Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


sequenci

A guide to Charging Orders & Orders for Sale

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1314 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

well !! the judge had no problem taking the roof off my daughter and I. for a credit card debt of 3k that does not exist,no credit agreement or any proof of the sayd debt.Ilived at my home for 15 years and mortgage fully up to date and houshold bills.weve been stripped of everything.judge didnt care a hoot,plain ruthless and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you steampowered for your reply. Very interesting indeed. I therefore assume that my water supplier searched the land registry using my home address to see if I owned the property. When they discovered that I owned my house, they put the debt in my name even though the water account was in my wife's name, then applied to the court for a CCJ against me and then a charge order. I do wonder why the water supplier didn't obtain a CCJ against my wife because she was the only earner at the time. They could then apply for an attachment to earnings against my wife and recovered the debt by now. Instead they seem to be happy to wait years for their money. Very strange in my opinion. I did phone my water supply company and asked them why they took the action against me rather than against my wife. They said that they weren't prepared to discuss this any further.

 

Yes, it would have been easy for them to search the land registry if they knew your address. It is easy to do searches by address but not by name.

 

Yes that does sound strange that they got the CCJ against you rather than your wife. But I guess we are where we are. If you want to get rid of the charging order that is relatively simple to do once the debt has been paid.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well !! the judge had no problem taking the roof off my daughter and I. for a credit card debt of 3k that does not exist,no credit agreement or any proof of the sayd debt.Ilived at my home for 15 years and mortgage fully up to date and houshold bills.weve been stripped of everything.judge didnt care a hoot,plain ruthless and ignorant.

 

So what has actually happened here? Has the court granted an order for sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi , well ive been kept in the dark through most of the proceedings ,due to all correspondance being sent to the trustees soliciter by clerical error.and not forwarded ,they knowingly used this to theyre advantage. Ihave been deprived of my right to file any defence. unwiling for any hearing on equal footing to go ahead they would vacate at the last instance. Ihave not received any rundown of costs ,i do not know how much has been added to the apparent insolvency all i know is to be insolvent means you can not pay your bills/debts . i could and carried on in doing so all bills that where duly owed ???? as far as the mortgage lenders wher concernd i had no default and up to date with my mortgage payments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well !! the judge had no problem taking the roof off my daughter and I. for a credit card debt of 3k that does not exist,no credit agreement or any proof of the sayd debt.Ilived at my home for 15 years and mortgage fully up to date and houshold bills.weve been stripped of everything.judge didnt care a hoot,plain ruthless and ignorant.

 

Well if your sad story is anything to go by, I guess I will be homeless soon. I get the impression that the Government and the courts despise house owners and are determined to get them either living on the streets or in rented accommodation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well hopefully not ,dont give in look into things further , I have not given up yet ,nor will i ever walk away , as the property (my home)is legaly mine.i were under contract and it has not been broken. if i were a squatter after 12 years i could claim it. ive been ther for 15 !!! fight for what is right. i myself would not be able to afford a rented property , i suffer ill health ,alot due to this situation. dont receive benefits. its a nightmare. I wish you all the luck x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well hopefully not ,dont give in look into things further , I have not given up yet ,nor will i ever walk away , as the property (my home)is legaly mine.i were under contract and it has not been broken. if i were a squatter after 12 years i could claim it. ive been ther for 15 !!! fight for what is right. i myself would not be able to afford a rented property , i suffer ill health ,alot due to this situation. dont receive benefits. its a nightmare. I wish you all the luck x

 

OK and thanks for your good wishes. Now if I get an order for sale which forces the sale of my house I will use the change to take revenge against my oppressors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think it's stranger you let them take you to court for a debt your wife owed?

I didn't know that the court had served a CCJ against my name for 8 months after it was served. My wife was obviously intercepting my post and hiding it to cover her dishonest conduct. I understand that if notice of a CCJ is posted to your house and you never see it due to a wife intercepting it you are still considered to know about it even if you don't. Bring back the days when the summons has to be signed by or actually handed to the person being summonsed to remove this huge hole in the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could prove the above it would be reason to set aside. However, if you DO owe the money then there wouldn't much point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you could prove the above it would be reason to set aside. However, if you DO owe the money then there wouldn't much point?

 

Well my wife was the only earner in my house during the period that this debt accumulated. But the water supplier decided to dump this debt on me. Surely the water supplier should have taken my wife to court as she was the only earner during that period. That's why I am of the opinion that County Court Judges consider people on no income to be punishable compared to their partners who have a full time job. The judge must have known that my wife was living here during this period and was fully employed. I also therefore conclude that the judge hates men who have worked for 30 years, bought their houses outright and fallen on hard times due to fault of their own. How come County Court Judges consider people on zero income to be more capable to pay debts than their wives who have a full time job? A full time job pays infinately more than zero income. When was zero income ever greater than a full time salary? Sadly the courts consider zero income to be more than a full time salary. I therefore consider court judges to be brain dead ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The county court judge would not have known that your wife is the earner. He won't have known anything about your family situation unless you specifically told him. Perhaps it is surprising to some people, but please be aware judges do not have access to any more personal information about you than a random member of the public. It doesn't really matter anyway - the courts are there to decide whether you owe money, not on your marital dispute or whether you have any income.

  • Haha 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The county court judge would not have known that your wife is the earner. He won't have known anything about your family situation unless you specifically told him. Perhaps it is surprising to some people, but please be aware judges do not have access to any more personal information about you than a random member of the public. It doesn't really matter anyway - the courts are there to decide whether you owe money, not on your marital dispute or whether you have any income.

