A guide to Charging Orders & Orders for Sale

[cymruambyth]

I do not know, I have had no paperwork. Would the court give me this information? The first 2 payments under the installment order would have gone out before the case came to court. Court was given evidence of their agreeing to installments but still going to go for further enforcement.

[paulwlton]

I do not know, I have had no paperwork. Would the court give me this information? The first 2 payments under the installment order would have gone out before the case came to court. Court was given evidence of their agreeing to installments but still going to go for further enforcement.

 

Is the CO beneficial to the creditor in circumstances such as yours.

 

 

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/pdf/financeandrecoveries_0806_charging%20orders%20on%20property.pdf

[cymruambyth]

Thanks for the link, I am trying to work out where we stand as we have a mortgage that will need renegoriating in the near future.

[cymruambyth]

Was the instalment arrangement agreed prior to their application for the interim charge?

 

The application for the interim charge was made the day after the variation order was made.

[Basil Fawlty]

I thought that a CO cant be given unless the debtor had failed to make a payment? Is this right?

 

BF

[cymruambyth]

I think it also depends on the sums involved and whether the instalment order was in place when the application was made

[Basil Fawlty]

I think it also depends on the sums involved and whether the instalment order was in place when the application was made

 

 

And, as you said, the application was made AFTER the variation. But I see your point about the sums involved.

 

BF

[cymruambyth]

The application for the interim charge was made the day after the variation order was made.

 

Would I still be able to quote Mercantile Credit v Ellis? Date has been put back which means 2 installments will have gone vis a vis court order, though extra earlier payments will have gone out.

[sequenci]

The application for the interim charge was made the day after the variation order was made.

 

Then the Mercantile Credit case affirms the fact that the final CO should not be made.

 

Edit: Just seen your other post! Yup, that's your argument.

[sequenci]

I thought that a CO cant be given unless the debtor had failed to make a payment? Is this right?

 

BF

 

The application can be made by the creditor, it would be down to the judgment debtor to raise the arguments ass to why it shouldn't be made.

[Basil Fawlty]

The application can be made by the creditor, it would be down to the judgment debtor to raise the arguments ass to why it shouldn't be made.

 

 

I'm a little confused then, as I thought that the argument was that a CO cant be granted unless payment(s) have been missed. Are you saying that a CO can be granted even if you were to never miss a single payment after the judgement is made?

BF

[sequenci]

Yup. If someone has been paying instalments and an application is made by the creditor which is uncontested then the court can grant the charge. This happens a fair amount as some people are frightened / bury their heads in the sand.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yup. If someone has been paying instalments and an application is made by the creditor which is uncontested then the court can grant the charge. This happens a fair amount as some people are frightened / bury their heads in the sand.

 

Ok thanks for clearing that up sequenci, but if it is contested and the only argument is that the installments are paid and up to date, would this be strong enough on its own to stop the CO, and is anything sent out to state that a CO is being applied before the application is made?

[sequenci]

Ok thanks for clearing that up sequenci, but if it is contested and the only argument is that the installments are paid and up to date, would this be strong enough on its own to stop the CO, and is anything sent out to state that a CO is being applied before the application is made?

 

The interim charge itself can be applied for with no info being sent to the judgment debtor. They will then get sent two notifications; one from the Land Registry alerting them to the restriction and also one from the court with the final charge hearing date.

 

The Mercantile argument is certainly strong enough as it reinforces s86(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 which states that this type of action shouldn't be allowed by a court if the instalments on the judgment are up-to-date. It will, however, ONLY work if the instalments are in place BEFORE the CO application is made.

[Basil Fawlty]

The interim charge itself can be applied for with no info being sent to the judgment debtor. They will then get sent two notifications; one from the Land Registry alerting them to the restriction and also one from the court with the final charge hearing date.

 

The Mercantile argument is certainly strong enough as it reinforces s86(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 which states that this type of action shouldn't be allowed by a court if the instalments on the judgment are up-to-date. It will, however, ONLY work if the instalments are in place BEFORE the CO application is made.

 

Thanks sequenci, thats clear now.

