Company in receivership owes a debt for trespass and nuisance...

factfinding8888

Sorry for the confusion. 

I have a CCJ against the company that owns the property being developed attached to mine. The CCJ is for £4000 + intrest (£6500) - for trespass (over 1 year) and nuisance (over 3 years). I also have a CCJ against the development company responsible for the buildings works in the property attached to mine. This CCJ is for £9950 + intrest (£13000). This is for the damaged caused to out property - drilling through our wall, cracks from piling and excavating, etc. To clarify,  I have evidence for all the above and emails admitting culpability. 

Both CCJs are against companies,  not individuals. 

factfinding8888

Both companies are in receiver action, and both have the same director and address on companies house. 

Magnolia Property Developments Limited and Flower & Hayes Limited. 

factfinding8888

The £9950 also covers £4000 in surveyor fees, including a P35 structural report.

WIAWSNB

I say, power to ff8888's elbow.
The company will have some assets, so it comes down to how much, and what the other claims are.
He's gone this far - good on him - and is now asking the basic Q, "is it too late to apply it to the assets?".
And, would placing a charge on the property be a potentially good move to reinforce this?
He unfortunately hasn't had answers to these, presumably 'cos folk don't know.
He has the ccj, so as far as I know (which is not far at all), that is the sort of judgement required to subsequently place a charge.
No-one can answer his Q?
There is an understandable assumption by folk on here that he hasn't a chance; when a company goes into liquidation, that means they're skint, and the few assets will be picked upon by large fish. But that's surely just assumption? 
A 'charge' on an asset like a building, if it's doable here, will surely need to be considered in the asset splitting process?

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

But that's surely just assumption? 

It's very well-informed and almost undoubtedly correct assumption. If the company still has enough assets to make any sort of significant payment to creditors way down the list like the OP, it would almost certainly have found an alternative solution before going into receivership.

But given it is in receivership, it's actually a very simple process. The OP just tells the receivers what they're owed (assuming they don't know already) and waits for the receivers to do the sums and tell them what (if anything) they're going to get.

WIAWSNB

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

I'm not sure why you're saying "no-one knew", several of us have given advice upthread.

A charge isn't going to help if there's no equity left in the property. Which there won't be.

A CCJ only helps if the receiver was going to quibble over whether the debt existed. It doesn't put you up the queue of creditors.

WIAWSNB

user1977 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

I'm not sure why you're saying "no-one knew", several of us have given advice upthread.
A charge isn't going to help if there's no equity left in the property. Which there won't be.
A CCJ only helps if the receiver was going to quibble over whether the debt existed. It doesn't put you up the queue of creditors.

Well, what I did read was the usual, 'Don't bother as they won't have any assets/ you'll be waay down the list of creditors/ don't throw good money after bad'. Which I get - it is most likely going to be the case.

As far as I recall, no-one actually addressed whether the CCJ and Charge would improve his chances. 

Some creditors most likely will get someone from the remaining assets, unless the cost of demolishing the building exceeds its value, for example. And I guess mortgage and loan companies will be first on the list, because they'll have such effective 'charges' written in to the contracts.  

So, the OP taking out a Charge on this property will serve no purpose? That is all I'm asking. 

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

user1977 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

I'm not sure why you're saying "no-one knew", several of us have given advice upthread.
A charge isn't going to help if there's no equity left in the property. Which there won't be.
A CCJ only helps if the receiver was going to quibble over whether the debt existed. It doesn't put you up the queue of creditors.

So, the OP taking out a Charge on this property will serve no purpose? That is all I'm asking. 

Yes. It would be like taking a second mortgage from someone who's already in negative equity.

molerat

The 2 companies between them have 40 charges against assets which, without looking too deeply, all seem to be mortgages on any land and property in their possession.  The addresses of those properties are clearly shown in the Companies House pages so maybe worth taking a look there before committing to anything else.