Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    blueback
    Charging Order? The myth
    • #1
    • 26th Jul 09, 11:28 AM
    Charging Order? The myth 26th Jul 09 at 11:28 AM
    I feel that this is so important that I thought a new thread should be made to highlight the importance of understanding the law on Charging Orders and how many people are stuck with their property in the false believe that they have had a Charging Order put on their property.

    In particular the thousands of Northern Rock customers that have had unsecured debt turned into secured debt by their tactics.

    If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction.

    The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor.

    However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to decieve you believing you are stuck with a CO.

    However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them

    Quote:

    Restriction


    The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :-
    No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).
    You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer.

    If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered.


    So I hope I have provided benefit to everyone who has had a restriction entered against them (especially NORTHERN ROCK CUSTOMERS) who believe wrongly that they are Charging Orders.

    You now have the freedom to go and sell your houses with the knowledge that the vultures can do nothing

    I also think this VERY IMPORTANT point needs highlighting by the moderators as many many people are stuck with houses that they believe they cannot sell
Page 187
    • Rangers123
    • By Rangers123 6th Aug 18, 4:39 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rangers123
    Hi Rangers123, how is your Solicitor attempting to remove the Restrictions?
    Originally posted by eggbox
    The Land Registry has told her the restriction would not be removed by transferring the title in this case because the company with the benefit of the restriction is dissolved. I don’t understand why, as the restriction is still the same, to give notice. Now locked in a whole nightmare with the Treasury Solicitor, with the added bonus of doing all the work for them, for which they’ll generously charge me their legal fees to have this removed we we can proceed. Eggbox, this is the solicitor we’ve discussed so they know what they’re doing in relation to these matters.

    I’m genuinely tempted to apply to have the original charging order set aside, flying back to the UK and turning up in court in person. Such a frustrating situation, even more so for the other owners who are being prevented from selling their house.
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 6th Aug 18, 5:11 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    The Land Registry has told her the restriction would not be removed by transferring the title in this case because the company with the benefit of the restriction is dissolved. I don’t understand why, as the restriction is still the same, to give notice.
    Originally posted by Rangers123
    Hopefully, Land Registry Rep may be able to shed some light on this and explain the LR reasons?

    Now locked in a whole nightmare with the Treasury Solicitor, with the added bonus of doing all the work for them
    Originally posted by Rangers123
    I think LRR has asked how (and why) the Treasury Solicitor has got involved and I'd be interested, too?

    I’m genuinely tempted to apply to have the original charging order set aside, flying back to the UK and turning up in court in person. Such a frustrating situation, even more so for the other owners who are being prevented from selling their house.
    Originally posted by Rangers123
    It's the CCJ you need set aside but it isn't anything that you will obtain, either, quickly or easily? You first need a reason why the Judgement should be set aside and that can be files online.
  • Land Registry
    Hopefully, Land Registry Rep may be able to shed some light on this and explain the LR reasons?

    I think LRR has asked how (and why) the Treasury Solicitor has got involved and I'd be interested, too?
    Originally posted by eggbox
    I did ask initially but removed my comment as I wanted to dig deeper into the title number before replying.
    I can see we have had enquiries from those acting for both buyer and seller so am aware of background and replies.

    Before I post a full response I need to confirm certain matters with those who have replied to the enquiries. If you can hold fire a little longer I should hopefully be able to cover matters for you in detail from a registration perspective
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
  • Land Registry
    Rangers123 - sorry for the delay in posting again but I have been in discussions with colleagues over the specifics involved here. The outcome is a positive one with regards the issues raised so hopefully it will put the sale/purchase back on track for you. But I wanted to update you now to try and ease the frustrations you mentioned earlier

    I will be emailing the buyer's conveyancer with regards their original enquiry made in June and the response we provided.
    A colleague will be emailing your own conveyancer who submitted their own enquiry at the end of July as it was they who replied to that enquiry on 1st August.

