To cut a long story short,

I have three interim charges on my property.

I have recently been in contact with two of the companies involved and have negotiated a settlement figure.

The third I haven't managed to contact and my post has been returned.

I have found an email address online and that hasn't been answered either.

A company I contacted in error by phone, with a similar name, have said that the company doesn't exist.

As they have a charge on the property, how can I get it removed.

I'm currently in the process of selling my property so would like to clear this up ASAP.

I thank you in advance for any help on this matter.

Regards

who?

dx

Universal Leasing Ltd - Cassiobury House,

11-19 Station Rd,

Watford

can you remember what the original debt was all about?

dx

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/universal-leasing

so this was business equipment/premises leasing gone bad?

dx

Yes that is correct - an old business venture. One of the other Directors has a full charging order for the same debts

If they have gone bump and the debt has not been assigned...why worry about it?

Andy

Thank you so far for the comments;

The problem is that there is a charge on the property, I can't sell the property until these have been satisfied.

I know that the company has had problems but they have also recently filed their accounts, just can't find if they are still trading and where from.

Is yours a full charging Order or Restriction...is your property jointly owned?

The property is technically owed by my wife and I but I'm on the mortgage only.

It is an interim charging order according to the land registry, the other director has full charging order for the same debt

So you have a restriction on your 50% share of the equity......really shouldn't cause a problem with any future sale...if your conveyancing solicitor knows his stuff.

Have they ever requested payment?

They haven't requested payment, rather the opposite. I'd like to pay them but can not contact them due to letters being returned and telephone numbers not working.

If they have closed (ceased trading) how do I get the charge removed?

Thats a very good question and one that I have never come up against...but as said as its a restriction only...it wont effect any sale of property...whether you wish to be bothered to settle is your choice.

Have you queried this with Land Registry?

I haven't contacted Land Registry as yet but I think that will be my next step.

Thank you for your advice and time

LAND REGISTRY

"The provision of the Certificate mentioned in the Form K restriction means that the registrar is not prevented from proceeding with the application to register a disposition (for example, a transfer or charge) and the registration can proceed.

The certificate does not affect the restriction entry. A restriction in Form K may be removed from the register in the following circumstances.

Automatic cancellation

When a transfer of property is registered (following receipt of the required certificate) the restriction may or may not be automatically cancelled, depending on the circumstances of the transfer. If, for example, the application is to register a transfer by two or more proprietors to a third party for value, the trust interests will be overreached and the form K restriction will usually be cancelled"

Application to cancel in form RX3

If the charging order is discharged by the court, or if the debt secured by the charging order is paid in full, or for any other reason the restriction is no longer required, application may be made at any time to cancel the restriction. If such an application is made, notice will be served on the restrictioner and the restrictioner may object to the application. If the objection is not groundless, and the parties cannot come to an agreement, the dispute will be referred to the Adjudicator for determination"

So there you have it in black and white from the LR!

A Form K cannot prevent a sale as it cannot prevent a change in the registration if you have complied by giving notice to the Restriction Holder.

Also there is this, which whilst couched in legal jargon, supports the same contention:

Charging orders Linda Chamberlain, Land Registry’s director of education and training, gives guidance on how charging orders should now be dealt with

The Land Registration Act 2002 and the supporting Land Registration Rules 2003 came into force on 13 October 2003 and brought significant changes to the land registration system. The Act and Rules are important for all practitioners, not least because of changes in procedures for protecting third-party interests. Cautions against dealings and inhibitions have been abolished, and protection should now be sought through an agreed or unilateral notice, or a restriction. So, how should charging orders be protected?

Sole or joint proprietors?

If a charging order has been obtained against a registered title with a sole registered proprietor, a notice can be entered on the register to protect the priority of the equitable charge created by the charging order. If a notice is so entered on the register, then the property cannot be transferred free of the notice. But if there are joint proprietors, and you want to enter a notice on the registered title, you must ensure that the charging order charges the legal estate.

Does the order charge the legal estate?

To charge the legal estate of joint debtors, one charging order must be obtained which charges the legal and equitable estates of both proprietors. Ajointly held legal estate must be charged jointly as it is not possible to own an undivided share of a legal estate. Unless the whole legal estate is charged in the one order, it is not possible to apply for a notice to protect the charging order. If separate charging orders are made, this is only effective to charge the equitable estates of the debtors in the property. This is considered to be so even if the separate orders purport to charge the named party’s legal estate in the property, because that is on the face of it an attempt to charge an undivided share of a legal estate, which cannot be done.

Where separate orders have been obtained, what has been charged is the proprietor’s interest under a trust of land. Such an interest, or a charge on it, can only be protected by a restriction. That would also be the case where only one of joint proprietors was the judgment debtor. The charging order will be against that debtor’s equitable interest in the property. It may be protected by restriction.

What restriction?

The usual restriction to protect beneficial interests under a trust of land is a standard form A restriction (see box). That is because such interests can be overreached on a sale where capital moneys are paid to two or more trustees.

Where the proceeds of sale are paid to two trustees – even if those two are the same as the beneficiaries whose interests have been charged – the charging order is overreached and the creditor has to pursue the trustees for the money.

A standard form K restriction (see box) is also provided for persons having a charging order against the beneficial interest in property. The form K restriction is included in the Rules to enable a creditor to be made aware of a disposition. The creditor will then be in a position to pursue a claim to capital moneys held by the trustees.

The property is technically owed by my wife and I but I'm on the mortgage only.

 

It is an interim charging order according to the land registry, the other director has full charging order for the same debt

Who is actually named on your title deeds though?

I'm assuming it's only you?