A guide to Charging Orders & Orders for Sale

[Basil Fawlty]

You should receive notification of any claim in the post. Unless you have moved or the mail doesn't get delivered it would be unlikely you wouldn't know.

 

 

Thanks for that. It wouldnt be likely that they would deliberately not notify you of a looming court case, so as to automatically win it, would they?

(as you can see, I wouldnt put anything past them)

 

BF

[Crapstone]

Thanks for that. It wouldnt be likely that they would deliberately not notify you of a looming court case, so as to automatically win it, would they?

(as you can see, I wouldnt put anything past them)

 

BF

 

It's likely that some creditors will send notification to your previous address, or linked addresses, rather than your current one. You are right in not putting anything past them.

[sequenci]

It's likely that some creditors will send notification to your previous address, or linked addresses, rather than your current one. You are right in not putting anything past them.

 

Yeah, that can be a little naughty. If this happens, and you can demonstrate that you have informed the creditor of the correct address previously, you would have a right to apply to set the judgment aside. If you didn't inform the creditor of an address change they are well within their rights to serve notice at your old address as this would be the one that you were last 'known' at.

[atom02]

Hi sequenci,

 

Thanks for your response - I haven't been back here for a few days. Would you know whether one can apply for a set aside even if there is already an instalment order alongside the judgment order and charging order? I should probably start my own thread when I start to pursue this particular case but I know for certain that a valid cca does not exist. I was just too naive at the time to fight the heavy-handed tactics of the DCA so went for a variation of order instead only for the judge to let them have their way.

 

Your comments are much appreciated.

 

atom

 

Bump...any thoughts on this, please?

[gramtrad2]

The futility of appealing against charging orders!

 

I have carefully read all the arguments on this forum with regards to stopping charging orders on ones property.

 

In my case I went to court in an attempt to stop Link Financial from taking a charge on my property.

 

My case against them doing so seemed. to tick all the boxes!

 

I have negative equity which, including existing charges amounts to some £30k

 

The debt in question is relatively small - only £2.3k.

 

I have other debts, many over £10k.

 

There is a suspended reposession order on my house.

 

My wife, who is not party to the mortgage, but lives in my property and has an interest on it , knows nothing of the intended charge.

 

However, the Beak, point bank, refused to stop the charge going on.

 

He gave me a few words of comfort - Said no way would the court sanction an order for sale. Also he said that Link were in it for the long term and could do nothing until I eventullally sell the house. Put simply, a charge for such a small amount would "wither on the vine".

 

That said, I have another shark circling for £17k.So If they decided to apply, based on the current situation, I guess that they would get a charge. Then, given the amount, if they wanted to be bloody minded, they could probably force the sale of my property since the debt is a large one. Or they could ('more likely) bide their time until property prices recover then force a sale!

 

I am not looking for advice or sympathy. Just wanted to flag this up in case it is of help or useful information to anyone.

[meursault22]

Yeah, that can be a little naughty. If this happens, and you can demonstrate that you have informed the creditor of the correct address previously, you would have a right to apply to set the judgment aside. If you didn't inform the creditor of an address change they are well within their rights to serve notice at your old address as this would be the one that you were last 'known' at.

 

 

You would assume it's obvious which address they should use when they're claiming for sevices supposedly supplied to an address. Why would they send court papers to a different address? Some of the tactics I've encountered have been a real eye opener.

[meursault22]

Well, I've learned how they managed to finalize a charging order before the final charging order hearing. It seems that to finalize a charging order as an agreed notice, only the original CCJ is needed to convince the land registrar that the claim is valid! An agreed notice also seems better protected than a charging order, so why bother with the hearing at all?

Easy peasy, just go to the Northampton Bulk Court, get a CCJ then use it for an agreed notice, then an order of sale. No wonder more and more of the utility companies are getting into dealing properties!

[sequenci]

Well, I've learned how they managed to finalize a charging order before the final charging order hearing. It seems that to finalize a charging order as an agreed notice, only the original CCJ is needed to convince the land registrar that the claim is valid! An agreed notice also seems better protected than a charging order, so why bother with the hearing at all?

Easy peasy, just go to the Northampton Bulk Court, get a CCJ then use it for an agreed notice, then an order of sale. No wonder more and more of the utility companies are getting into dealing properties!

 

I'm not sure that is right.

 

The land registry would be informed of the interim charge which places the restriction on the property. The whole reason for the final hearing is for the court to decide whether or not to make it final. If this is not how it's happened then maladministration has occured and you should investigate a formal complaint.

[meursault22]

I'm not sure that is right.

 

The land registry would be informed of the interim charge which places the restriction on the property. The whole reason for the final hearing is for the court to decide whether or not to make it final. If this is not how it's happened then maladministration has occured and you should investigate a formal complaint.

 

 

Had my hearing for this complaint, and the judge's decision was that since the previous judge's decision was to pass the final charging order, it makes no difference that is was done a few days early and since I was present at the final charging order hearing, there is no grounds to look at it again!!!

The only result of the complaint was that he added a substantial amount of costs of behalf of the creditor who also attended the hearing. Ever feel like there's no justice?

Through this whole nasty affair, I wonder if some judges are as straight as they're supposed to be since I've only encountered outlandish bias towards the creditor.

[Knackered]

Is this correct??

 

MoneySaving Convert

Join Date: May 2009

Post Count: 70

Thanked 43 Times in 24 Posts

 

 

Charging Order? The myth

I feel that this is so important that I thought a new thread should be made to highlight the importance of understanding the law on Charging Orders and how many people are stuck with their property in the false believe that they have had a Charging Order put on their property.

