Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


jetli

Charging Orders

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2753 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

Don't know if someone has posted this already (haven't read every post yet)

 

If the property is in JOINT names then the charging order may actually be a restriction and you are NOT forced to pay it when the property is sold.

 

[ATTACH]39381[/ATTACH]


HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, you must stop talking to them on the phone as a company like DLC will see this as a good sign you are wriggling on the hook and that they can extract a high amount out of you. You tell them from now on you will only correspond in writing.

 

Secondly, DLC will have bought this debt for a fraction of its value (usually around 10%) so if you still want to negotiate a F&F settlement you need to make sure you factor this information into your offer.

 

You haven't, however, stated if your property is single owned or jointly owned? As I explained above that will make a big difference to your situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eh yes he has stated its in his name if you read post 22. Secondly what case law do you mean that you cant apply for an order of sale on the basis that its somebody's main residence? The owners children in the house would preclude any order of sale been made but as the poster mentions his daughter selling her car so this appears not to be the case here.

However you could consider a voluntary charging order with a clause written in to it that they cant apply for an order of sale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh yes he has stated its in his name if you read post 22.

 

Double checking as saying mortgage is in his name doesn't mean the property is registered in his name only.

 

Secondly what case law do you mean that you cant apply for an order of sale on the basis that its somebody's main residence? The owners children in the house would preclude any order of sale been made but as the poster mentions his daughter selling her car so this appears not to be the case here.

 

Ministry of Justice information HERE Section 3.1 second paragraph.

 

However you could consider a voluntary charging order with a clause written in to it that they cant apply for an order of sale

 

Also from Post #22 -

 

we owe about what the house is worth on a good day and the DSS pay interestlink3.gif only on the mortgage

 

A Charging Order under these circumstances would be worthless so let them pay for the privilege if they are that stupid to go after one (which they aren't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Double checking as saying mortgage is in his name doesn't mean the property is registered in his name only.

Think we could safely assume that it does otherwise the mc wouldn't have full security on the property??

 

 

Ministry of Justice information HERE Section 3.1 second paragraph.
Am afraid that doesn't really mean anything its states only likely and would seem to be really referring to houses with children in them etc as I already stated. In fact the whole document just reads like a government fudge. Tell it to Cabot who when you ring them one of the options press "x" for - is if your calling about an order of sale, why would they have that as an option if it was such a rare event. Perhaps if you could find such relevant case law?

 

 

 

Also from Post #22 -

 

 

A Charging Order under these circumstances would be worthless so let them pay for the privilege if they are that stupid to go after one (which they aren't).

One would think so but sadly this is not always the case. Firstly they can sit on the order till prices go up (even just with inflation). Secondly they can use it as an asset for accounting even though it isn't. Thirdly he would still have had the costs of the ccj added which admittedly probably wouldn't be a great amount in the grand scheme of things.

 

eggboxy1 please don't think I am trying to have a go at you because that is not the case. I am trying to put across the more negative side. I know I only avoided an application for an order of sale because I had a clause written into the charging order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Think we could safely assume that it does otherwise the mc wouldn't have full security on the property??

 

Whilst I agree it's unlikely (but it is possible and HSBC do such a product) as the difference between joint and sole ownership is so crucial its worth clarifying.

 

Am afraid that doesn't really mean anything its states only likely and would seem to be really referring to houses with children in them etc

 

The assessment states that case law exists against OFS's being granted on family or primary residencies (so it covers both) It states its only likely an OFS would be granted against shares, unit trusts or secondary properties or land. I'm not sure why you feel an official MOJ document stating these facts doesn't mean anything?

 

Tell it to Cabot who when you ring them one of the options press "x" for - is if your calling about an order of sale, why would they have that as an option if it was such a rare event.

 

As Official Court statistics reveal that only 3 in every 1000 CO's granted ever progress to an OFS stage (that's progress not granted) I think we can assume the rarity. And as I said before, you shouldn't ring a creditor you deal with everything in writing!

 

I am trying to put across the more negative side. I know I only avoided an application for an order of sale because I had a clause written into the charging order.

 

I think a creditor trying to put a CO on your property is all the negative a debtor needs. What is more helpful to them is to explain that a CO is not the massive problem it first appears when a threat first arrives on your doorstep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...