Entirely my point as soon as it gets to the conveyancing stage the buyer isn't going to obtain free title as the 2nd charge isn't going to be paid off and the sale simply collapses. There really wouldn't be much point to securing a charge on a property if you could simply sell it and effectively negate the charge.

It is much simpler than that the 2nd charge holder would just block the sale in the first place as they aint going to get paid.

You have been to an oral examination as to your means (or whatever it is called now) the court official (not a judge) has asked the questions submitted by the creditor. That information is forwarded to the creditor and they decide on any, or none, further enforcement action. It wont been seen by a judge. When I was made to attend one (many years ago) it was actually a benefit because I heard nothing ever after from the creditor as it was clear I didn't have anything and it was pointless spending more money pursuing it.

I take it the creditor is saying as the loan term has ended no dn is required?

If the friend has been abroad for 10 years how has the claimant been able to issue a claim considering a mcol claim must be to a uk address?

For what its worth if anybody is interested a mortgage is a deed as opposed to a "simple contract". A deed has a 12 year limitation period against 6 for a simple contract.

You cant issue a claim to a non existent address see cpr 6 (6.6(2)) specifically. As the claim cannot ever have been served the default judgement is erroneous and must be set aside part 13.3 shouldn't apply here. Admittedly that is just my opinion but I'm pretty sure I could make that fly. Secondly once the creditor was aware they had sent a claim to a non existent address meaning that they knew full well the defendant couldn't possibly have received the claim (which nicely blows out any argument using cpr 6.9) why they didn't themselves apply for a set aside. Thirdly someone has signed a statement of truth on that claim form what due diligence has that person done to ascertain the "facts" on the claim form are true considering the actual fact that they didn't even have a valid uk address. I assume you have already made the set aside application otherwise you could name them as a witness and actually ask them! The last thing the claimant will want is somebody been asked about their (shoddy) working practices in a courtroom. No doubt the claimant will use the usual "administrative error" but there cant have been any fact checking on the claim so how can we take any of the claim at face value. I would make it clear that I would expect in any future claim that some sort of audit trail could be provided to show how the so called facts have been derived, again putting their working practices to scrutiny. Hopefully that would be enough to make the claim go away.

A court would have to consider exceptional circumstances which could be a physical or mental condition but that would usually apply to the mortgagor's primary residence which doesn't apply here. I assume this is a buy to let mortgage? I assume then that the tenancy is on a (rolling) 6/12 month tenancy? If both those assumptions are correct the tenant only ever has the security of the notice period. I cant see a court ever increasing that. Did you have any sort of agreement with the council over the adaptations they made? Did they do them in the expectation of the person staying in the property for the rest of their life etc.

Thanks BazzaS I do remember having that problem before, the link was getting mangled. Cag changes pdf to capitals it must see pdf and change it because I know I used pdf (in lower case) on my last link and it now shows as a PDF hoverlink. http://gala.gre.ac.uk/14119/20/14119_PAWLOWSKI_Sale_of_the_Family_Home_2016.pdf Does the link above work for people please? That's using insert link off here rather than just pasting the link in

The link works now with the pdf in the right case sorry about that.

http://gala.gre.ac.uk/14119/20/14119_PAWLOWSKI_Sale_of_the_Family_Home_2016.pdf For some reason it seems the PDF is capitals on the post when it should be pdf. The link works in the email sent from cag but it doesn't show it as capitals. If I click on the link I posted it uses capitals a university will be using unix which is case sensitive.

Inabind I think perhaps the judge would be referring to barclays bank plc vs Hendricks. That case mentions the 20% in that the bank stood to recover 20% of its debt. But in that case the wife owned a second home in any case. The OP might want to read this http://gala.gre.ac.uk/14119/20/14119_PAWLOWSKI_Sale_of_the_Family_Home_2016.pdf if they are thinking of bankruptcy it is heavy going but you may find it relevant to the situation.

It is going to be quite easy to argue that the original lenders system would be automated that following a missed payment there would be a 1st, 2nd and final reminder before a DN was issued (they probably should be able to provide sample template letters of such.) That (as Andy says) gives a DN time line of June/July 2011. I would suspect that these parasitical firms use software that flags up the account shortly before (according to them) it goes statute barred - allowing them to claim years of juicy section 69 interest. Personally I don't think there is much chance of using an SB defence successfully if the claim is issued within 5 months of the deadline of the last payment i.e 6 years + 5 months from the last payment. As Andy has already noted their claim doesn't state a DN was issued just that a default was recorded (which I assume to mean with a CRA?) which is a completely different thing. Now you stated you initially rang MBNA and they stopped the account. That means there was manual intervention which would circumvent the automated process described above. This would be the angle I would take the claimant doesn't even assert there ever was a DN issued.

Wasn't this a forthwith judgement though?

The creditor doesn't need to register the full CO the ICO is sufficient to register their interest. They could but it would just cost money for no gain - so they don't. Lots of people sadly but understandably look at their LR records and think ah they've made a cock up and not "finished off" for want of a better phrase the charging order. However when you think of it dispassionately it does make sense. At the final charge hearing there are two choices 1) A full charging order is granted or 2) the interim order is dismissed. If it's the latter the LR entry will disappear, if it's the former it continues and the ICO registered at the LR stands. An ICO is done to stop the debtor selling quickly (allows the fleecing companies to get their grubby hands on your house on what probably came from an unsecured debt in the first place). If the entry at the LR (from the ICO) is present years later the only assumption can be (for the reasons above) is that the full CO was granted. CPR part 73.10A(3) covers it. "(3) At the hearing the court may— (a) make a final charging order confirming that the charge imposed by the interim charging order continues, with or without modification; (b) discharge the interim charging order and dismiss the application;"