I have 2 restrictions registered at the Land Registry on my house.

Both in respect of old credit card debts.

One is circa £25k, the other circa £10k.

I will shortly be receiving some money from the sale of an inherited property.

I am wondering whether it would be advisable to make full and final offers for reduced amounts to get rid of these restrictions.

If so, what sort of percentage is likely to be accepted?

What type of restriction are we talking about here?

Is your house shared ownership etc?

I believe they are called "K" restrictions.

The house is not shared ownership. It is in the names of my late wife and myself as tenants in common.

it may be worth a try to get them settled for a reduced amount, otherwise they will stay for the full amount on your share (as tenant in common).

q may be whether the charge owner would want a reduced lump amount now, or just wait in the long term for the full amount whenever it may become payable?

ps just reread. what has happened to your late wifes share, has it passed to you in will

My wife didn't leave a will. I haven't applied for probate (letters of administration) yet.

I believe they are called "K" restrictions.

 

The house is not shared ownership. It is in the names of my late wife and myself as tenants in common.

"Tenants in common" can only apply to the "beneficial interest" in the property, while the "legal interest" (in effect, whose name is [or should be] on the Land Registry entry / deeds) is always held as a joint tenancy (so, you hold it by 'right of survivorship').

If your wife has no other beneficiaries with a claim on the property, you now hold it (for both the 'legal' and 'beneficial' interests)

Just be aware that offering a full and final might "poke the bear", awakening their interest. If they feel that they can get all their money, soonest, they'll have little interest in accepting a lower sum.

If you can avoid them thinking they'll get their money soon, they may accept the lower F&F sum.

The wife has no other beneficiaries.

The restrictions, and the CCJ's which led to them, were registered well over 6 years ago.

I am aware of this:

"There is case law to suggest that 6 years is enough time for a claimant to enforce a judgment debt. In Patel v Singh [2002] EWCA Civ 1938 and Duer v Frazer [2001] 1 All ER 249 leave to enforce these debts were both refused.

The reason being is that it was held that the general rule is that the passing of six years is sufficient in itself and the court would not extend time unless there were exceptional circumstances and it is demonstrably just to do so. It would be for the creditor to argue the reasons for delay and argue why they should take the case out of the general rule."

What sort of percentages should I offer? I was thinking of 10%.

6 years is under the limitations act.

It applies to e.g. contract debts.

A CCJ, once granted, never expires (although permission of the court is required to enforce it is required after 6 years).

A charging order (once granted) never expires, and the holder of the order can just wait. If they decided to go for an 'order for sale', the question of "why now, why not sooner?" might be raised, but they could easily say "we've only just found out the property is no longer in joint ownership".

The whole point (for the judgment creditor) of the charging order is that it secures the debt, so they don't need to enforce it within 6 years....

So does that mean that on the death of my wife, the restrictions automatically became charging orders?

The Form K restriction was created as a result of them being granted a charging order, and them then using that charging order to create the K restriction.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charging-orders/practice-guide-76-charging-orders#application-for-entry-of-a-form-k-restrictionhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charging-orders/practice-guide-76-charging-orders#application-for-entry-of-a-form-k-restriction

The restriction doesn't "become a charging order". The charging order already exists, and they used it to create the restriction

I was hoping this would apply

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1839539

its a restriction K

you don't have to tell anyone you are selling

only that the place is sold

and even then you don't have to if you don't want too.

there are so many solicitors that get this wrong out there.

don't pay them anything

dx

I wasn't thinking of selling my house in the short term. I just want to get rid of these restrictions.

why theres no need they cant do anything to you and it cant stop a mortgage either

That seems to be in contradiction of post #10 above.

In addition, I have about £9k outstanding on a 1st mortgage and I have already told the lender that this will be redeemed once I receive my money.

I tried to apply for equity release a couple of years ago, but was turned down flat because of the restrictions.

that's because its to do with the same property.[ER} stupid idea anyway

sorry but if you read bassa's link properly that's what it says

on a restriction k you do not have to inform whomever has it you are selling

only that the properly has been sold

tough luck on them

and I bet its some fleecing DCA anyway that got the CCJ on a debt you probably don't even really owe anyhow.

No, not the same property.

The property currently being sold was my late mother's and is free from mortgage or any other charges.

It is my house that has the mortgage and 2 restrictions.

I'm a little confused.

that's because its to do with the same property.[ER} stupid idea anyway

 

 

sorry but if you read bassa's link properly that's what it says

on a restriction k you do not have to inform whomever has it you are selling

only that the properly has been sold

tough luck on them

 

 

and I bet its some fleecing DCA anyway that got the CCJ on a debt you probably don't even really owe anyhow.

The £10k is with a high street bank, the £25k is with a DCA/ debt buyer. Neither produced validly executed agreements, but in both cases, this was ignored by the court. At the time, I didn't have the time or resources to challenge it further.

then don't waste your money

you do not have to pay restriction K's upon sale

only INFORM the people that had it the property has sold AFTERWARDS..tough on them eh?

so enjoy a holiday with the money.

dx

Just been looking at holidays, as it happens. I haven't had one for nearly 20 years.

Thanks everyone for your input so far. Any further input would, of course, be welcome.

The charging order exists. The money is owed.

They used the charging order to get a Form K restriction.

This doesn't stop you selling (now or in the future), though some wrongly believe it does stop you.

The 'right' conveyancer (if / when you did decide to sell) will agree to comply with the requirement of the Form K : notify the holder when the property is sold. Some conveyancers feel an obligation to inform the holder of the charge earlier in the process, and some buyers (/ their conveyancers) might be put off by the K restriction, though an undertaking (by your conveyancer) to comply with the K restriction should take care of that.

So, at some point the property gets sold. The holder of the charge gets notified. The restriction is gone (when the property is sold).

The holder of the charge still has the CCJ. If it at more than 6 years after the CCJ they have to ask permission of the court to enforce it.

If they say "we had a charging order with a Form K restriction, we've been notified the property has been sold" expect them to be given permission to enforce.