Do you dispute the debt? Bear in mind that a bankruptcy order can be made for a debt of £750 or more which is not disputed on substantial grounds.

A charging order is basically an unwanted mortgage which is registered at the land registry and sits on your property. The purpose of it is to secure a CCJ so that, when the property is sold, the debt is repaid in full or in part from the proceeds of sale. Just like a mortgage the creditor is paid before any money would come to you. There is a big fuss on these forums about the distinction about 'restrictions' but my personal advice is to ignore that because it has little practical relevance. A charging order does not require you to sell your house. However, it does allow the creditor to apply back to the court for an order for sale of the house. Less than 1% of charging order applications result in orders for sale and the courts are extremely reluctant to make them, particularly where the debtor is paying something. There can be no charging order until a CCJ is awarded. Whether you want to set up a payment arrangement with Link is a matter for you. The fact that another creditor is accepting monthly payments is of little relevance.

Just to emphasise the point above, it is completion of the sale and not the date of exchange of contracts that is relevant.

There we are then, mistakes all round. It's been sorted now though so is a moot point.

I suspect not, otherwise the creditor, court and land registry all failed to make the most basic checks!

Your barrister friend has no idea what s/he's talking about. What compensation could you claim for a charge being placed on someone else's property? Even if you could that would not cancel the CCJ, you would have to issue a claim, win and then offset your damages against what you owe. It is illegal to lie on oath but there was no oath given. The creditor would have made a paper application and then a hearing was convened which resulted in a charging order. The creditor may have not believed you and may have relied on an outdated copy of the register showing you as the proprietor. A verified statement would have been produced with the application but, clearly, there was sufficient evidence for the court to agree that you owned the property.

It's really not. There's no Rule requiring service of the AQ but it is considered good practice. To be fair it's an impossible position because people will complain if the AQ is not served ("the creditor is doing the bare minimum and refusing to let me see their docs unless they're obliged to!") and complain if it is ("I'm being harassed with these court forms!").

The charging order could have been set aside but that has already been taken care of. There is no basis to have the judgment set aside because of a defective attempt at enforcement; you still owed the money! What were the qualifications of this 'legal rep'?

Are you sure your application, albeit apparently refused, was not a contract?

Can you type up the PoC as requested?

I think the guidelines are 20 weeks from issue to hearing but, as said above, just phone the court and ask.

What does your contract say?

The CCJ will not be set aside due to any inaccuracies in the charging order, nice try though! Although you were not living at the property did you retain ownership of it (e.g. renting it out etc) or did you actually sell it so that you are no longer the registered proprietor? If the former a charge can be properly granted, if the latter it cannot. When you paid off the CCJs did you apply for a certificate of satisfaction? The onus is on you and not the creditor to do so.

As it was a business account I assume it doesn't attract the protection of the Consumer Credit Act. The creditor is perfectly entitled to apply to the court and the court has jurisdiction over the dispute, whether the Claimant makes out its claim and actually succeeds is a different matter.

Don't be at all shy about doing that, you need to attack their evidence and make clear what your case is by showing what is in dispute and why.

The debt can be statute barred if 6 years have passed between the date of the cause of action (i.e. the default) and the issue of the claim. When precisely in 2006 was this bill incurred? It may help if you type up the particulars of claim as I'm a bit confused about these two bills and time periods. I can't see why they are saying a bill from 06 can actually be for the period 09-11?

But you have signed a contract; it's the mortgage terms and conditions as I have said. That allows the lender to appoint a receiver who then steps into the borrower's shoes. What contract are you referring to when you ask if the agent has signed it? The receiver will agree to the appointment in writing with the lender if that is what you mean? I've already said I'm not sure of the power to dismiss the receiver but I've given a point of view on that and hope others will chip in.

Section 101(1)(3) of the Law of Property Act 1925 contains the power to appoint a receiver so it is not unlawful. As for the contractual right to appoint, there will be a clause in your mortgage terms and conditions which allow for this. The idea of the agent not acting in the principal's best interests is a tricky one and something I have been concerned about for a while. I don't know but I imagine the argument is that the agent is acting in your best interests by taking steps to discharge your indebtedness to the lender, even if he does that in ways you wouldn't.

Yes, that's just one possibility.

The court can determine a reasonable payment but, and this is critical, the court will assess what is reasonable balancing the interests of both parties so if the CCJ is for £16,000 and you offer £5 per month, even if that is all you can afford, don't be surprised if the court just orders payment forthwith rather than setting an instalment plan at all.

It's got to this stage because a claim was issued, a hearing listed and you didn't turn up. The judge would have made his decision based on the evidence and submissions put on the day, you weren't there to influence the judge and, who knows, maybe the Claimant produced some evidence in court that you know nothing about. Often these hearings are quick and brutal, the judge just wants to get through his list of cases and so won't make too many enquiries in a case where only one side attends.

I wouldn't want to give you any advice about the merits of defending the claim, I would suggest you see a solicitor for an initial consultation so that they can see all of the documents and understand the detail of the case. As for selling the property, it all depends on the terms of the restriction. It can be on terms that it is not to be enforced so long as payments are maintained which obviously gives you some security. As it is a voluntary restriction you have some flexibility to negotiate terms. Beware that however it is certainly possible for a restriction to be arranged in such a way that an application to court to force a sale can be made, although these are very rarely granted.

I see. It's an interesting point and I have to say I'm not aware of any formal procedure to deal with this circumstance. If he won't attend I think a supplemental statement explaining the position should suffice. Do make sure that he produces something signed with a statement of truth.

I understand that it's difficult, the fact that more local courts are closing only makes matters worse but the justice system clings to the idea that people can attend their 'local' court.

Indeed they can; see Part 73 of the CPR. Basically they are proposing to short circuit the court process to save time and costs.