 

BF

[sequenci]

No worries

[cymruambyth]

Then the Mercantile Credit case affirms the fact that the final CO should not be made.

 

Edit: Just seen your other post! Yup, that's your argument.

 

Thank you

[bilious]

Hi there! Didn't work for me contested it etc etc all my payments were up to date they were granted a forthwith, without my knowledge of time or date and they still finalised the co against me!!!

[sequenci]

Hi there! Didn't work for me contested it etc etc all my payments were up to date they were granted a forthwith, without my knowledge of time or date and they still finalised the co against me!!!

 

Hi there, would you mind giving a little more detail in realtion to the forthwith? Was it the case that the original CCJ never had an instalment order granted?

[bilious]

Nope original ccj was installments they rejected it went for redetermination at a court near them, (never missed a payment.) i got it transfered to a court near me never heard anything else till a forthwith came through the door (neither attended as i believe neither was notified!) they went for the ico had the hearing on the 24th feb 2011 dj not interested in any of my arguments and granted final co!! with view i believe to the payments from the original ccj that andyroch and mould have been kind enough to point out to me!!!

 

Its all there on my thread but have got rid of all the links bar the last two original judgment and the final co..

[first FAIRY]

Hi guys hope you dont mind me jumping in but i had to tell you about my day in court.

so today was the big day Restons/MBNA against little me, they were trying to get the final CO BUT WOULD YOU BELIEVE THE JUDGE THROUGH IT OUT. He said that as i had been keeping up with my instalments they couldn't have the final, so he dismissed it. Not only that he also said they couldn't appeal although they can through the high court and knowing Restons they will but i will worry about that if and when it happens. So what i really want to say is THANKS TO YOU ALL ON CAGS as this site has been invaluable source of information, it also helps to know you are not the only one. so again THANK YOU ALL.

[Basil Fawlty]

I've asked this question quite a few times before, but never received a definite answer.

If you're a joint house owner with all debts in one person's name, and then CO is applied to that person's beneficial interest only, can an order for sale be made?

 

Most people say yes, but today I found this document on the internet, and if you look under the heading ''Will the creditor take possession of a borrower’s home?'' it states: The sale of a property cannot be forced if the joint

owner is not also subject to the Order.

 

http://www.fla.org.uk/filegrab/FLAFactsheet-ChargingOrders.pdf?ref=32

 

Is this the definitive answer?

 

BF

[Ganymede]

I've asked this question quite a few times before, but never received a definite answer.

If you're a joint house owner with all debts in one person's name, and then CO is applied to that person's beneficial interest only, can an order for sale be made?

 

Most people say yes, but today I found this document on the internet, and if you look under the heading ''Will the creditor take possession of a borrower’s home?'' it states: The sale of a property cannot be forced if the joint

owner is not also subject to the Order.

 

http://www.fla.org.uk/filegrab/FLAFactsheet-ChargingOrders.pdf?ref=32

 

Is this the definitive answer?

 

BF

 

 

 

I'll give you one

 

You CAN apply for an OFS to enforce a Restriction.

[Cadbury1879]

Hi guys hope you dont mind me jumping in but i had to tell you about my day in court.

so today was the big day Restons/MBNA against little me, they were trying to get the final CO BUT WOULD YOU BELIEVE THE JUDGE THROUGH IT OUT. He said that as i had been keeping up with my instalments they couldn't

have the final, so he dismissed it. Not only that he also said

they couldn't appeal although they can through the high

court and knowing Restons they will but i will worry about

that if and when it happens. So what i really want to say is

 

THANKS TO YOU ALL ON CAGS as this site has been

invaluable source of information, it also helps to know you

are not the only one. so again THANK YOU ALL.

 

Excellent result, at last a C/O rejected. Superb well done!!!

[Basil Fawlty]

I'll give you one

 

You CAN apply for an OFS to enforce a Restriction.

 

Thanks Ganymede, so you're saying that the information in that link is incorrect? As I say, I've had yes and no answers from different people so I'm no better off lol.....

Have you heard of this happening to anyone?

 

BF