Charging order

GDB2222

Land_Registry said:

TomThumb2 said:

Land_Registry said:

silvercar said:

Paging @Land_Registry

Pretty sure the OP is already aware re what's required from a registration perspective for this one. Either the creditor discharges it or the OP goes back to court to get it dismissed and then applies to update the register as appropriate. Hopefully they are on the right track as a result

Is that 100% the Land Registry position that the only evidence they would accept is a court order and not evidence that the creditor isn't responding/can't be traced?

Whilst every application is treated on merit a discharge or order dismissing the charge is clear cut. If there is any doubt then it's for the court to assess and pass judgement and not ourselves in the vast majority of cases. 
Resolving such matters, without the participation of the actual creditor, is very much a legal issue rather than a registration one hence the options as stated

Can I check one point, please. A form K restriction requires that the creditor is notified of an impending transfer, and I presume that notification should be sent to the address given, even if it is known that the creditor is no longer there? 

Having done that, the property can then be transferred, and am I correct that the property will be transferred to the new legal owner without that restriction?

TomThumb2

GDB2222 said:

Land_Registry said:

TomThumb2 said:

Land_Registry said:

silvercar said:

Paging @Land_Registry

Pretty sure the OP is already aware re what's required from a registration perspective for this one. Either the creditor discharges it or the OP goes back to court to get it dismissed and then applies to update the register as appropriate. Hopefully they are on the right track as a result

Is that 100% the Land Registry position that the only evidence they would accept is a court order and not evidence that the creditor isn't responding/can't be traced?

Whilst every application is treated on merit a discharge or order dismissing the charge is clear cut. If there is any doubt then it's for the court to assess and pass judgement and not ourselves in the vast majority of cases. 
Resolving such matters, without the participation of the actual creditor, is very much a legal issue rather than a registration one hence the options as stated

Can I check one point, please. A form K restriction requires that the creditor is notified of an impending transfer, and I presume that notification should be sent to the address given, even if it is known that the creditor is no longer there? 

Having done that, the property can then be transferred, and am I correct that the property will be transferred to the new legal owner without that restriction?

I think in this case the OP is remortgaging, but not sure they're selling.

Land_Registry

GDB2222 said:

Land_Registry said:

TomThumb2 said:

Land_Registry said:

silvercar said:

Paging @Land_Registry

Pretty sure the OP is already aware re what's required from a registration perspective for this one. Either the creditor discharges it or the OP goes back to court to get it dismissed and then applies to update the register as appropriate. Hopefully they are on the right track as a result

Is that 100% the Land Registry position that the only evidence they would accept is a court order and not evidence that the creditor isn't responding/can't be traced?

Whilst every application is treated on merit a discharge or order dismissing the charge is clear cut. If there is any doubt then it's for the court to assess and pass judgement and not ourselves in the vast majority of cases. 
Resolving such matters, without the participation of the actual creditor, is very much a legal issue rather than a registration one hence the options as stated

Can I check one point, please. A form K restriction requires that the creditor is notified of an impending transfer, and I presume that notification should be sent to the address given, even if it is known that the creditor is no longer there? 

Having done that, the property can then be transferred, and am I correct that the property will be transferred to the new legal owner without that restriction?

If the property is being sold and the charging order is protected by way of a form K restriction then provided it is complied with (read the restriction wording to understand what's needed) it can be overreached and automatically cancelled when the owner is registered
Charging orders (PG76) - GOV.UK - section 4 explains 

Land_Registry

A few things to add that may assist other posters here and the OP of course - the original post explained that OP is trying to remortgage (not sell) so the form K/overreaching does not apply
If the OP is a sole legal owner then the charging order will be protected by way of a Notice - see PG 76 as linked to above and the accompanying algorithms
We, HMLR, do have in-house legal teams (known as lawyers) but they work for us to consider the legal points that may arise in an application to update or create a register. 
A charging order is issued by a court and as such it is a legal matter and one the OP should seek legal advice on as a result. It will be the law that decides how the debt/order is treated in any given circumstance. It being protected by way of an entry on the land register does not alter that - it protects the order/debt against the property owned by the OP
Writing to your MP for help is always something to be considered. They would however get the same replies from us as the OP or others making the same enquiries. They have no special powers re such matters and that is especially true when you have a charging order issued by the court. 
If you can't get a form of release from the creditor then the advice is to go back to court and present your evidence as appropriate. The court, who was empowered to make an order re the debt in the first place, has the same powers to set it aside/dismiss it. And as with any court action it is best to seek legal advice to confirm what your options are, how to make your case and more as appropriate as it is a legal rep who will be familiar with the process and what legal evidence the court will need to see/consider.
Neither your MP or HMLR can give you that professional legal advice - you can always make an application in good faith to cancel the Notice and it will be considered, processed and actioned as appropriate by us. If it's insufficient we will tell you why from a registration perspective. And if so you will then be back to seeking legal advice/a court order 
If you choose to apply to us to cancel the Notice then submit it first and request expedition second as you are remortgaging - Request an expedite - GOV.UK . That won't change the specifics but will ensure that it's processed as soon as possible 
Finally, there is a specific MSE forum re Charging Orders - the myths that deals with the subject of charging orders and sale/form K restrictions. However it also includes sound advice re similar scenarios to the OP. I'm sure eggbox will offer some sage advice as well if asked for 

