We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Complicated Freehold Lease problem
Comments
-
How would this go if the OP went to LVT, would they take account of the charge when making their valuation decision on the OP's right to buy the freehold ?
It seems very strange that any bank would lend with the security being the freehold.
Sorry what or who is LVT?
It was an unsecured loan when the guy didn't pay they went to court to put a charge on the freehold.0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »A very informative thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1839539
If only one of the joint freeholders was responsible for the original debt, a charging order should not have been granted, a restriction should have been placed on the Land Reg instead.
As you say, the charging order is unfairly against the other joint freeholder and for this reason, the restriction is the appropriate remedy.
Will read the link in sec.........
how to go about getting it changed?0 -
Your freeholder who was not party to the loan has to decide to do this. I suppose she could seek a court order lifting the charging order and placing a restriction - or challenge the registration of acharging order with the Land Reg. They may not be able to do anything but should at least indicate the process - although they do not provide legal adviceblackshirtuk wrote: »Will read the link in sec.........
how to go about getting it changed?
2 issues to bear in mind
Firstly, the charging order may not actually be registered
Secondly, it may be that she inadvertently signed to permit the charging order to avoid court issues without actually taking legal advice, in which case it may be game over.
It is her fight to take forward.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
DVardysShadow wrote: »Your freeholder who was not party to the loan has to decide to do this. I suppose she could seek a court order lifting the charging order and placing a restriction - or challenge the registration of acharging order with the Land Reg. They may not be able to do anything but should at least indicate the process - although they do not provide legal advice
2 issues to bear in mind
Firstly, the charging order may not actually be registered
Secondly, it may be that she inadvertently signed to permit the charging order to avoid court issues without actually taking legal advice, in which case it may be game over.
It is her fight to take forward.
Many thanks for the link,halfway through it, it appears to be just what i am looking for!
I will ask her if she signed anything, but i doubt it as she didn't know about the charge until our solicitor discovered it.
I think the way forward is to find out exactly if it is a charge or a restriction and if the former, help her challenge it with the land registry.
If it is a restriction then all we have to do is find her ex(!) and tell the creditors about the sale.
Again many thanks to all who replied and especially DVardysShadow0 -
blackshirtuk wrote: »Sorry what or who is LVT?
LVT = Leasehold valuation Tribunal. It is undertaken when a leaseholder goes to The Leasehold Advisory Service to value the purchase of a freehold which you have a statutory right to do.
This is why I was asking the question as I cannot see from the information on the The Leasehold Advisory Service website (http://www.lease-advice.org/) that the loan would be factored in.
As the purchase of the freehold is a statutory right and the loan is a contractual obligation, this would seem to imply that the statutory right would override the contractual one.
Which is why I am surprised they attached a charge to the freehold as the LVT can issue a valuation that doesn't include the loan and you have a right to buy at their valuation. In addition you have a statutory right to extend your lease and this will no way include the charging order figure.
Both circumstances above mean the charging order is absolutely pointless. I would have expected the charging order to be secured against the leasehold which means if the other flat wanted to sell they would have to clear the charging order.
In this case you really need a solicitor who is well versed in leasehold/freehold issues.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards