Removing "charge on the property" when the original loan company was liquidated in 2003

BillGem

In 1985 the owner of a flat took out a loan on his flat ,and a charge was placed on the property .That person died in 2018, having suffered from dementia and leaving no details whatsoever about this  loan, other than periodic references to it ,in his diaries , the final entry being from June 1996 ,in which he expressed relief at having borrowed £10,000 from his sister (confirmed), in order to pay off the loan (£8000).To everyone's  knowledge , there was no further contact or reference to this loan after that date . 
It was only when the "estate" tried to sell the flat,in 2019, that the charge even came to light . The acting solicitors  ,then discovered that the loan company involved had self  liquidated in 2003, and that a subsidiary of Citigroup -- Citifinancial /Canada Square Operations -- today, had responsibility for any matters dealing with that  liquidated company .CitiFinancial  were happy to send in the necessary forms to the Land Registry to discharge the debt -- but the Land Registry did not accept their  paperwork : Citifinancial were unable to supply what they demanded and stated that they were unable to help further .
At this impasse,  the estate's solicitor approached the governments Bona Vacanti division, on the basis that it were accepted that the original loan company had gone into voluntary liquidation having no assets/debts outstanding -- then there was no loan outstanding on our property --  and that is where the situation  has been for over 3 months, now ,  and I have little hope of a positive outcome .

Any ideas how to get round this -- adding , that the sole beneficiary is an elderly sister who lives on a small nurse's pension ,and for whom the window during which she might have benefitted from this inheritance is rapidly diminishing ? .

davidmcn

Somewhat perversely, it would be easier if there were still a balance due to be paid, as that would be an asset which the bona vacanti dept could deal with, but they can't if the loan was repaid before the company was dissolved. I think this requires a court application, though no idea why it's taking months for the lawyers to figure that out.

You could try posting on the Land Registry thread to see if the LR rep there has any other suggestions.

BillGem

Thanks -- The ridiculous thing is that I don't think anyone has any official record of the loan or the amount -- the only information is the Land Registry charge (marker) itself. So as far as they're concerned , if there's a "marker" , there 's a debt -- to someone .
Being new to this site -- where is the Land Registry thread /forum  ? 

davidmcn

BillGem said:

Thanks -- The ridiculous thing is that I don't think anyone has any official record of the loan or the amount -- the only information is the Land Registry charge (marker) itself. So as far as they're concerned , if there's a "marker" , there 's a debt -- to someone .
Being new to this site -- where is the Land Registry thread /forum  ? 

Yes, so up to the court to decide on the likelihood of there actually being a debt still due, if the lender isn't around to confirm one way or another. 
Land Registry thread is here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5685941

GDB2222

The one ray of sunshine is that it does sound as though Citigroup would be prepared to say that they hold the records, and they have no record of an outstanding debt?  Given that, it would not take the court long to decide.

BillGem

Hello, 
Can a leasehold flat  be sold ,even if there is an undischarged , "charge on the property" -- which the buyer is fully aware of , but wishes to purchase anyway .
And would the lease then be transferred ,"as normal" with all the rights and responsibilities being passed to the new lessee.?

davidmcn

BillGem said:

Can a leasehold flat  be sold ,even if there is an undischarged , "charge on the property" -- which the buyer is fully aware of , but wishes to purchase anyway .
And would the lease then be transferred ,"as normal" with all the rights and responsibilities being passed to the new lessee.?

In this sort of situation, yes, the buyer can take on the risk/hassle if they want to. It's not going to work if they need a mortgage though as their lender will need first charge.
And obviously the buyer is one degree further removed from the background to the loan, so may be less confident about persuading anybody else what happened historically.

GDB2222

As a buyer, what would you pay for a flat with this sort of issue, that cannot be mortgaged? Would you be looking for a 50% discount? 30%?