Land_Registry

And as an additional 'finally' here's the type of request a form CN1 without sufficient evidence to support the removal of the charging order/Notice could receive in similar circumstances 

Submit Form CN1 and one of the following. 

• A court order discharging the charging order. 
• A receipt for payment of the money secured. This can be endorsed on a copy of the charging order. The status of the signatory must be clear. 
• A discharge – this may be in form DS1 suitably amended. 

Where the applicant is the original creditor, there is included in the form CN1 a statement to the following effect, signed by the applicant or their solicitor: 

• identifying clearly the agreed notice in respect of the charging order, and - stating that all the money secured by the order has been paid to the applicant. 

If a receipt or discharge has not been signed by the original creditor, you must submit appropriate evidence of assignment of the debt. This could be, for example: 

• a certified copy of the assignment document; or
• a certified copy of the notice of the assignment which has been given to the registered proprietor who is the debtor.

Hope that helps 

Section62

gonefishing said:

Sadly, I can't give you any legal advice, but I have found that when dealing with a government department or local authority, it sometimes helps to involve a local Member of Parliament.  I'd be inclined to write a letter to the LR one more time, explaining your predicament, but clearly mark the letter to indicate that a copy has been sent to your MP.  You should then send a copy of the letter, with a covering letter to your local MP.

Whilst I've no idea if this will help, under the circumstances, I don't suppose it will do any harm.  If nothing else, it might ensure the LR take a proper look at your situation.  Nobody will want to be the person who didn't respond fully and correctly to a matter under the scrutiny of an MP, so hopefully it is more likely to be escalated, within the LR.

Some MP's are better than others at responding to correspondence, but in the first instance use a "Signed For" postal service, backed up by an email.

Google AI says:

"HM Land Registry is part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar Simon Hayes is responsible to Secretary of State Angela Rayner." 

After you've done a bit more googling to check AI is correct, I'd be inclined to send copies to both Simon Hayes and Angela Rayner and to mark your letter to the LR accordingly. 

 

Seeing cc. Angela Rayner at the bottom of a letter addressed to me would certainly get my attention lol.

Good luck.

As someone who has worked in governmental organsiations and dealt with a few thousand letters which were CC'd to an MP, I can offer assurance that the act of CC'ing an MP or minister is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome, bar the person responsible for the reply remembering to CC the MP/Minister into the reply, and possibly whose signature appears on it.

Rules and procedures are there to be followed.  All responses are potentially under the scrutiny of MP's (and the courts).  If anything, seeing Angela Rayner's name at the bottom of the letter would only prompt me to apply the rules and procedures more strictly in response to the possibility of the decision being subject to greater scrutiny than averge.  Contrary to popular opinion, the involvement of councillors and MP's doesn't (normally) result in rules being bent to the advantage of the letter writer.  It is more than my job is worth to be caught bending the rules to make the 'boss' happy.

TomThumb2

Section62 said:

gonefishing said:

Sadly, I can't give you any legal advice, but I have found that when dealing with a government department or local authority, it sometimes helps to involve a local Member of Parliament.  I'd be inclined to write a letter to the LR one more time, explaining your predicament, but clearly mark the letter to indicate that a copy has been sent to your MP.  You should then send a copy of the letter, with a covering letter to your local MP.

Whilst I've no idea if this will help, under the circumstances, I don't suppose it will do any harm.  If nothing else, it might ensure the LR take a proper look at your situation.  Nobody will want to be the person who didn't respond fully and correctly to a matter under the scrutiny of an MP, so hopefully it is more likely to be escalated, within the LR.

Some MP's are better than others at responding to correspondence, but in the first instance use a "Signed For" postal service, backed up by an email.

Google AI says:

"HM Land Registry is part of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Chief Executive and Chief Land Registrar Simon Hayes is responsible to Secretary of State Angela Rayner." 

After you've done a bit more googling to check AI is correct, I'd be inclined to send copies to both Simon Hayes and Angela Rayner and to mark your letter to the LR accordingly. 

 

Seeing cc. Angela Rayner at the bottom of a letter addressed to me would certainly get my attention lol.

Good luck.