 

In particular the thousands of Northern Rock customers that have had unsecured debt turned into secured debt by their tactics.

 

If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction.

 

The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor.

 

However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to decieve you believing you are stuck with a CO.

 

However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them

 

Quote:

 

Restriction

 

 

The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :-

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 [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).

You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer.

 

If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered.

 

 

So I hope I have provided benefit to everyone who has had a restriction entered against them (especially NORTHERN ROCK CUSTOMERS) who believe wrongly that they are Charging Orders.

 

You now have the freedom to go and sell your houses with the knowledge that the vultures can do nothing

If it is.... Bliss.

 

BUT...

 

What about all the 'But then they can/will' blah blah

[OnMyWayOut]

Can interest be added to a CCA (card) debt once a charging order has been finalised, even though the judge stated that no interest was allowed (as it is a CCA debt)? I have one where the debt buyer is stating the balance is increasing by 8% interest as they are allowed to by the CO regulations, overriding the CCA regs. Are they right or trying to take me for a ride?

[sequenci]

Can interest be added to a CCA (card) debt once a charging order has been finalised, even though the judge stated that no interest was allowed (as it is a CCA debt)? I have one where the debt buyer is stating the balance is increasing by 8% interest as they are allowed to by the CO regulations, overriding the CCA regs. Are they right or trying to take me for a ride?

 

There are no regulations which specifically mention interest on charging orders. If the 8% they are claiming is statutory interest they cannot claim is as this is banned on CCA regulated judgment debts in accordance with the county courts (interest on judgment debts) order 1991

[OnMyWayOut]

Hi Sequenci, thanks for the answer. They are claiming they have entitlement under section 3(4) of the CO Act 1979.

[sequenci]

That section reads:

 

(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a charge imposed by a charging order shall have the like effect and shall be enforceable in the same courts and in the same manner as an equitable charge created by the debtor by writing under his hand.

 

Not sure where interest comes into it...

 

Are we talking a credit debt here? was it a loan / credit card etc? If so then you should quote s2(3)(a) The Couty Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 which reads:

 

3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment—

(a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

[OnMyWayOut]

It's a credit card debt - they aren't the OC, but a debt buyer who bought it after the CO was finalised.

[sequenci]

It's a credit card debt - they aren't the OC, but a debt buyer who bought it after the CO was finalised.

 

The law prevents statutory interest (e.g. the 8% they are trying to claim) from the CO.

 

Does the claimform state that they are trying to claim contractual?

 

Here is a great fact-sheet on interest after judgment:

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 18 Interest Charges On A Consumer Credit Judgment

[OnMyWayOut]

They informed me they were adding interest when I requested a statement of my account after they were assigned the debt. When I queried the right to add interest as it was a credit card CCA debt they countered with the CO Act Section 3(4) which they quote as follows: -

 

The charging order takes effect as an equitable charge created by the judgment debtor by writing under his hand. It must therefore be given the same effect as an equitable charge on the land. Such a charge carries interest itself, even if there are no words allowing interest in the charge itself. In this matter, interest is not accruing on the judgment order; it is accruing on the charging order.

This is from their solicitors.

[sequenci]

The solicitors are WRONG in this case.

 

I appreciate where they are coming from, I would imagine they may even quote you the case of Ezekiel V Orakpo to try and quantify themselves. The section they quote only relates to statutory interest - This cannot be claimed for, as statutory interest cannot be claimed post-jdugment on CCA regulated debts as per that Act I've already mentioned.

 

They have got the law wrong and you really need to challenge this.

[OnMyWayOut]

Excellent news, Sequenci. Thanks for your advice.

[sequenci]

Excellent news, Sequenci. Thanks for your advice.

 

Did you get chance to read this fact-sheet by the way? It's good!

 

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 18 Interest Charges On A Consumer Credit Judgment

[MXBN]

posted elsewhere

Edited March 8, 2010 by MXBN
posted elsewhere

[Northstar68]

Sequenci, thank you so much for this very informative post which is helping me tremendously put my objections forward against a CO for a debt of my husband's.

You have helped me understand this whole process much better and it is all much clearer now, all I need to do is put in writing ready for the final CO hearing!

[CBR600F]

Is this correct??

 

MoneySaving Convert

Join Date: May 2009

Post Count: 70

Thanked 43 Times in 24 Posts

 

 

Charging Order? The myth

I feel that this is so important that I thought a new thread should be made to highlight the importance of understanding the law on Charging Orders and how many people are stuck with their property in the false believe that they have had a Charging Order put on their property.

 

In particular the thousands of Northern Rock customers that have had unsecured debt turned into secured debt by their tactics.

 

If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction.

 

The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor.

 

However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to decieve you believing you are stuck with a CO.

 

However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them

 

Quote:

 

Restriction

 

 

The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :-

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 [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of [an interim] [a final] charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).

You are therefore correct in saying that when the Land Registry receives an application to register, for example a transfer, we will not ask to see the consent of the person who has the benefit of the charging order. We will only want a certificate from the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that the person who has the benefit of the charging order has been given written notice of the transfer.

 

If both joint owners sell the land to a third party the restriction will be cancelled when the transfer to the purchasers is registered.

 

 

So I hope I have provided benefit to everyone who has had a restriction entered against them (especially NORTHERN ROCK CUSTOMERS) who believe wrongly that they are Charging Orders.

 

You now have the freedom to go and sell your houses with the knowledge that the vultures can do nothing

If it is.... Bliss.

 

BUT...

 

What about all the 'But then they can/will' blah blah

 

 

Bump

[Knackered]

Bump

[Knackered]

Anyone hear the one about the blind skunk that fell in love with a fart?