Jump to content

Basil Fawlty

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    487
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

About Basil Fawlty

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Absolutely, this is what I've found from others who are selling with a restriction, but one or two have been lucky enough to find solicitors that understand it and have been able to sell with no problems.
  2. Thanks eggboxy1, this is what I was trying to get to, the difference between a charging order and a restriction against a single debtor/joint owner... so in fact with a restriction when the property is sold, the restriction drops off and an unsecured CCJ remains.
  3. I've just seen this on another forum regarding someone who successfully sold his house with a restriction on it and after informing the creditor the restriction disappeared. This was part of the information he received from the Land Registry: "As such providing your solicitor provides a certificate confirming this then the terms of the restriction are complied with. The restriction(s) would then be removed when the transfer (sale) is registered which overreaches the interest protected by the restriction. "
  4. I can understand it with a full charge, but with a restriction too?
  5. Can someone just clear something up please. Surely the debt ''belongs'' to the original debtor or are you saying that if a person buys a house with a charge on it (which is the seller's debt), that buyer now becomes liable for the debt?
  6. Andy could you link to the thread please as this is something I may look at in the future with a possible future AK claim? Tks
  7. Thats exactly as I thought, and I havent paid them anything for a long while now, but I seem to remember in one case mentioned on this forum that the judge said that he couldnt understand why the debtor wasnt paying anything (think it might have been the Harrison case). I'm asking this as Varde have an MBNA account of mine and its only a matter of time before I'm in court with it like smoothound I suppose. BF
  8. Car2043, in your experience does it go down better in court if you are paying something every month, even if you believe the agreement is unenforceable, or does this give them the opportunity to say that ''you're paying, so you must accept the agreement''? BF
  9. Does the fact that Varde is an Irish company and under Irish law mean that they can't take you to court to recover a debt in the UK? BF
  10. Is it likely that Varde would have the same problems as Cabot and would be forced to discontinue any court actions? BF
  11. This is exactly the part that confuses me. The new owners (experto) cannot give me a credit facility, so how does the agreement remain live? BF
  12. Thought they might be. Thanks BF
×
×
  • Create New...