Form 6.83 recieved from OR re property but dont understand it?

JPS29

Hi.

Nearly 3 yrs since BR I received a letter last week informing me that the BI in my house will revest to me automatically as the OR hasn't dealt with it and it is confirmed in negative equity. This was good news and I knew/suspected that this would then get the ball rolling with the rental property we have.

Sure enough I have now received a form 6.83 letter from the OR telling me that the property (the rental one) falls within section 283A(1) of the Insolvency act and the last date he can serve this notice is 20th May 2011.

I dont understand what this form or notice is telling me. It doesnt mention anything in the notes about buying back the BI, or rental income or anything. Just says that I should obtain independant advice as to what will happen next?

Early on in the BR we got the land registry restriction form and we understood this and the reason we got it but we're totally at a loss to this.

Have the rules changed on buy to let properties, will we still be able to buy back the BI. The house is in negative equity by about 20-25k but we really want to keep it. It is tenanted at the moment and although it covers the mortgage we are not making a huge profit on it but look at it as security for the future.

Really confused by this

Thanks for any help/explanantions

IF

Not 100% sure, just bumping you up the board x

debtinfo

what does the form say

JPS29

Word for Word....

Rule 6.237 Form 6.83
Notice to interested parties of a dwelling-house falling within Section 283A of the insolvency act 1986

My name in Bankruptcy at X court

BO date

I XXX the trustee in BR of the above named hereby notify

XXX (me)
XXX (partner and joint mortage holder)

That the dwelling-house (address of property here) registrered at the land registry under title number xxxxx falls within section 283A(1) of the insolvency act 1986
The last date under which I am able to serve this notice is xx May 2011

Signed XXX

The part that concerns me is the mentioning of the last date of serving this notice, notice of what?

They know this is a Buy to let as well so that rules out a time limit for dealing with the property so why are they mentioning a time limit to serving a notice and what does it mean.

Thanks

Worcsman

JPS29 wrote: »

Hi.

Nearly 3 yrs since BR I received a letter last week informing me that the BI in my house will revest to me automatically as the OR hasn't dealt with it and it is confirmed in negative equity. This was good news and I knew/suspected that this would then get the ball rolling with the rental property we have.

Sure enough I have now received a form 6.83 letter from the OR telling me that the property (the rental one) falls within section 283A(1) of the Insolvency act and the last date he can serve this notice is 20th May 2011.

I dont understand what this form or notice is telling me. It doesnt mention anything in the notes about buying back the BI, or rental income or anything. Just says that I should obtain independant advice as to what will happen next?

Early on in the BR we got the land registry restriction form and we understood this and the reason we got it but we're totally at a loss to this.

Have the rules changed on buy to let properties, will we still be able to buy back the BI. The house is in negative equity by about 20-25k but we really want to keep it. It is tenanted at the moment and although it covers the mortgage we are not making a huge profit on it but look at it as security for the future.

Really confused by this

Thanks for any help/explanantions

On the insolvency website(.gov), where the document explaining form 6.83 should be, it says instead "
4. Notification of interest in property – Rule 6.237/Form 6.83
This article has been temporarily removed "

I'll keep googling though as I have a foreign property that will probably end up revesting back to me, so I wanna know too.

Worcsman

Worcsman wrote: »

On the insolvency website(.gov), where the document explaining form 6.83 should be, it says instead "
4. Notification of interest in property – Rule 6.237/Form 6.83
This article has been temporarily removed "

I'll keep googling though as I have a foreign property that will probably end up revesting back to me, so I wanna know too.

I found the form.. http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/forms/ew/6-83%20-%20Notice%20to%20interested%20parties%20of%20a%20dwelling-house%20falling%20within%20section%20283A%20of%20the%20Insolvency%20Act%201986.doc
doesn't help though but incase anyone wants to read it..

Darnit_2

It doesn't seem to make sense. It is as thopugh they were delaing with it as your main home.

What happens where the trustee’s interest in a legal charge cannot be realized within the 3 year period ?

November 2007

Where the official receiver (as trustee) is still not able to deal with the interest represented by the charge within three years (and the potential value will be £1,000 or more), legal advice received by the Service recommends that the official receiver should apply to court under section 283A(6) for an extension of the three year time period, to enable him/her to deal with the interest represented by the charge, in preference to applying for a charging order over the charge representing the equitable interest .This is because the imposition of a charge under section 313 over an existing family court charge does not place the official receiver in any better position than that which exists already, the family court charge vests in the official receiver as trustee and any restrictions in the family court charge apply equally to the official receiver. Even where an application is made under section 313 for a charging order against an existing legal charge made in the family court, it is not possible for the bankruptcy court to vary, amend or replace the existing family court charge.


All of this applies to family homes which are qualifying properties. Yours isnt.

Where the official receiver is trustee :
As a result of the provisions applicable under Part IX, Chapter IV of the Insolvency Act 1986 (including section 332), if the official receiver whilst acting as trustee applies to extend the 3 year time period in which to deal with the qualifying property interest, rather than apply for a charging order, he/she will be unable to issue notice of his/her intention to apply for release.

The notice sounds like this one, if they are applying to be released. But again, that only applies to qualifying property, which yours is not.


Do you have an insolvency practitioner involved, if so it could be an application for an extention, as below:-

Where an insolvency practitioner is trustee :
An insolvency practitioner trustee is prevented from summoning a meeting to obtain his/her release (section 332 Insolvency Act 1986) unless

• An order has been obtained under section 313 imposing a charge on the property for the benefit of the bankrupt’s estate; or
• The court has declined (on an application under section 313) to make such an order; or
• The Secretary of State has issued a certificate stating that that it would be inappropriate for such an application under section 313 to be made.

This means that, in applying for a time extension rather than a charging order, an insolvency practitioner trustee will be unable to summon a final meeting of creditors under section 331 to obtain his/her release as trustee


:question: I am also interested, as I also have a rental proeprty. I don't know if this is an intention to release them as trustee, or apply for an extension. But it is one or the other!

JPS29

Hi

No IP involved and yes you're right its VERY confusing. I thought it was just me that read it to be as though they were refferring to it as our residential but they categorically know it isnt. And also ive had a seperate note over that which made much more sense merely stating that the property will revest automatically.

Confused as ever?

JPS29

Just bumping so I dont fall off the page

debtinfo

to be honest, this does not make sense, i think you should go back and ask them as i think this is a simple mistake, letter is normally only sent out in family home cases which yours is not

JPS29

Or could it be possible that with all the kok ups at the rtlu they have overlooked it as a btl. Would you keep sctum and hope for the best or just come clean. (I already know the answer but would be nice if I could have got it sorted quickly)

Are there any firmer rules established now on BTL properties and how to deal with them or is it still up in the air>?