Hello All!

I hope this is the right forum for this question.

I am the owner of a property to which a charging order was created and attached in 2006 (I was depressed, buried head in sand etc. and defaulted...)

From the Land Registry records:

“(xx.xx.2006) Equitable charge created by an interim charging order of

the xxxxxxx Court dated x December 2006 in favour of HFC Bank Limited.”

Apparently the loan was with HFC (could have been a credit card?) but they are not around anymore and were sold to HSBC. I called HSBC a number of times and was passed around to a number of departments, with absolutely no-one understanding what I meant. This has happened loads of times. I have also been calling a number that I have been given by HSBC for HFC complaints department but unfortunately that is a call centre in India and I just keep getting told they have no information on me.

I really need to get this matter settled as soon as possible, but it seems that I am at a dead end.

Please do you have any advice/pointers as to how I can get this charging order removed? I have spent many hours trying to contact someone who has an idea about this, but to absolutely no avail...

It seems that HSBC are not willing to take the matter into their own hands and investigate their archives, so the outcome is that I am stuck with a charging order with HFC's name on it, despite my best intentions and efforts to rectify the situation...

I rang the Land Registry and they said keep trying (!?) and if I no joy to go to the Financial Ombudsman.. Seems a rather long and potentially fruitless situation though.

Thanks in advance. Any help HUGELY appreciated, this is driving me spare!

That's odd if it's only an interim order and not a final order. A date should have been set for a hearing to make the order final when the initial order was made. See CPR part 73.4(2)b. At least that is my understanding of it.

hfc still exist

I would be sending them an sar

get all the details they hold on you.

then go from there.

dx

That's odd if it's only an interim order and not a final order. A date should have been set for a hearing to make the order final when the initial order was made. See CPR part 73.4(2)b. At least that is my understanding of it.

No, the ICO is fine and only needs to be registered.

The FCO no longer requires registration as long as the ICO has been.

I realize that Ganymede but I didn't mention registration I was asking why wasn't there ever a final hearing? An ICO is, or should be, exactly that i.e interim. I don't think 9 years constitutes that. In any case the N86 form which creates the ICO has a section for the date of a final hearing.

An interim order is there to stop the debtor disposing of the asset hence the registration otherwise it would be a pointless exercise.

Whats to stop applying to have the order dismissed (N244) considering its age and its never been made final???

I realize that Ganymede but I didn't mention registration I was asking why wasn't there ever a final hearing? An ICO is, or should be, exactly that i.e interim. I don't think 9 years constitutes that. In any case the N86 form which creates the ICO has a section for the date of a final hearing.

An interim order is there to stop the debtor disposing of the asset hence the registration otherwise it would be a pointless exercise.

Whats to stop applying to have the order dismissed (N244) considering its age and its never been made final???

Where does it say there was no FCO hearing?

The OP said they buried their head in the sand and ignored all the Court hearings so it's safe to assume this included the FCO hearing.

I would imagine you are right Ganymede had a bit more of a look into it and there is no requirement to alter anything at the LR after the ICO is granted so I imagine most CO's will appear as ICO's, my apologizes.