    I'll post a general response here once those emails have been sent as I feel it is proper to notify the conveyancers directly and share the specific details with them. I'm sure you will understand.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • Rangers123
    • By Rangers123 7th Aug 18, 3:05 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rangers123
    Rangers123 - sorry for the delay in posting again but I have been in discussions with colleagues over the specifics involved here. The outcome is a positive one with regards the issues raised so hopefully it will put the sale/purchase back on track for you. But I wanted to update you now to try and ease the frustrations you mentioned earlier

    I will be emailing the buyer's conveyancer with regards their original enquiry made in June and the response we provided.
    A colleague will be emailing your own conveyancer who submitted their own enquiry at the end of July as it was they who replied to that enquiry on 1st August.

    I'll post a general response here once those emails have been sent as I feel it is proper to notify the conveyancers directly and share the specific details with them. I'm sure you will understand.
    Originally posted by Land Registry
    I can't thank you enough for spending time looking into this. I truly hope your intervention can break the deadlock. Sincerely appreciated.
  • Land Registry
    I can't thank you enough for spending time looking into this. I truly hope your intervention can break the deadlock. Sincerely appreciated.
    Originally posted by Rangers123
    We have now emailed both conveyancers to advise that providing the form K restriction is complied with and the named (on the register) creditor is notified of the sale by two or more registered owners for value then it will be overreached and automatically cancelled when the purchase is registered.

    The buyer's conveyancer contacted us initially to query whether the above was still true in light of the fact that the creditor, a company, had been dissolved. Our response sign-posted them to our guidance on corporate insolvency. As a result, and perhaps quite naturally, I assume they contacted your conveyancer to assist.

    Although the creditor's insolvency is relevant as to the debt/the CO it is not relevant with regards the overreaching of the form K restriction in the circumstances mentioned above.
    I have highlighted in the thread a few times how the devil is always in the detail re the Qs asked of us but in this case whilst I believe the reference to the creditor's insolvency caused us to answer as we did, we should have explained the above and how it did not impact on the requirements for the sale overreaching the form K restriction.

    Your conveyancer raised their own enquiry with us in an effort to remove the form K restriction. Removal in this case was not required as explained but doubtless our reply to the buyer's conveyancer caused them to then refer.
    Our response then sought to explain how the insolvency affected the debt and how the Treasury Solicitor, for the Channel islands in this case, might be involved. Those details are in the original response and today's additional reply.

    Your conveyancer has been provided with an explanation of the specifics involved and additional information re how the creditor's insolvency may affect the debt. However as already stated that is after the sale/purchase has completed and does not impact on how we would treat the purchaser's application/automatic cancellation of the form K restriction.

    Provided the restriction is complied with as per the registered details and the application is to register a transfer as described I do not envisage any further issues.

    eggbox from a wider perspective this example does not alter the position already shared and explained in your thread. The corporate insolvency is not significant to how a form K restriction might be overreached and automatically cancelled.

    The creditor's insolvency has, from a registration perspective, the same impact as say the debt being sold on as unless the register reflects such a change of circumstances a purchaser/their conveyancer need only comply with what is actually registered and not 'chase the debt' so to speak. The debt is the seller's concern after all in such cases and not the purchaser's

    The relevance of the Treasury Solicitor, there is also a Channel Islands 'version, is not significant re the overreaching. They would be involved re the actual debt hence reference to them in Rangers 123's posts previously
    Last edited by Land Registry; 07-08-2018 at 4:11 PM.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 8th Aug 18, 12:00 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    Thanks for your input on this LRR and, hopefully, the information you have provided (regarding creditors that have gone bust) should help anyone else in this situation should it arise?
    • simmian
    • By simmian 10th Aug 18, 5:07 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    simmian
    Hi, Is it possible that I can add my wife to my property deeds if I have a charging order against my property? Would I only be able to add her if they were removed I only found out about the charging order last year when we tried to remortgage the property last year which I am gutted over. Why isn't there more publicity about these? The worst thing for me was that I was not aware of the charging orders until we reapplied. I can understand the risk if you have a secured loan but this is for a car loan and credit card. I would love to tell me what the difference between a secured loan and an unsecured loan because in my opinion there isn't any. It makes me sick that these debt companies buy your debt from banks for buttons.
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 10th Aug 18, 6:38 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    simmian

    There is nothing to stop you adding your wife to the property deeds but I'm assuming you have a notice on your property (rather than a restriction) as you are, currently, the sole owner?

