Charging order

Just_Di

boo_star wrote: »

What reason do you have to set the order aside other than them issuing notice to an old address?

That should be a sufficient reason under CPR 13.2 > https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part13#13.2

Di

debaur

Land_Registry wrote: »

I'm not aware of any link between someone AP1,Yong to the court for a charging order and needing to check/do anything with the contact details provided at time if registration and still in the land register.

The contact details provided to us are for our own contact purposes. For example if someone applied to register their charging order and we had to notify you then we would use the registered contact details.

And for Nasqueron's benefit we will write to an overseas address if provided. You can also have an email or care of address.

To assist with understanding the charging order processes you may wish to read the Charging order - the myth thread on MSE

Thank you very much your kind response. Both my UK address, ie address on which a charging order could be placed, and Portuguese address are on the Title Deed - would any contact go to both addresses please?

[Deleted User]

Stop defending OP.

They owe the money and know they do and didn’t update their creditors.

Pay what they owe and stop with this something for nothing society BS where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore.

I know this is supposed to be a “money saving” site but that doesn’t mean avoiding your debts and not paying what you morally owe.

Land_Registry

debaur wrote: »

Thank you very much your kind response. Both my UK address, ie address on which a charging order could be placed, and Portuguese address are on the Title Deed - would any contact go to both addresses please?

Yes - you can have up to three contact addresses and all are used if we are required to contact you

PixelPound

Has the charging order been finalised, has it even been applied for yet.

Applying for set aside because you don't receive post there isn't straight forward. If the OP has never informed any creditors of a change of address and they have done some due diligence before requesting claim issued then it most likely not be granted. The MoJ has changed things because of a lot of set asides been granted been seen as wasting court time (as in the original claim should not have been issued) and aims to change things further. You would assume most debt businesses are aware of this and taking this onboard (both because of the financial implication of having to absorb fees that are then removed and a reputational basis).A lot of set asides are for older judgements where they are only just finding out when been tracked down after a few years and threatened with enforcement, rather than recent ones after the change in directives.