shocked and disappointed that this allowed to go on, ive heard horror storeys about District judges not even knowing the civil proceeder rules!
when a corporations/Banks can sell peoples debts to a DCA because they want a tax right off because someone is ill or lost there job or got into trouble for through no fault of there own, these parasites hire the best lawyers and then charge people that need help most extra for legal fees and then package it all nicely into a charging order bundle.... well, surely if this country cant protect us then Europe should! the answer is in the European court! anyone looked at that angle?

I know it's hard to seperate but the CO is not for the credit card debt, it is securing the CCJ. A subtle but major difference.

The European Courts will not be able to change primary legislation...

blueback

Eggbox

There was no interaction between the conveyencer and NR as NR did not have any relationship with them.

On completion the restriction fell away and the debt that NR managed to get "secured" reverted back to a unsecured debt.

The debt was still there but with no assets NR sold it on to a DCA as it was not economical to chase.

The irony of all this is NR would have got back 50% under our DRP, but got greedy and lost it all.