Conveyancer who understands interim charging order.

saabay

eggbox wrote: »

Well that's good to hear but, as you may see from the main thread on this subject on "Charging Order the Myth", its been virtually impossible to get lenders to agree to proceed without first having the Restriction removed prior to the advance. Wrong, as you say, as there is no charge registered against the land; but that is what is happening.

Can I please ask, therefore, how you approached the Restrictions removal with the conveyancer acting for the lender as that info would be REALLY useful to an awful lot of people.

No problem. Just to be clear, the restrictions were Form K restrictions. This only relates to a restriction with that specific wording. Also these were interim charging orders. One was in favour of a utility company (probably for unpaid fuel) and the other in favour of a firm of solicitors (no idea what for).


As the restriction required, the seller's solicitor, on completion, gave notice of the disposal of the property to the buyer. They then produced that to me and confirmed by undertaking that it had been sent. This allowed me to give the certificate to the LR. It doesn't really matter who gives the notice, be it seller's or buyer's conveyancer, as long as someone does it.


Those certificates were then sent in with our application and the title came back registered in the buyer's name with no restrictions.


I have a feeling that some conveyancers either treat this sort of entry as a registered charge (in which case they will want to pay it off), or they simply don't read what the requirements of the restriction are, and then, mistakenly think there is a legal charge on the title.


There is no need to report the presence of a form K to lenders prior to completion, as it will not remain on the title after registration. They will give a stock answer like "we rely upon you to ensure that our security is protected". I suspect that the conveyancers are not absolutely certain that the title will come back clear of them hence the problems that people are having.


Hope this helps. I haven't read the other thread but will do so now.

eggbox

saabay wrote: »

I have a feeling that some conveyancers either treat this sort of entry as a registered charge (in which case they will want to pay it off), or they simply don't read what the requirements of the restriction are, and then, mistakenly think there is a legal charge on the title.

Well this is certainly the case in the majority of cases related on the "Myth" thread I mentioned previously. But even when it is pointed out that there is only a Form K Restriction registered (and also what the simple requirements are to get the Restriction removed) there is still stubborn resistance from conveyancers to want to act. This is often from the sellers conveyancer let alone the buyers conveyancer?

But its good to know it is understood by some conveyancers acting for people in this position. Could I just act one more question on whether either Restriction holder contacted you for payment?

saabay

eggbox wrote: »

Could I just act one more question on whether either Restriction holder contacted you for payment?

Not a word, but I never had any contact with them directly as the seller's lawyer sent the notices and copied them to me.