Entries on Land Registry

Sam_Arthur

Hi JonesMUFC, Sorry for not replying sooner, I am not disputing the ammounts and there is nothing acriminonious about my situation. I am trying to sell a house with minimal equity, due to an interest only mortgage, and am clutching at straws to do so. Like many others I am in a bad situation and am trying to move on. I have no idea why the courts would not pursue an inerim order, I was meerly seeking clarification of the above. Sorry if that is vague.

jonesMUFCforever

Sam_Arthur wrote: »

Hi JonesMUFC, Sorry for not replying sooner, I am not disputing the ammounts and there is nothing acriminonious about my situation. I am trying to sell a house with minimal equity, due to an interest only mortgage, and am clutching at straws to do so. Like many others I am in a bad situation and am trying to move on. I have no idea why the courts would not pursue an inerim order, I was meerly seeking clarification of the above. Sorry if that is vague.

How much do you owe on main mortgage?
How much do you owe HFC?
How much do you owe NR?

Realistically how much will you get for your house net after costs (solicitors, estate agents etc)

Is there a surplus or negative equity?

If negative consider approaching the secured lender with the lowest balance outstanding to see if they will consider changing the loan to unsecured.
If they won't - could you get a personal loan for the difference to pay everyone off?

Sam_Arthur

There will be no negative equity, but also not enough equity to cover the loans, NR have confirmed that their charge is secondary and will not be considered till the mortgage is clear. The wording for HFC is very similar so I will check with land registry on Tuesday, thank you for your interest.

jonesMUFCforever

Sam_Arthur wrote: »

There will be no negative equity, but also not enough equity to cover the loans, NR have confirmed that their charge is secondary and will not be considered till the mortgage is clear. The wording for HFC is very similar so I will check with land registry on Tuesday, thank you for your interest.

Sorry to inform you if there is not enough to clear all secured lending you are in negative equity.
A second or secondary mortgage is just as legally binding as your first mortgage.
Enough from me on this I think we are getting nowhere.

terryw

These notices appear to be restrictions which require notice to be sent rather than satisfaction on sale. You might consider putting your query on the eggbox thread previously mentioned.

Sam_Arthur

Sorry Jonesmufc, no offence meant, and thanks Terry will post on the other thread.

eggbox

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

OP can you please explain the reason why you think a court would not uphold the charge registered?
Are you disputing the amounts owed or are they in one name and you think it should not apply?

The Charging Orders concerned have been made, individually, against only one of the joint property owners. As such, they can no longer be registered as "Equitable" charges on the property deeds at the Land Registry.

This is because the CO's concerned have been made against the "Beneficial Interest" of the persons concerned and not the Land itself (as it would be if either person was the sole owner or the CO was made against both owners fr the same debt)

A CO against only one of the joint owners can only be notified on the property deeds by a Restriction which, usually, is a standard Form K as the wording indicated here means these are.

A Form K Restriction has no power to block a sale in itself. And as the wording indicates, it only requires a buyer, or his conveyancer, to notify the Land Registry that they have notified the Restrictioner that a sale is taking place. This allows the LR to register the new owners details on the property deeds. There is, also, no time limit placed on a Form K Restriction, either; so a Restrictioner does not have to be legally notified in advance of the sale.

And as long as the sale is being made for "valuable consideration" then the Land Registry are obliged to remove the Restriction as it has become overreached with the buyers interests taking priority.

That, as the Law stands is it. There is also no legal obligation placed on a seller, either, to settle the debt with the proceeds from a sale. The Restriction acts only as a reminder the debt exists. For a Court to uphold the Charging Order it requires the creditor concerned to go back to Court. But they would only be able to recover their debt from the proceeds of a sale by applying for a Freezing Order on the sale.

This, however, is extremely expensive for the creditor to apply for and carries financial risk as they can be held account for any losses its actions have incurred if their actions are not upheld as justifiable by the Court. Hence, they are rarely, if ever, applied for.

The problem for the seller, however, is a huge amount of stubbornness, by conveyancers, who prefer not to understand the differences between a CO made on jointly owned and sole owned property. It remains a problem for many sellers not wishing to part with funds at the point of sale (as is there right), but there are conveyancers out there who do understand the rules and you just have to take some time to find them.

eggbox

JonesMUFCforever

You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter. However, the above post is merely reflecting how the Law currently stands. Many posters are unhappy to have found their "non secured" debts were able to be "secured" by creditors applying for Charging Orders as the Law, also, allows.

As many of these "unsecured" debts were accumulated, even more rapidly, by unscrupulous lenders applying 30+% APR rates (at a time base rates were plummeting to virtually zero); then you can hardly blame people now using the Law to their own advantage in response.

Land_Registry

Sam Arthur - eggbox has covered it for you

I can only really comment from a Land Registry perspective, namely how we handle and deal with the form K restrictions (that is what each one is) and any subsequent application which they then 'catch'.

As with all restrictions it is the wording which is crucial - understand and get that bit right and they can be complied with and/or overreached as appropriate.

So here, the key wording is that for any disposition (sale/mortgage being the main two) we would need 'a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to...'

So as eggbox posts providing the creditors are notified in writing of the sale and the person applying to us to then register that sale provides a written certificate confirming that has been done then the restrictions are complied with.

If that sale is by two or more people and is for capital monies then the restrictions are then overreached and removed from the register when the new owners are registered.

Sam_Arthur

Thanks guys, I have spoken to the land registry and they have stated that the interim charging orders as they appear would only require HFC and NR to acknowlege that they are aware of the sale, they could not confirm however if the creditors could refuse to acknowledge or let the sale go ahead or even if the interim charging orders as recorded have since become final which is worrying