    If so, any financial interest she might gain in the property would only be realised after the mortgage and charging order were settled if the house were to be sold.
    • simmian
    • By simmian 13th Aug 18, 8:28 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    simmian
    Thank's Eggbox. I am probably clutching at straws here but is there no possibility of changing the impact of the charging order by adding my wife to the morgage. I dont understand all the terminolgy and I am so p**sed of that my wife was not on the deeds beforehand so that it would have been a restriction. I bought the house before I married her. Would it be dated on the register?
    Is there anything anyone can suggest that may be of help other than paying these vultures off. I think I have said previously what sickens me with these charging orders was that I was not informed at the time and what is the point in a secured loan and a personal loan when they can both be applied to your property its a disgrace. I am so sickened by this because I was not aware until we remortgaged and found out that I had 2 charging orders. 1 for 14K and the other for 9K apologies for rambling but so stressed. Any help would be appreciated.
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 13th Aug 18, 9:23 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    Simmian

    Unfortunately, adding your wife won't alter the impact of the Charging Orders as they are dealt with by date of registration. So it's better to understand that, take a deep breath, and persue other options to a remortgage which are out there?

    Your only hope of ever affecting the Charging Orders (and it's an extremely slim chance so, please, understand that) would be if you had cause to set aside the original County Court Judgements that were made against you and which enabled the CO's to be obtained? This would only have any merit in pursuing, however, if you don't owe the money or you dispute the amounts claimed but were never informed of the Court Claim against you?

    Everyone and his cat agrees it's outragous "unsecured" loans are able to charge high interest rates (as the loan is "unsecured") but which can then be turned into a secured loan, in default, without recourse to the original interest rate charged for the loan. It's quite simply scandalous.

    You can try to negotiate lower settlements with the creditors but be aware most are half wits who refuse to take a penny less even if their loan values are depreciating and they know they won't get paid for many years to come? But that's not to say you might not get lucky if you try?
    • Walmsley7274
    • By Walmsley7274 17th Aug 18, 12:20 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Walmsley7274
    Hi


    Long time lurker but never posted, however, I'm jumping on this thread for some advice, but please let me know if I need to start my own.


    I am the registered sole owner for a property, however, I have a joint mortgage and 2nd mortgage with my partner and his equality / interest is registered within the restriction section. This has been in place since the 17th June 2006 with an underpinning agreement that the equity would be 50/50,. The reason for this it was a right to buy from the council many years ago and I was the tenant, therefore I was the sole owner but my partner could have a restriction with an underpinning agreement for the equity.

    There have been 2 equitable charges placed on the property for debts solely in my name registered in 2009. However, I only have a part interest in the property as indicated by the restriction for my partner in 2006 and as we are selling to separate he wants his equity protecting.

    Based on the sole proprietor algorithm from the land registry (online) and the flow chart which is attached to the guidance, should these have been placed as a restriction, opposed to a equitable charge? As there is representation within the title deeds that part of the property is held in trust for my partner.



    Any advice would be appreciated :-)



    Cheers
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 17th Aug 18, 1:11 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    Walmsley7274

    Land Registry Rep may be able to clarify if the charges should have been restrictions? But your partner's equity is protected by virtue of the fact that his interest was registered on the deeds prior to the Charging Order dates.

    When the property is sold the interests on the register are settled in order of the date they were registered.
    • Walmsley7274
    • By Walmsley7274 17th Aug 18, 2:00 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Walmsley7274
    Hi EggBox


    Thank you for the advice.



    When the propriety is sold there wouldn't be enough of my equity to cover the charges to remove them and I'm worried that would stop a sale going through, which is why I was wondering whether they should have been restrictions in that my partner as an interest in the property from the date I acquired the property.



