Ccj Behind My Back Now Natwest Want A Charging Order On My Home

[somad]

link apply for a charging order we have made payments but they are not happy , judge said they would be granted it even if we make payments as its common practice to do so. Please advise can we object if we are making payments.

[exasperated]

Somad,

Do you have your own thread dealing with this matter or is this the first time you have posted re this problem?

[supasnooper]

I've moved the thread to the Legal forum as it is more relevant.

[deviousbank]

Thankyou all very much for your input!

 

I will indeed be attending court once again on 17th December.

Having written to the court I have still not heard back from them re: ammending the last order to state charging order was struck out and that I was in attendance.

Also I have received NO documentation whatsoever advising me of this impending court date!

Had I not received the interim charging order from the land registry I would still be non the wiser!

 

I shall now google away re: applying for costs against shoesmiths.

(very valid point! thankyou for that!)

 

The equity in my property equates to 1/3 the property value.

(from an inheritance) - enableing me to obtain an affordable mortgage working part time etc...

If I was to sell up and pay Natwest off, I would then no longer be intitled to tax credits and would have to eat into that money until I was was eligable.

This was the main reason I purchased in the first place. So thats not a financially viable solution for me. + renting was more expensive than my mortage is!

 

I have not told my ex partner about any of this.

I think he would laugh his head off knowing he had legally got away scott free.

He wont be laughing next year tho because I fully intend to pursue him through the small claims court for this! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

>> thankyou for relocating this thread

 

My todo list:

 

Find out: at what point my mortage lender will be advised about this charging order - should / have they have already been notified? - and would I be notified of their notification? (makes sence to me)

 

Find out :If it was legal for Natwest to serve me alone with the defaults and CCJ on joint bank accounts / loan. - and to be then seeking a charging order based on this.

 

Find out re: recouping costs incurred by shoesmiths/natwests non appearance.

[intree]

These Judges and the courts dont know what their back end is doing from their front, I had just a similar claim, in court which was succesful, we attended a Hearing at which the other side did not come, then a week later, there was another hearing - where they attended, we did not, and the District Judge decided to do away with the judgment made just 4 days b4 - he allowed the judgement to be set aside and we have to now pay more and fight the claim again - ITS ALL A JOKE - Unless you are prepared to be treated like dirt by these judges and DCA's

[deviousbank]

Just to clarify ...

 

Having argued Mercantile Credit v Ellis (1987) to the Judge -in April, she said this was not relevant - due to the impending change in the law where Interim Charging orders can simply be obtained.

 

Has this change in the law now gone through? - As I was not advised of Natwests second application for the interim charging order - and nor was I notified of the date of that hearing which I believe took place at the end of October.I simply received notifcation from the land registry.

 

At the time of the Interim charging order hearing in April, My CCJ was not forthwith - The Judge changed it to forthwith at the same time as granting Natwests application for the interim charging order even though I have missed absolutely no payments.

[exasperated]

Thankyou all very much for your input!

 

I will indeed be attending court once again on 17th December.

Having written to the court I have still not heard back from them re: ammending the last order to state charging order was struck out and that I was in attendance.

Also I have received NO documentation whatsoever advising me of this impending court date!

Had I not received the interim charging order from the land registry I would still be non the wiser!

 

I shall now google away re: applying for costs against shoesmiths.

(very valid point! thankyou for that!)

 

The equity in my property equates to 1/3 the property value.

(from an inheritance) - enableing me to obtain an affordable mortgage working part time etc...

If I was to sell up and pay Natwest off, I would then no longer be intitled to tax credits and would have to eat into that money until I was was eligable.

This was the main reason I purchased in the first place. So thats not a financially viable solution for me. + renting was more expensive than my mortage is!

 

I have not told my ex partner about any of this.

I think he would laugh his head off knowing he had legally got away scott free.

He wont be laughing next year tho because I fully intend to pursue him through the small claims court for this! grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

>> thankyou for relocating this thread

 

My todo list:

 

Find out: at what point my mortage lender will be advised about this charging order - should / have they have already been notified? - and would I be notified of their notification? (makes sence to me)

 

Find out :If it was legal for Natwest to serve me alone with the defaults and CCJ on joint bank accounts / loan. - and to be then seeking a charging order based on this.

 

Find out re: recouping costs incurred by shoesmiths/natwests non appearance.

 

Anyone who has a financial interest in your property and is registered as such at the land registry i.e. your mortgage provider will be informed of a further financial interest i.e. the charging order when it goes through and you should have been informed of the same.

Edited December 2, 2009 by exasperated

[deviousbank]

latest update ..

received letter from court advising that my application re : rewording of previous outcome to be concidered at the hearing on the 17th ...

bloody joke ... the whole point of having the correctly worded document was to show natwests bad conduct by their non attendance last time ...I needed it wording correctly for this hearing - as at the time of the new hearing it is 'out of date' anyway seeing as their new application for an interim charging order has already been granted.

 

latest letter also states .. that the court have refused natwest application to have the hearing adjourned.

 

Chance in a million .. but maybe the court will be/ are displeased with natwests conduct and throw this out of court once again ..

fingers crossed .. and once again hopeing for a miracle ..

 

now with 2 days until my day in court .. better google this issue of getting costs awarded from last time!!

[supasnooper]

Put simply, your costs are the time it has taken to research Interim Charging Orders and relevant case laws, your time to deal with correspondence, stationary costs ( paper, postage costs) and your time to attend the hearing.