Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by eggboxy1

  1. The "reality" is that many people who only have a Form K Restriction registered against their property pay off the attached Charging Order (when selling) on the advice of their conveyancing Solicitor. This, as many people have reported here and on other boards, is because many Solicitors aren't always aware of the changes made on the The Land Registration Act 2002 (LRA) and Land Registration Rules 2003 (LRR) or (as I suspect) don't want to rock the boat. The fact is, however, there is no legal obligation to pay any money to a creditor under a Form K restriction when selling your house as it only carries the power of notification of a sale. As the Land Registry have also confirmed, as long as the creditor has been notified of the sale by the new owner they are not prevented from altering the LR details. So people with Restrictions (Form K) need to be aware of these facts and understand they have options when selling their house and not be swayed by a rather patronising "it just doesn't work like that so don't worry yourself about the apparent relevance of a restriction" point of view.
  2. Hi Tkk73 Sorry MSE and CAG hasn't given you the answers you want regarding your problem, but I'd seriously take on board the hard facts of this person's other creditors. I'd especially heed the_shadows advice above regarding his other creditors still not having been paid. And whilst my, personal, advice is not be to forget about what you are owed, it would be (given the facts) to now put this loss on the back burner and get on with the rest of your life using your experience to avoid future problems. You can rest easy that you won't be the last person to suffer in the way you have and, whilst it's not as serious, your experience is now like a grieving process. If you don't start to come to terms with your loss it will keep eating away at your life and ruin the good times that are still out there to obtain.
  3. Advice given by SEQUENCI (part of the Site Team on here) on another thread; "There are plenty of arguments that can stop an order for sale, anyone with a family home and children have significant protection afforded to them under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act - it has to be a jointly owned home, however" As I stated, previously, it's in your interest to drop him a line and get his advice on the situation you are facing. Also see Sequenci's information given here in post #6
  4. Hidden-man Firstly, an OFS isn't going to happen under your circumstances especially if you have children at home as they will be protected under the Law of Property Act 1925. (Have a word with Sequenci on here as he specialises in stopping these actions) You can be fairly certain, too, that this move is designed more to extract a payment rather than getting your house sold. As long as you attend and make some offer of payment, no DJ is going to sanction an OFS that throws your partner and child out on the street. Remember Judges have far wider discretion in OFS action than they do for Charging Orders.
  5. kken67 Firstly, have a read of this thread, http://forum.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1839539 Secondly, you are not going to lose your house Thirdly, you have to understand the reasons creditors go for Charging Orders on consumer debt is mainly to secure priority for that debt over other creditors as a CO even takes preferance over bankruptcy proceedings. Once you add in a few other factors; such as less than 3 in every 1000 CO's ever progress to an OFS (and of those that do you will struggle to find any that are for consumer debt) plus the courts are almost duty bound to grant CO's if a creditor gets a CCJ (ie they are virtually impossible to stop) then you will begin to understand (and hopefully keep the rest of the hair you have!) that the situation is far from being as serious as you are perceiving. Creditors, also, do not see pursuing a CO as a means of recovering repayment in the short term from people who are struggling financially. The reason for this is that they know they are extremely unlikely to be granted an OFS (as judges have far wider discretion on granting them than they do CO's) on relatively minor consumer debt (and by relatively minor I mean under £25,000.) So they pursue them as a form of insurance to obtain repayment in the future and despite all the threats they make about going for an OFS if you don't pay up they won't do so (check this site and see if you can find find anyone who has had this happen). As someone who is a joint owner with an ex-partner who has a CO (Restriction) against her, I've seen her ignore ALL of her creditors and still nothing has happened. This is not luck or coincidence it's because once the creditor has gone the full hog to obtain a CO, then there is little else they can do if you decide not to talk to them (and you will see on this site its only those who do that get the hassle!) There can, also, be an upside with a Restriction as you will read in the thread I have recommended. But above all please don't worry as the fear you have been through is purposely manufactured that way by creditors to extract the maximum amount of repayment from you that they can. Once you see past that fear and deconstruct the facts you will begin to get on with your life a lot better.
  6. Firstly, his creditors don't have a Charge on the Property they only have a CO on his "Beneficial Interest" (or his share of the Equity in the property). This is because your property is jointly owned and the CO can, therefore, only be registered as a Restriction due to those conditions. This means that if you sold the property, as things stand, your Ex's creditor has to be legally be notified of the sale to allow a change on the Land Registry details and so they could, if they wanted, then make a claim on any of HIS share of the equity realised. Be warned however, that this all a little bit of a grey area as what has been happening is that Solicitors have incorrectly been automatically repaying creditors with a Restriction from the proceeds of house sale's as there appears to be a general misunderstanding of what the Land Registry rules actually are (by Solicitors and sellers). There is no legal obligation for this to happen so be prepared to face a little resistance when you make changes. However, if you re-mortgaged the property into your name only you can then apply to the Land Registry to have the Restriction removed as it would be deemed to be "over reached" as their would be no beneficial interest anymore for your Ex boyfriend's debt. My understanding is, also, that once the property has been transferred into your name with no cash changing hands, then there is nothing the creditor can do to reverse this procedure (I doubt any would even try but that's another matter).