 

The water company who took me to court knew that I was unemployed on no income and my wife was employed full time. I assume they didn't tell the judge in order to try to make a person homeless. Surely if the water supplier just wanted their money they would have applied for a CCJ against my wife and then applied for an attachment to earnings.

In this way they would have their money back by now. Instead they decided to apply for a CCJ and a charge order against me. That's why I conclude that the creditor and the courts want people living homeless rather than recover the debt by much easier and faster means.

 

Regarding the judge not taking into account income, about 15 years ago a friend of mine was taken to court for drink driving. He would have normally received a fine of around £800.

However, because he was unemployed he got a fine of only £80.

He would have owed the court and the police £800 but they let him off with a small fine due his low income.

This seems to imply that a county court case is far more serious than a magistrates court criminal case. I never received any reduction of my debt in the county court even though I had no income and had not committed any criminal offences. Perhaps the law should make utility debts criminal offences so you can then plead poverty and have them reduced on the basis of means testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our house is now up for sale as we want to move nearer an elderly relative, how does the CO on the property affect us wanting to sell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CO is registered as an Equitable Charge then the creditor can block the sale if you don't pay the order in full.

 

If it's registered as a Restriction then you won't need to pay it off and can sell regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our house is now up for sale as we want to move nearer an elderly relative, how does the CO on the property affect us wanting to sell?

 

Better posting this to the thread concerned (if you have one) or start a new thread phatram..this is the sticky section.

 

Regards

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the CO is registered as an Equitable Charge then the creditor can block the sale if you don't pay the order in full.

 

If it's registered as a Restriction then you won't need to pay it off and can sell regardless.

 

From the Land Registry in response to if a creditor can "block a sale" as you state above

 

"As you mentioned in your earlier post a seller would normally undertake to 'clear' any existing charges, whether registered or simply noted as in the case of an equitable charge.

 

If we received an application to register the sale (Transfer) then we would cancel the noted equitable charge providing we received an application to do so (form CN1).

 

If no application to cancel it was submitted we would simply complete the Transfer and leave the noted charge on the register.

 

So in essence the creditor is not able to object to the sale/transfer being registered.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Land Registry in response to if a creditor can "block a sale" as you state above

 

"As you mentioned in your earlier post a seller would normally undertake to 'clear' any existing charges, whether registered or simply noted as in the case of an equitable charge.

 

If we received an application to register the sale (Transfer) then we would cancel the noted equitable charge providing we received an application to do so (form CN1).

 

If no application to cancel it was submitted we would simply complete the Transfer and leave the noted charge on the register.

 

So in essence the creditor is not able to object to the sale/transfer being registered.

"

 

That's lovely in Land Registry theoretical procedure, but that doesn't reflect the real world.

 

The reality is absolutely zero mortgage lenders would allow an Equitable Charge (EC) to remain on the title register belonging to the former owner and it would be madness for the purchasor to allow the EC to remain on the title deeds of their new property when the debt has nothing to do with them and relates to the former owner.

 

So the Claimant can block the sale if they choose and the only way to get rid of it is to repay the debt or have the Claimant agree to the removal of the EC. I bet you can guess how often that happens in practice!

 

You cannot simply submit a Form CN1 and have the EC removed automatically, you must provide evidence that the interest has come to an end (E.g. that the debt is repaid) otherwise it will be refused by the Land Registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree regarding if a mortgage was involved with a new buyer; but a cash buyer holds no such obstacle, therefore, a creditor couldn't prevent the cash buyer wanting to (for whatever reason) proceed with a purchase.

 

And I would agree that if there is sufficient equity in the property, upon sale, then a creditor would not remove the charge prior to payment. But if there is not sufficient equity then "in the real world" the creditor would agree to the removal and be repaid what it could get. The reason for this is if they don't, then the owner can simply hand the keys back for a voluntary repossession.

 

If that happens, under the power of sale of the mortgage holder (as first charge holder), then all other charges become overreached and removed to allow the first charge holder to sell the property. When the property is then, subsequently, sold; the remaining proceeds go to the owner as no creditor charges remain on the register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a cash buyer wouldn't buy a house with a charge registered on it for someone else's debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even a cash buyer wouldn't buy a house with a charge registered on it for someone else's debt.

 

That's an opinion and nothing to do with a creditor having the ability to "block" a sale if not repaid in full which they don't. Mortgage company's mat not lend and cash buyers may be deterred, but that if for them to decide not the creditor.

 

A lot of cash buyers are also builders looking to renovate. If they purchased the property at a reduced rate as the owner was in financial difficulties, a small charge not attracting interest would be seen as an expense of the purchase so wouldn't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone just clear something up please. Surely the debt ''belongs'' to the original debtor or are you saying that if a person buys a house with a charge on it (which is the seller's debt), that buyer now becomes liable for the debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt belongs to the debtor...but its secured on the property by the CO (that stays with the property until settled)


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand it with a full charge, but with a restriction too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full Charging Order or K Restriction...it stays on the property until its dealt with..settled or sold.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just seen this on another forum regarding someone who successfully sold his house with a restriction on it and after informing the creditor the restriction disappeared. This was part of the information he received from the Land Registry:

 

"As such providing your solicitor provides a certificate confirming this then the terms of the restriction are complied with.

 

The restriction(s) would then be removed when the transfer (sale) is registered which overreaches the interest protected by the restriction. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1314 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...