    The main charge is held by a company which has now been dissolved but the debt is currently with Cabot who I am hoping to come to a full and final arrangement with them if I explain the situation. (hopefully)
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 17th Aug 18, 2:25 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    Again, Land Registry Rep may be able to shed some light on what happens in these circumstaces? However, as I see it a Charging order wouldn't be able to block a sale as it isn't a guarantee to repay the creditor in full. It's to be repaid from the asset it's attatched to and if that asset isn't valuable enough then that's too bad on the creditor?

    Any amount not repaid would still be owed to the creditor but its then their problem to collect?
    • Walmsley7274
    • By Walmsley7274 17th Aug 18, 3:40 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Walmsley7274
    I thought (and would be very happy to be corrected) that if the equitable charge was not settled, then they would refuse to lift the equitable charge on the title deeds and this would deter the any buyers?


    This is all very confusing but I have asked the land registry whether it should be a restriction in light of other people interested in the property.



    Thank you for your advice :-)
  • Land Registry
    Again, Land Registry Rep may be able to shed some light on what happens in these circumstaces? However, as I see it a Charging order wouldn't be able to block a sale as it isn't a guarantee to repay the creditor in full. It's to be repaid from the asset it's attatched to and if that asset isn't valuable enough then that's too bad on the creditor?

    Any amount not repaid would still be owed to the creditor but its then their problem to collect?
    Originally posted by eggbox
    Noted charges are not automatically cancelled so any purchase is very unlikely to complete in such circumstances
    The OP has contacted us directly already re the specific circumstances so hopefully will post again once the response is received.
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • eggbox
    • By eggbox 20th Aug 18, 12:19 PM
    • 1,386 Posts
    • 693 Thanks
    eggbox
    LRR

    Thanks for the update. So what you are saying is that if noted charges aren't removed by the creditor then the sale is unlikely to proceed as the new buyer won't want to be responsible for the charge remaining?

    But can I clarify that if the buyer is happy for the charge to remain then the transfer can still proceed? I'm only asking as, in certain cases, if the charge is not attracting interest there can be some buyers, such as a builder looking to develop and sell the property in a short space of time, who wouldn't see the charge as a problem as long as the there has been negotiation to allow for the charge amount?
  • Land Registry
    LRR

    Thanks for the update. So what you are saying is that if noted charges aren't removed by the creditor then the sale is unlikely to proceed as the new buyer won't want to be responsible for the charge remaining?

    But can I clarify that if the buyer is happy for the charge to remain then the transfer can still proceed? I'm only asking as, in certain cases, if the charge is not attracting interest there can be some buyers, such as a builder looking to develop and sell the property in a short space of time, who wouldn't see the charge as a problem as long as the there has been negotiation to allow for the charge amount?
    Originally posted by eggbox
    Noted interests don't usually prevent a sale. It's restrictions that have to be complied with.
    If the buyer was happy to buy in such circumstances then they can get the title with the interest still protected.
    Very unusual but possible
    Official Company Representative
    I am the official company representative of Land Registry. MSE has given permission for me to post in response to queries about the company, so that I can help solve issues. You can see my name on the companies with permission to post list. I am not allowed to tout for business at all. If you believe I am please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com This does NOT imply any form of approval of my company or its products by MSE"
    • Andy1977j
    • By Andy1977j 28th Aug 18, 11:29 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Andy1977j
    Please help
    I will try to explain as simple as possible

    I have a property that is joint ownership
    It has several restriction all I believe areform k against the title all placed in section B of the title (all placed in sole named)
    I am willing to pay all of these with the sale of the property!
    The issue is that one of the restriction (no6) is placed by direct auto finance. The debt was sold on to hillesden and they placed there own charging order (no10) this is now being managed by Mortimer Clarke
    I have sold my property subject to contract but have not been able to exchange contracts was due to do last Friday as I can’t get Mortimer Clarke to agree to remove the interim charging order (no6) placed by direct auto finance when the debt is payed
    My conveyor is not being at helpful in this only saying the exchange will happen when we find out who will remove the restriction I would chang but think I am to far gone with sale!
    If land registry is still on here my title number is EX 599751
    Any help with this would be much appreciate
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,565Posts Today

6,599Users online

Martin's Twitter