  7. Sadly, no it wouldn't but there are ways around it if you are no longer a couple. But your other half needs to legally give up his share of the Equity on the basis (I presume) that you have been paying the mortgage and bills alone. If he doesn't do this then, in the eyes of the Law, it doesn't really matter who has been paying what; his creditors could make a claim on his share when you sold up as, legally, half the equity would still be his. And as Gaymede states; your ex would be under no obligation to pay his creditors anything, either, from any sale as it is a Restriction; meaning he could walk away with the money himself.
  8. JunkiMunki If you want help you are going to have to seriously heed the advice I gave and keep your replies brief. All I am asking what the latest reason for your court appearance was for not the whole history behind it? ie - Was it further enforcement action for not paying an agreed amount after the CO was granted or has your creditor actually applied to the court for an Order For Sale and you were there to defend that action?
  9. I'm probably one of the few who has "bothered" to read your posts (the rest, I'm pretty sure, gave up while they were young) but it's unclear what you were actually in Court for, hence, the question? Which as Ganymede states - you still haven't answered?
  10. JunkiMunki I fear you are failing to get replies and advice to your problem as you are posting vast amounts of info which people will struggle to read through and provide the advice you need. So to simplify things a little can I just ask if your creditor has actually applied to the court for an OFS or are only threatening to do so?
  11. I actually agree with a lot of what you say here but the counter argument is both the Office of Fair Trading and also the Judiciary hardening their attitudes over debt collection. Sequenci has already stated the OFT has guidelines coming up and I posted the following by a well known DJ a while back, http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/in-practice/benchmarks/proportionate-orders-sale so it's not all one way traffic. But it does amaze me, given the hurdles that creditors have to overcome to gain an OFS (which the extreme difficulty is reflected by the stats of how often they do go for one) that people lump this action in with the other type of creditor action towards a debtor (ie CCJ's, CO, Attachment of Earnings and even bankruptcy). It just isn't the same and it's difficult to know why experienced people who have these facts to hand still seem to think there is, somehow, a greater chance of OFS action by creditors than records reflect?
  12. Well don't lose any sleep over this as your creditors aren't idiots. They are business people and that is the key to all this.
  13. Just make sure you don't give them any info that gives them a reason to come back for more. The I&E isn't requested by a creditor to see that you can't pay, it's used by them to see where there may be a reason they can see to ask you for more. So the less the better.
  14. Yes, if you make a promise of a £500 donation to charity when it doesn't. But before you decide to lose that money, I'd have a good read through Sue's case and see on what grounds any creditor would lose their minds and go after an OFS when there is huge probability they wouldn't get anything back.
  15. They will but, more importantly, so would any DJ. And the small amount of equity you say is there would probably be dependant on you selling the property "normally". Any "repossesion" sale in this economy would, possibly, see that figure wiped out? As I have stated, creditors are businesses and they aren't going to waste time, money and expense pursuing something that is a) nearly impossible to obtain and b) forcing a sale that would be doubtful to return them anything anyway.
  16. "You have protection under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 which should stop a sale order in its tracks notwithstanding the negative equity aspect. If the property is jointly owned the interests in children should far outway that of charge holders." Posted by Sequenci on an earlier thread but regarding this subject. One of the huge barriers that explain the 3 in 1000 Stat.
  17. It's also the current financial climate that is skewing the reason's creditors go for CO's. They are doing so to protect and prioritise their debts over other creditors. Trying to gain an OFS is a totally different ball game and that's why the stat exists.
  18. If a person adopted a "never say never" attitude on a 0.3% probability it's highly unlikely they would ever leave the house.
  19. If it helps, Sue, there are hundreds of people in the same position as you (my ex and myself included!) so I do know exactly how you feel. My ex-took the decision to say stuff it, if they take the house they take the house as we were highly mortgaged anyway. But nothing further happened despite all the same threats you received and it does make you sweat at the time. However, in the three years that have elapsed since, and after researching and corresponding with others in the same boat, it's become clear that any creditor trying to gain an OFS would be highly unlikely to succeed (for consumer debt) hence they don't try. CAG would be littered with numerous threads on the subject if they did. I'm not sure why a few people are unwilling to accept this fact but the official HMCS statistic, that only 3 in every 1000 Charging Orders granted ever progress to an OFS, should be enough for anyone to understand that creditors don't pursue this type of debt to the OFS stage. I do understand people like Brig's caution, but the truth is there does come a point when you need to shut up shop and say enough is enough for your sanity. And the facts you have stated about your personal position make you a highly undesirable case for any creditor to even think about moving for an OFS.
