Charging Order? The myth

DAKOTA45 · 10 March 2015 at 11:18AM

Hi LRR…

Many thanks for your help… the Ref: is 150307-000019.

This is the bit that doesn't make any sense…

LR notified me that a modified form k restriction dated 03-11-14 was in place… however...

I am confused, because unless the later decision (for a modified form k restriction) at the hearing on 08-12-14 extinguishes the original decision for a standard form k restriction at the hearing for the Final Charging Order on 03-11-14, it would appear that there are two different types of restriction in place (a standard and a modified restriction) both with the same reference number.

Which is it…

Standard Form K decision at the hearing for the Final Charging Order 03-11-14?

or

Modified Form K resulting from an appeal hearing on 08-12-14?

Or both as land registry's notification to me seems to imply?

Land_Registry · 10 March 2015 at 11:43AM

I'll take a look and see what's being said.
I won't be able to get involved in the specifics as that will be down to the local office who will be dealing with it but if there is any confusion hopefully I can help resolve that in some way

DAKOTA45 · 10 March 2015 at 12:03PM

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

I'll take a look and see what's being said.
I won't be able to get involved in the specifics as that will be down to the local office who will be dealing with it but if there is any confusion hopefully I can help resolve that in some way

Thank you so much…

I am just concerned that the notification I received from LR states the modification was obtained at the hearing for the Final Charging Order when in fact it was obtained some 4 weeks later on appeal..

I think it confuses the issue when LR backdates the modified restriction to attach it to a previous hearing which awarded only a standard form k restriction…

Or is it just me?

Land_Registry · 10 March 2015 at 12:23PM

Had a quick look at the enquiry thread and the history around the title and restrictions and can see to some extent why things may have got a little confusing.

I think it may just be you but I can understand why you have chosen the route of enquiry you have. The key is that we don't backdate these things and that may be where the confusion lies.

The order itself states the wording to be registered so we have no say over that. That is largely why I suggested you obtain a copy of the order(s) and application forms as appropriate as this would confirm what was applied for and why. If you then had an issue with how the solicitors and the court approached it then you could raise that with them directly.

The caseworker dealing with your enquiry has I believe replied to you again this morning in an effort to resolve the matter. If the response is not as to the point as my own it may be worth responding and simply pursuing the point re sight of the order(s) as lodged.

Whilst we can explain the registration process, which we have, we cannot do the same re the court process.

For emphasis only, the modified form K restriction will have been registered based on the wording included in the court order. The order will have one date whilst the actual wording of the restriction included within that order will refer to the earlier final charging order. That is the court's decision and not ours.

DAKOTA45 · 10 March 2015 at 12:52PM

Hi again LRR

I just received this…(please see below)...

You can see that LR's first notification refers to a Standard Form K restriction and it was this which was awarded at the hearing for the Final Charging Order on 3 Novmber 2014.

The next notification to LR represents a modified version giving 14 days notice of disposition, however, this was only granted via a further application from the judgement creditor more than 4 weeks challenging the original decision.

(I will be making an appeal against this as the application did not follow correct CPR).

But you can see how this would lead to confusion as they have backdated it so that it appears as though a modified restriction was granted at the original hearing when it wasn't!!

I guess they have deliberately misinformed LR as it suits their purpose, especially if they have realised I have a valid case against them for their procedural error.

(If they wished to challenge the original decision they should have followed the correct appeals procedure within 14 days as they were present at the hearing for the Final Charging Order and should have mentioned at the time, or as soon as possible if they wanted the restriction to be modified).

Anyway… this is what LR have just sent to me….

As previously advised the Land Registry will place the restrictions on the title register as applied for.
The two restrictions are detailed below;

"(02.06.2014) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate, other
than a disposition by the proprietor of any registered charge registered
before the entry of this restriction, is to be registered without a
certificate signed by the applicant for registration or their conveyancer
that written notice of the disposition was given to Mr xxxx at
Care of xxxxx being the person with the benefit of
an interim charging order on the beneficial interest of Mrs xxxx

made by the County Court at xxxxx on xxxxx

5. (09.01.2015) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is
to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by or on
behalf Mr xxxxx or his solicitors that written notice of the
disposition was given to the said Mr xxxx care of
xxxx xxxx, Solicitors, at xxx at least
being 14 days prior to the disposition(the said Mr xxxx being
the person with the benefit of a Final Charging Order on the beneficial
interest of Mrs xxxx made by the County Court at xxxxx
on 3 November 2014 (Court reference xxxxxxx) or without a further Order
of the Court which ordered this restriction. "

The applications were applied for on 2 June 2014 and 9 January 2015 as per charging orders presented as evidence.

