Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

What Happens When They Put A Charge On Your House?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4046 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

We owe a considerable sum of money at the moment and we have been to the CCCS and have a payment plan and so are making small payments to each creditor. Our problem is that we owe the Halifax the bulk of it. I have a credit card and my partner has a credit card and a loan with them. Paying off the amount set down by the CCCS it would take years to pay the debt back. we are hopeful that our finances will improve in time so that we can begin to pay a more substantial amount.

However, the counsellor at the CCCS said that it may happen that the Halifax wont accept the payments long term (they have agreed them for 6 months) and so may choose to put a charge on our house.

Can anyone tell me what effect having a charge on the house will have? One person I spoke to said we would be better selling up than letting that happen but I would welcome a more experienced opinion.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi :)

To get a charge The Halifax will need to be granted a CCJ in the frst instance.

 

I am speaking from experience here as I have a debt through MBNA that was sold to 1st Credit.

1st Credit applied for a ccj and I was advised by the CCCS to admit the full amount of the debt.

 

Whatever you do, dont admit the full amount if part of the debt is made up of penalty charges.

If you are issued with papers then tick the disputed amount box.

 

Make sure you ask for the CCJ hearing to be heard at your local court so you can defend yourself.

 

Send off the SAR letter and £10 fee ASAP to the Halifax so you know exactly where you stand with penalty charges and you you can get this debt in dispute, which halts all further action.

 

I am currently in the situation where 1st Credit are applying for a final charging order on my home,and I have had to apply for a set aside of the original CCJ order to get a chance of fighting against the final charging Order.

 

If the Halifax did get a final charging order,this doesnt necesarily mean they can force you to sell.

They will get a caution against your property but there are situations where the order for sale isnt granted,eg if you have kids,the house is jointly owned.

 

I wouldnt consider giving up my home for a minute and I would fight to the end-but thats just me ,I like a good scrap lol !!

 

If you need anymore info,i'm sure someone will be along soon,maybe Sequenci,or pm me if you want,i'm no expert but I would be happy to help if I could.

 

Good luck

 

Hope xx

You need to read this if you have ever consolidated lending through your bank,

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/49648-loans-pay-off-overdrafts.html

NatWest

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) LETTER SENT15/12/06 - STATEMENTS RCD 22/12/06

PRE-LIM AND SOC SENT 11/01/07

FULL CLAIM OF £4093.04 INCLUDING CONTRACTUAL INT :)

JUST WAITING FOR STANDARD BOG OFF LETTER...:rolleyes:

LETTER FROM STUART HIGLEY TODAY 20TH JAN THANKING ME FOR MY LETTER AND ADVISING ME THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERING MY CLAIM.... YEAH, BET THEY ARE !!!:lol:

LBA SENT 29/01/07

 

**** G.W.G PAYMENT OFFER RECEIVED TODAY FOR £2160. THAT WILL DO NICELY AS PART PAYMENT MR HIGLEY !!!:D ****

 

 

 

 

 

Member of the official Bill-K appreciation thread cos he's just ape !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Hope. At the moment we dont know that they will try to put a charge on the house but I didnt know what the implications were. As someone explained it to me it just meant that when you sell they will get repaid, as in like a secured loan. Are you saying they can force the sale? The house is jointly owned but there are no dependant children now. I am waiting for statements from the Halifax so I can reclaim my bank charges but I havnt done anything about the credit card charges yet. obviously

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I am not sure but I think that the loan would have needed to be taken out originally on a secured basis, they have no right to go for an attachment to your house if you are paying them any amount whatsoever that they have agreed to accept. If it went to court, the court would decide whether, or not, you were paying enough. If you were paying them nothing, they could perhaps get an attachment order, in short it is my personal opinion that they would not be allowed to do this, but please check this with a solicitor.

Vodafone - Default removed (07/01/07).

MBNA - Claim settled with contractual interest and adjusted credit file to show no late payments (12/02/07).

CABOT - Taken to Court by Cabot/Morgan over alleged credit card debt, case dismissed (06/12/10).

Link to post
Share on other sites

We owe a considerable sum of money at the moment and we have been to the CCCS and have a payment plan and so are making small payments to each creditor. Our problem is that we owe the Halifax the bulk of it. I have a credit card and my partner has a credit card and a loan with them. Paying off the amount set down by the CCCS it would take years to pay the debt back. we are hopeful that our finances will improve in time so that we can begin to pay a more substantial amount.

 

They can only collect what you can afford to pay. If it was to go to court, no judge would say anything different. There is a big difference between "can't pay" and "won't pay".

However, the counsellor at the CCCS said that it may happen that the Halifax wont accept the payments long term (they have agreed them for 6 months) and so may choose to put a charge on our house.

 

They may choose ? What kind of advice is that ? If you have been making regular payments, however small... it is highly unlikely that a judge would order a charge to be put on your house. As advised, you would need a CCJ to be lodged against you first and there is plenty that you can do to avoid that scenario. Since Halifax have not even suggested they are going to do this, it seems irresponsible of CCCS to plant that seed in your head.

