Hello, i have been divorced form my ex since last year and left him over 2 years ago, he has passed me a letter this weekend, hes still at the home we shared, its for a bank loan we took out in 2005, ex was made redundant a few years after and we got behind etc etc, we arranged to pay with the dca/bank to pay reduced payments, but for the last few years nothing has been paid and we stupidly! maybe thought it had gone away! i have certainly not received anything form them in the last 2.5 years. any advice on how i should proceed with the claim form? the debt is ours, but im sure quite abit of the money they say is owed is interest and default payments? can i admit part of the claim? or is it just easier to offer a small payment per month as im sure it will be registered as a ccj now anyway? am disabled with a very serious llness so on VERY limited income, maximum they will be offered is £5 per month (they saying debt is £13k) and what about my ex? does he do it separately? he works but on a very low wage. any help or advice please would be most welcome, we have i think only 10 days left to do something about sending the form back to the court. def cannot pay in full.

Hello Many thanks for reading this- kindly appreciated. I jointly own a property with my ex-husband. We had a NRAM together mortgage with the unsecured loan, I went into IVA once we split up and he is now solely responsible for the remainder of the unsecured debt. As he ignored paying towards this debt (any debts really!) NRAM took him to Court and the following restriction has been entered in the proprietorship register in the Land Registry document: "No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to NRAM being the person with the benefit of interim charging order on the beneficial interest of Mr... (my ex-husband) made by the [name of court] on [date] [Court reference…]." I put the property on the market after being assured by my conveyancer that the restriction can be easily removed. Close to the exchange of contracts my solicitor suggested that she can't give undertaking to my buyer that the restriction will be removed as NRAM are not willing to remove the charge - please see the correspondence received from NRAM attached. The deal fell through partly because of this and partly because my ex stopped corresponding and signing paperwork. He is not corresponding with NRAM either. I will have to go back to Court to ask the Court to sign property sale documents on my ex's behalf I gather... My question is whether I can sell the property? How can this restriction be removed? Is there any recommendations for the conveyancing solicitors who are experts in this matter and are prepared to give the undertaking so I can sell and move on with my life? Or is there any other solution to this please? I would so much appreciate some help with this please. Thank you. NRAM letter.pdf

Hi all, Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I'm not sure if I'm posting this in a sensible place, but googling the problem I'm posting about lead me to another similar post in this forum. If there's a more appropriate place to ask this question, then I request that a mod moves the thread. Thanks! I'm writing this on behalf of a friend of mine, in relation to a dispute over the sale of a property jointly owned and the division of any equity such a sale releases. The person in question purchased a property with her partner. They were NOT married. No legal documents were drawn up at the time to determine a specific ownership position for either party, but both their names are on both the mortgage and the deed. He provided the initial deposit for the mortgage, after which time they split all mortgage payments and associated sundry costs (service charges which include ground rent, buildings insurance and maintenance charges for the development) 50/50. After a few years of joint residence, due to irreconcilable differences, they went their separate ways. At that time, he simply moved out and cancelled his mortgage repayments. My friend had to increase her payments to cover the full cost of the mortgage. In the following months they attempted to reach an agreement for how to proceed, discussing both my friend buying her ex partner out, and sale of the house. However, no agreement could be reached on how to divide the equity, which they were advised by solicitors should also form the basis of any buy-out agreement. In other words, that to buy him out she should offer him the amount of equity he would get, as per their agreement, in the event of sale. Those negotiations ultimately broke down and communication ceased. Since that time, my friend has covered the full cost of the mortgage as well as any sundry costs, and her ex partner has presumably paid rent in order to live somewhere else. Several years have passed in the intervening time. This brings us to the present moment in time. My friend has approached her ex partner again with the objective of resolving the dispute once and for all. She has proposed that they sell the house, and they are currently engaged in discussion on how to divide the equity between them. However, I fear negotiations are destined to follow a similar trajectory as last time.... The crux of their disagreement centres around her ex partners desire to treat the deposit as a fixed cash sum which he should be repaid, as if it were a loan, before any discussion on how to divide equity, irrespective of the sale price of the property. In other words, if the equity released from sale only adds up to the equivalent cash value of the deposit (the value of the property has decreased since purchase) then he effectively believes he should get all that equity and she should effectively be left with nothing. If the property were in her name only, and he had provided her with the money to purchase the property, then I could understand this point of view. However, in reality, they have jointly invested in the property and must jointly bear the brunt of any reduction in value. Similarly, my view is that he must recognise that a deposit contribution is essentially equivalent to capital repayments made against the mortgage, and does not constitute a debt which would be repaid first (i.e. like the mortgage itself). My friend has sought legal advice which clarified the official legal position as being that both her and her ex are joint stakeholders in the property, irrespective of how much either has paid, and are consequently both legally entitled to 50% of any equity released on sale of the property. Similarly, she has been told that if they go to court, that will be the ruling, and that costs will likely exceed the equity in the property anyway. So, my friend feels in a difficult position. She has been strongly advised by solicitors not to accept less than 50% of the equity since that is her legal entitlement, but that leaves her and her ex partner at opposite ends of the negotiating table with seemingly no common ground. My friend has proposed ways of calculating an equity split, based on total contribution to the mortgage and property by each of them, but her ex partner is only prepared to talk about dividing equity AFTER he has received his deposit back first. My friend feels as though her ex partner just moved out and stopped paying when he decided he didn't want to live there any more, and now, as a consequence of her trying to do the responsible thing and take over mortgage repayments rather than allow them to default, she is stuck in a position where she can't sell without his consent, and he is unlikely to give it because - as she sees it - his demands regarding equity division are so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to her. Is there any legal remedy she can pursue to compel a sale? Is this likely to be any more or less expensive than going to court to split the equity? Is there any way they can agree to sell the house on the grounds that the equity will be held in trust by a third party until such time as they can agree a fair split? That latter option seems like the best idea to me. It has the disadvantage of fixing the equity in cash terms at the point of sale, but equally, it allows her to move on with her life and doesn't require her partner to accept an equity split he feels he can't, just to get the sale under way. Thanks very much for your time, if you've got this far! I appreciate it's a long and torturous tale Any help you can offer would be much appreciated! EDIT: Anyone know whether I can edit the title of the thread to fix that typo?

I jointly bought a house in 2007 with my partner at the time. We both got it into arrears although he blames me entirely (he ignores the fact that he didn't give me his half each month) anyway long story short! Acenden took us to court, was granted an order and we arranged a payment plan... Then in July 2011 I had to get an occupation order out against my ex, this was granted and he was removed from the property. The order was then dropped a month later with attachments due to me finding out I was pregnant and him making me believe that he would change. Then in March 2012 he threatened me with burning the house down if I didn't leave. I had to think of my 12year old daughter so we left. He then subsequently moved in 5 months later and changed the locks. I have not been paying towards the mortgage as I have struggled to find another home for myself and my daughter. I also am living in England now instead of Northern Ireland due to my ex. My question is, do I still have rights to a set of keys to the property and can my ex refuse entry to the property as I fear he may have turned it into a growing factory as he always said he would... Please help! Ps I'm sorry if this thread is in the wrong place, couldn't find a relevant section!