No other application has been made for a standard restriction for the charging order referred to.

Land_Registry · 10 March 2015 at 1:10PM

DAKOTA45 wrote: »

I guess they have deliberately misinformed LR as it suits their purpose, especially if they have realised I have a valid case against them for their procedural error.

(If they wished to challenge the original decision they should have followed the correct appeals procedure within 14 days as they were present at the hearing for the Final Charging Order and should have mentioned at the time, or as soon as possible if they wanted the restriction to be modified).

Thanks DAKOTA45 - the court decides on the wording so I think you are really suggesting that they have misled the court so if you are appealing that then presumably that will be explained by the court.

From what I can see we have confirmed how the restrictions have been registered and why. Notices were served at the time and if you are seeking to challenge the order(s) then that is where your focus should now be.

If you have not obtained a copy of the order(s) already then that remains a recommendation. And once obtained I would still recommend seeking legal advice to understand whether you have a case to challenge/appeal against the orders on the basis suggested. We cannot advise on that as I know you already appreciate.

DAKOTA45 · 10 March 2015 at 3:04PM

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Thanks DAKOTA45 - the court decides on the wording so I think you are really suggesting that they have misled the court so if you are appealing that then presumably that will be explained by the court.

From what I can see we have confirmed how the restrictions have been registered and why. Notices were served at the time and if you are seeking to challenge the order(s) then that is where your focus should now be.

If you have not obtained a copy of the order(s) already then that remains a recommendation. And once obtained I would still recommend seeking legal advice to understand whether you have a case to challenge/appeal against the orders on the basis suggested. We cannot advise on that as I know you already appreciate.

Hi LRR…

Many thanks for all the advice.

If they have misled the court, it won't have been the first time!

They were present at the hearing for the Final Charging Order, so if they wanted to request a modification, they should have told the judge there and then rather than wait until 4 weeks after the decision before making a (without notice) application, then backdating the result and presenting it to LR as a fait accompli…

Very sneaky indeed!!:mad:

Land_Registry · 10 March 2015 at 3:52PM

Please do come back and let us know the outcome as how the courts/creditors operate as this is rarely shared although it is appreciated why that can be the case.

DAKOTA45 · 10 March 2015 at 6:08PM

Land_Registry_representative wrote: »

Please do come back and let us know the outcome as how the courts/creditors operate as this is rarely shared although it is appreciated why that can be the case.

Indeed…

I have sent an email to LR attaching the Judgement Order relating to the hearing for the Final Charging Order dated 3 November 2014 which clearly states that 'the charge created by the order made on 9 May 2014 (Standard Form K Restriction) shall continue'.

So there you have it… it was definitely a Standard Form K Restriction and the lawyers then had an afterthought… it seems not to matter to the courts that they were out of time to appeal and did not follow the correct procedure to do so… I bet the judge didn't even bother to check that they were at court on the day and so should have made clear their intentions at the hearing…

I also sent LR the application form that the judgement creditor sent to the court more than 4 weeks later requesting a modification (dated 4 December 2014).

I don't know if it makes any difference one way or the other, as LR has to follow instructions, but I think these things should at least be accurate and that LR should be allowed to correct any obvious errors.

The modified restriction should be dated 8 December 2014 as that is when the decision was made to modify…

Land_Registry · 11 March 2015 at 9:45AM

DAKOTA45 - whilst I empaphise with your view that we should be 'allowed to correct any obvious errors' that is very unlikely to be the case re a court order.

As you are in correspondence with the local office/caseworker I will leave it with them to consider and respond as appropriate.

Charging Order? The myth

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free