As someone who has worked in governmental organsiations and dealt with a few thousand letters which were CC'd to an MP, I can offer assurance that the act of CC'ing an MP or minister is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome, bar the person responsible for the reply remembering to CC the MP/Minister into the reply, and possibly whose signature appears on it.

Rules and procedures are there to be followed.  All responses are potentially under the scrutiny of MP's (and the courts).  If anything, seeing Angela Rayner's name at the bottom of the letter would only prompt me to apply the rules and procedures more strictly in response to the possibility of the decision being subject to greater scrutiny than averge.  Contrary to popular opinion, the involvement of councillors and MP's doesn't (normally) result in rules being bent to the advantage of the letter writer.  It is more than my job is worth to be caught bending the rules to make the 'boss' happy.

The suggestion of involving the MP, which has some merit, would be to privide scrutiny to ensure that the rules and procedures are followed. It wouldn't be expected to result in any bending of the rules, either in favour of the person requesting scrutiny or as punishment against the person regarding scrutiny. It would be to ensure that submitted evidence is given the appropriate consideration in line with policy and reduce the possibility of getting a court order unecessarily.

Section62

TomThumb2 said:

Section62 said:

gonefishing said:

As someone who has worked in governmental organsiations and dealt with a few thousand letters which were CC'd to an MP, I can offer assurance that the act of CC'ing an MP or minister is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome, bar the person responsible for the reply remembering to CC the MP/Minister into the reply, and possibly whose signature appears on it.

Rules and procedures are there to be followed.  All responses are potentially under the scrutiny of MP's (and the courts).  If anything, seeing Angela Rayner's name at the bottom of the letter would only prompt me to apply the rules and procedures more strictly in response to the possibility of the decision being subject to greater scrutiny than averge.  Contrary to popular opinion, the involvement of councillors and MP's doesn't (normally) result in rules being bent to the advantage of the letter writer.  It is more than my job is worth to be caught bending the rules to make the 'boss' happy.

The suggestion of involving the MP, which has some merit, would be to privide scrutiny to ensure that the rules and procedures are followed. It wouldn't be expected to result in any bending of the rules, either in favour of the person requesting scrutiny or as punishment against the person regarding scrutiny. It would be to ensure that submitted evidence is given the appropriate consideration in line with policy and reduce the possibility of getting a court order unecessarily.

That isn't an MP's role in this kind of situation.  They lack in-depth knowledge of issues like this - and in any event it is probably one of their constituency admin assistants dealing with the CC'd letter - and probably wouldn't know what the rules and procedures are in order to be able to scrutinise compliance with them.

It would be different if the OP wrote to their MP to complain about the response (or lack of it) from Land Registry.  In which case the MP might arrange for a copy of the letter sent to the relevant department or organisation, requesting comments on the issues raised by the constituent.  Any further action would depend on the response received.

Or the MP's office might signpost the complainant to the organisation's complaints process.

But if the formal response from the Land Registry was in line with the very helpful responses @Land_Registry has provided in this thread then there is nothing really for the MP to do, beyond perhaps reinforcing the suggestion of getting professional legal advice if in doubt.

GDB2222

Land_Registry said:

GDB2222 said:

Land_Registry said:

TomThumb2 said:

Land_Registry said:

silvercar said:

Paging @Land_Registry

Pretty sure the OP is already aware re what's required from a registration perspective for this one. Either the creditor discharges it or the OP goes back to court to get it dismissed and then applies to update the register as appropriate. Hopefully they are on the right track as a result

Is that 100% the Land Registry position that the only evidence they would accept is a court order and not evidence that the creditor isn't responding/can't be traced?

Whilst every application is treated on merit a discharge or order dismissing the charge is clear cut. If there is any doubt then it's for the court to assess and pass judgement and not ourselves in the vast majority of cases. 
Resolving such matters, without the participation of the actual creditor, is very much a legal issue rather than a registration one hence the options as stated

Can I check one point, please. A form K restriction requires that the creditor is notified of an impending transfer, and I presume that notification should be sent to the address given, even if it is known that the creditor is no longer there? 

Having done that, the property can then be transferred, and am I correct that the property will be transferred to the new legal owner without that restriction?

If the property is being sold and the charging order is protected by way of a form K restriction then provided it is complied with (read the restriction wording to understand what's needed) it can be overreached and automatically cancelled when the owner is registered
Charging orders (PG76) - GOV.UK - section 4 explains 

Thank you.

You say sold, but would the same apply if the property is being transferred at nil cost to the OP's husband/mother/child? I think the Land Registry concerns itself mostly with legal ownership rather than beneficial ownership? 

I assume that the restriction would not be reinstated if the property is subsequently transferred back to the OP? 

Hoenir

gonefishing said:

 so definitely contact your local MP.

The OP already has a solicitor who will be better qualified in the law.