 

Can anyone tell me what effect having a charge on the house will have? One person I spoke to said we would be better selling up than letting that happen but I would welcome a more experienced opinion.

 

Absolute rubbish ! They are assuming that everyone rolls over, are they ? I recently had a creditor threaten me with a property charge.... I had been paying regular amounts for years. When challenged to produce certain documantation however, they failed.... and now they cannot pursue me for payment at all.

Thank you.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

i am not in this predicament but like to avoid it if possible, i have been told that charging orders are placed in first come first served basis, can anyone verify this, for example if i owed my daughter £50000 and she placed a Charging order against me then she would be first to be dealt with in the event of my death.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

They can only apply for a charging order on your property after they have obtained a CCJ, & the judge will only grant the charging order if you do not comply with the courts judgement, & then only in extreme cases will they force a sale.

I know this from personal experience, the judge said at my charging order that in the current financial climate, if every CO became an order to sell, they would be putting 1000's of people onto the streets.He told the banks solicitor that he would grant the CO, but on the condition that they could not apply for an order to sell.

debs

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

They can only apply for a charging order on your property after they have obtained a CCJ, & the judge will only grant the charging order if you do not comply with the courts judgement, & then only in extreme cases will they force a sale.

 

MANY judges are granting a 'forthwith' judgment to allow a creditor to go for a Charging Order, this is especially used if people make a small monthly offer on their judgment debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi debs thanks for that but i was wandering if anybody could shed light on.

" i have been told that charging orders are placed in first come first served basis, can anyone verify this, for example if i owed my daughter £50000 and she placed a Charging order against me then she would be first to be dealt with in the event of my death.? or have i been given duff advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not in this predicament but like to avoid it if possible, i have been told that charging orders are placed in first come first served basis, can anyone verify this, for example if i owed my daughter £50000 and she placed a Charging order against me then she would be first to be dealt with in the event of my death.?

 

 

This is a good question which I have been pondering over for a while but cannot find any information on the web.

 

I know that in the event of your death the first charge (your mortgage) is paid off, which is obvious but my situation is that a relation of mine has been paying the vast majority of my mortgage off since I fell on hard times 2 years ago. I went from a decent income to earning just half of what I used to earn.

 

Despite trying to earn more money I have been struggling to make ends meet and instead of losing my home I have been fortunate enough to receive help from a kind relative.

 

There is no legal arrangement or anything like that, just a written agreement between the two of us (witnessed by a third party) that any sums of money paid towards the mortgage would be paid back (with 5% interest) in the event of my death or on the sale of the house.

 

The only worry I now have is if any of my creditors manage to get a charging order due to the new rules coming into force, this will leave the person who has helped me at the bottom of the pile.

 

Would it therefore be possible for said relative to get a voluntary charge off myself on the property?

 

Any advice or suggestions as always greatly appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Santos

 

Ps sorry for butting in.

 

I will also start my own thread on this issue.

Springfield

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi santos good question from what my 'guy ' has said and i'll know more tomorow is that yes your partner can take a charge against you thus rendering him first in line should any other creditor chase after you,you have to do it legally though, not too sure about all the pro's and cons' but i am certainly going to look into it..keep posting

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • 1 year later...

Hi,

 

Every case is different.

 

It all depends how much you owe and how much you are paying off.

 

Also, is their enough equity in the property. Get a realistic valuation of your property and how long it will take to sell.

 

All these factors are vital.

 

For instance, if their is no equity and your payments are minimal........you are in a stronger position to negotiate a full and final settlement with the creditor, they may accept a reduced settlement rather than sit and wait.

 

You say they are adding Post judgment interest. Did the T&C's of your original agreement for the debt contain a PJI clause ?

 

Debs

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more than enough equity on the house in fact six times what I need to borrow, but I cannot get a mortgage as the earnings we have at present are not enough for the amount we wish to borrow. The amount we offered to pay was based on only the debtors small pension of £60 a year the form did not ask for any other earnings and so the offer of £60 was not accepted and the court awarded the full amount plus costs and interest be paid. The next step will I suppose be being made to sell the property to pay the debt unless I can get an unsecured loan as the secured loan I asked about was not allowed presumably because of the low income and the CCJ on the house.

 

I am having the property valued tomorrow, spring is allegedly here but I see many houses about me which have been up for sale for years'. I doubt they will sit and wait even though they are earning £76 plus interest per week there are I suppose equity release schemes but these appear to be an even worse course of action though may be the only option I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you refer to the debtor as only earning £60 per year from a pension, is the property joint owned ?

 

Did you attend the charging order ?

 

The CCJ/Charging order is only for the equity portion of the debtor and I'm pretty sure they can't force a sale. It simply sits as a restriction on the land registry, so when it is sold, they get there money, I have seen cases were the restriction does not necessarily guarantee payment.

 

I strongly suggest you start a new thread and give us a bit more info. Help will come once we have all the facts.

 

Debbie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading thread (interest on post judgement) in legal section t/day regarding interest on a C/O did not think they could apply interest to a C/O if was unsecured debt regulated by the CCA 1974 or is yours wildm regarding contractual interest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...