  20. They will know as Brig states. And don't be put off by JunkiMunki's experience as, unfortunately for her, it is so extreme! (So extreme, in fact I'd be tempted to call the Fraud Squad!) This DCA was, however, exposed by Despatches a while back here http://www.debtwizard.com/news/consumer-issues/293-marlin-financial-services-dispatches-tv
  21. There is no head in the sand here, it's merely making a stand to let the creditor know he's gone as far as he can. Again, give me just ONE example where a person has taken this stand, for this type of debt, and the creditor has pursued an OFS. Sequenci could have put a stop to this by letting me know how many of the thousands of people he deals with have had this happen. The reason he didn't is...........there aren't any. A final note, to Sue, in case she isn't aware. As you are a joint owner of the property then the CO against you can only be registered as a Restriction as the Charging Order has been made against your "beneficial interest" in the property (or your share of the equity) and not the property or land itself. This Restriction only has the power of ensuring the creditor with the CO is notified when you sell the property. You are under no legal obligation, however, to pay the creditor when you sell the property.
  22. Sue, I understand your dilemma and you have to do what YOU feel is best for your situation. But do ask yourself WHY they are being so persistent about this I&E and haven't already gone for the OFS? And I don't mean this to sound harsh, but if a creditor is going to pursue any OFS it is only going to be against someone who definitely has the equity to pay (which is just good business sense.) The facts you have given on your personal financial situation doesn't reflect that would be the case with you so, also, ask yourself why they would come after you? Creditors aren't, either, vindictive they are businesses; and if they could get an OFS we wouldn't be here discussing an I&E.
  23. But this totally ignore the facts on Charging Orders as creditors actions are seen repeated again and again. The creditor pursues the CO to secure their debt even when a debtor is communicating and offering payment. The main reason for this action, however, is because is secures their debt over the debtor's OTHER creditors. The time, effort and expense involved is worth it to them as CO's are virtually never refused and, most important of all, a CO takes priority over (and also isn't included in) bankruptcy proceedings. This is why I agree with the advice to do everything you can to avoid a CCJ as this is the area when anything really can happen given the disparity of District Judges who hear these cases. This is because once the CCJ is obtained then a CO is most likely to follow when you own property. And I also agree with trying to stop a CO being granted (despite the overwhelming odds being against) as it is possible as we've read about on CAG. I agree, but only up until the CO is granted. After that the overwhelming FACTS demonstrate that, for consumer debt, it's the end of the road for further, legal, enforcement by the creditor. It just doesn't happen and there are reasons, as I've already stated in this thread, for that being so. But how professional is it to give advice that totally ignores the facts?
  24. I do understand Bankruptcy is pursued for such low amounts and, indeed, you would be able to site the above case if I advised on ignoring the creditor who was threatening bankruptcy. But the key difference to an OFS is that there is nothing to stop a determined creditor gaining a Bankruptcy order over it's debtor. With an OFS there are huge barriers that prevent them from being obtained and there is also a wealth of information that Judges do not like granting them (and especially not for consumer debts.) I would begin to understand your caution on this matter if there were a glut of failed Creditor attempts that pointed to creditors trying to gain OFS's. But, again, I can find no data to back this up? The logical conclusion for this reason is creditors know their chances of obtaining them are so slight they don't even bother to try (I do mean on consumer debts here.) Therefore, and for this particular situation only where a creditor has gone the full hog and gained a CO, I believe giving advice to keep communicating with creditors who act in the manner like Sue's is detrimental as it allows the creditor to keep making demands. The facts are borne out by numerous examples here on CAG that demonstrate that when creditors realise there tactics don't work they stop trying. The debt doesn't disappear but the aggravation does and it allows you breathing space to organise your situation more to your advantage. That's true, but it's also crucial you mustn't overestimate what a creditor can do, either, or your life will be a misery. The facts are the most important thing to base your decision on and in this situation the facts are crystal clear that 1) creditors don't pursue OFS for consumer debt and 2) there are no cases on CAG (and I can't find any else where either) where ignoring a creditor at this point results in an OFS being pursued. This is not down to luck, this is down to judgement. The judgement of the creditors in knowing it's a waste of time trying.
  25. Maybe so, but I rather doubt it from the huge amount of CCJ and CO cases covered on these sites as it would be too statistically fantastic for there not to be OFS cases mentioned if they were going on elsewhere. And when people with your vast experience can't either, then you can pretty much firm up your belief as being positive given those facts. But remember, Sequenci, a Debt Counsellor who deals with, in his words, thousands of cases every year and he states more or less the same regarding OFS being pursued. You will be familiar with the saying that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions; but that's what I see happening in these cases where (if you search these boards) you will see the people who shut up shop after the CO is granted are the ones who move on with their life. Those who continue to try and appease creditors seem stuck in an endless circle of negotiations. To me, given the facts I have stated on CO's, it's completely understandable as the creditor can only really go at those debtors who, for want of a better phrase, play the game. Once they don't the problems stop, not start. That is what I have gained for dozens of cases I have read and corresponded with on here. It's all about making your decisions on the facts not the fear and, in my opinion, your type of advice (as well intentioned as it may be) puts unnecessary doubt and fear into people's minds. My point is only, if you could point me to cases where my assertion has not been correct I would stop immediately recommending people to do this. But you, nor anyone else who has challenged this, has ever managed to do so. That cannot be a coincidence.
  • Create New...