Charging order

TomThumb2

Section62 said:

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.

I can see some benefit and role for an MP being across correspondence as the intention is to ensure scrutiny, e.g. to try to ensure that the OP isn't presented with circular arguments or asked for a court order unecessarily. In this respect the advice is sound and doesn't require in-depth procedural or legal knowledge. 

The advice from the LR is indeed very helpful and goes some way towards clarifying next steps. My advice to the OP is to send the evidence to the LR as an expedited request and ask them to consider the evidence. They have in-house Legal who will be well placed to consider the request. OP should make clear on the request that they can't locate the creditor. It would be unlikely the LR would then come back referring them to the creditor - if they don't action the request they will likely request more information or advise definitively that they require a court order.

Certainly worth contacting a specialist solicitor, especially one who can give a free initial consultation.

Other option is to try to work with the mortgage provider to see if there is any flexibility on their side given the small amount of the debt.

TomThumb2

Hoenir said:

gonefishing said:

 so definitely contact your local MP.

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

I dont think the OP does have a solicitor - they were quoted £1,000 from one who said they had no knowledge of that area of law but 'would see what they could do'. The OP had affordability concerns about this solicitor.

Also, the suggestion to contact the MP wasn't to ask them for legal advice.

Land_Registry

GDB2222 said:

Land_Registry said:

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? 

PG 76 section 4 explains this for you - We will automatically cancel the Form K restriction once it has been complied with on registering a transfer of the registered estate for valuable consideration (except where the transfer is to one, or more, of the existing proprietors). We will assume that if the debt secured by the charging order has not been paid, your client’s interest will have come to an end with the postponement of the charged beneficial interest under section 29 of the Land Registration Act 2002.

Land_Registry

Section62 said:

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.

The MP contacting us instead of their constituent makes zero difference to any outcome. It simply changes the contact channel process slightly as intimated by other posts.
Some posters might be interested to know that for example even MPs, Police and Land Registrars also have to apply for and pay for registered information - it might be open to all but there's a statutory fee to be paid as laid down by legislation, which MPs will have created 

housebuyer143

GDB2222 said:

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? 

As I understand it, it needs to be sold with consideration so a nil transfer to get around the restriction wouldn't work. 

Whether the consideration needs to be market value or not I'm not too sure on.

Section62

TomThumb2 said:

I can see some benefit and role for an MP being across correspondence as the intention is to ensure scrutiny, e.g. to try to ensure that the OP isn't presented with circular arguments or asked for a court order unecessarily. In this respect the advice is sound and doesn't require in-depth procedural or legal knowledge. 

Knowing whether a court order is necessary or not requires sufficient process and legal knowledge, and is within the skillset of a legal professional, not necessarily something an MP will have.  In their role as an MP they shouldn't be providing legal advice, even if they have a legal qualification.

There's relatively little harm in the OP involving their MP, but the point that needs to be understood is involving the MP isn't some form of magic bullet which leads to a different outcome compared to that the OP would get anyway.

TomThumb2

Section62 said:

TomThumb2 said:

I can see some benefit and role for an MP being across correspondence as the intention is to ensure scrutiny, e.g. to try to ensure that the OP isn't presented with circular arguments or asked for a court order unecessarily. In this respect the advice is sound and doesn't require in-depth procedural or legal knowledge. 

Knowing whether a court order is necessary or not requires sufficient process and legal knowledge, and is within the skillset of a legal professional, not necessarily something an MP will have.  In their role as an MP they shouldn't be providing legal advice, even if they have a legal qualification.

There's relatively little harm in the OP involving their MP, but the point that needs to be understood is involving the MP isn't some form of magic bullet which leads to a different outcome compared to that the OP would get anyway.

Whether a court order is required or not is down to the LR, that part doesn't require specialist legal knowledge from a solicitor. If a solicitor is needed, they would need to have legal knowledge. That's why nobody is suggesting that the MP be asked to provide legal advice or be asked to apply to the LR themselves.

There's not much harm at all in involving the MP though. It's already understood that it isn't a magic bullet, but what should be understood is that oversight and scrutiny can help prevent incorrect advice being given.

GDB2222

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

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? 

As I understand it, it needs to be sold with consideration so a nil transfer to get around the restriction wouldn't work. 

Whether the consideration needs to be market value or not I'm not too sure on.

For a contract, there needs to be valuable consideration, but it doesn’t have to be very much at all. 1p. Whether the Land Registry would look at it like that, I don’t know, but it might be a cheap way for the op to solve her problem. 

TomThumb2

GDB2222 said:

housebuyer143 said:

GDB2222 said:

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? 

As I understand it, it needs to be sold with consideration so a nil transfer to get around the restriction wouldn't work. 

Whether the consideration needs to be market value or not I'm not too sure on.

For a contract, there needs to be valuable consideration, but it doesn’t have to be very much at all. 1p. Whether the Land Registry would look at it like that, I don’t know, but it might be a cheap way for the op to solve her problem. 

I believe it would have to be a genuine sale, but in the case here the OP is looking to remortgage rather than sell.

Rita1960

Good evening all and many thanks for this incredible input and advice. I am remortgaging the property and this charge is in place, i cannot contact anyone from the company dorma therm international nor their now closed solicitors office , both went out of business over 10 years ago, its drove me insane trying.
i cannot afford the £1000 to the solicitor to scratch his head like i have been doing.  I have no paperwork regarding this matter and the court holds no records due to the age of the case (2008).

i have no documents regarding this to provide to the LR, its a dilemma for sure and from all of the good advice offered by you all i feel that i have no other option but to apply to the court to look into the matter and to see what can be done.