black horse/SCM CCJ/unlwful CO - debt has PPI/charges

[asokn]

The CCJ will not be set aside due to any inaccuracies in the charging order, nice try though! Although you were not living at the property did you retain ownership of it (e.g. renting it out etc) or did you actually sell it so that you are no longer the registered proprietor? If the former a charge can be properly granted, if the latter it cannot.

 

When you paid off the CCJs did you apply for a certificate of satisfaction? The onus is on you and not the creditor to do so.

[toofiegap]

No the property was sold outright way before they went to court they were fully aware that the property was no longer mine were given the date the sale went through, and they still went to court phyically to get a full charge iupsetting the new owners. I had also written to the court outlining this too including tyhe date we were moving but they didn't even bother reading this. So in answer to the first bit NO I was not the owner when it went to court.

 

The second part is the other Credidors hadn't even bothered to inform the courts that the CCJ's had been paid off properly resulting in my credit file being not updated as satisfied even though it states on the finance side with the companies the CCJ's were indeed paid. I have managed to get one of the comanies to get them updated correctly and one other is being pedantic in doing this time wasting even though I have physical evidence that it was paid and refused this causing even more greif. So cannot get and certificates at the mo because of the massive cockups caused by them.

 

I have spoken to a legal rep who said because they knowlingly put the charge on the property after the sale went through I could get this set aside by consent as it would not side comfortably with the courtds knowing they got the charge by less than legal matters.

[asokn]

The charging order could have been set aside but that has already been taken care of. There is no basis to have the judgment set aside because of a defective attempt at enforcement; you still owed the money! What were the qualifications of this 'legal rep'?

[toofiegap]

barrister (family freind who is qualified in these matters) states that if was to go to court the compensation would outwiegh the debt plus they acted illegally in obtaining the charge which would not bode well with any judge , and isn't it illegal to lie to a court under oath ??????

[asokn]

Your barrister friend has no idea what s/he's talking about.

 

What compensation could you claim for a charge being placed on someone else's property? Even if you could that would not cancel the CCJ, you would have to issue a claim, win and then offset your damages against what you owe.

 

It is illegal to lie on oath but there was no oath given. The creditor would have made a paper application and then a hearing was convened which resulted in a charging order. The creditor may have not believed you and may have relied on an outdated copy of the register showing you as the proprietor. A verified statement would have been produced with the application but, clearly, there was sufficient evidence for the court to agree that you owned the property.

Edited April 19, 2012 by asokn

[Ganymede]

As asokn has said you cannot get the CCJ set aside on the basis of the Charging Order application.

 

What I don't understand is how that got the CO registered in the first place as the Land Registry should have picked up that the Defendant and Proprietor were not the same. Had the house sale fully gone through and completed etc?

[asokn]

I suspect not, otherwise the creditor, court and land registry all failed to make the most basic checks!

[toofiegap]

I suspect not, otherwise the creditor, court and land registry all failed to make the most basic checks!

 

 

exactly anhd yes they all knew about the sale

[asokn]

There we are then, mistakes all round. It's been sorted now though so is a moot point.

[Ganymede]

exactly anhd yes they all knew about the sale

 

 

Could you give us the dates of the following:

 

1) Interim Charging Order.

2) Completion of sale of property.

3) Final Charging Order.

 

Thanks.

[asokn]

Just to emphasise the point above, it is completion of the sale and not the date of exchange of contracts that is relevant.

[toofiegap]

quick update Blackhorse seem now to be backtracking after 2 days of arguments an extremely rude little boy who hung up on me because I was putting my point accorss ( very calmly|) managed to speak to a manager I told them about the illegal actvities and that firstly as even before the interim on the 11th june last year the sale had completed but due to land registary problems and a nasty error on thier behalf they could not release the relivent documents and although the sale had completed money in relevent sols accounts they had to sit on it while this error was rectified which took a further 4 weeks (LR system had massive problems) Told this to BH and even with letters from our sols explaining this they refused to set aside the interim. Finally they sorted the problem and we got a moving date (remember sale completed 4 weeks before) 29th july.

 

Told BH we moved and even offered a settlement which they refused on the !st august they phsically went to the court and got a full charge even knowing that the property was not mine. The first I knew about this was a letter from the new owners sols stating that they were going to try for a poss forced sale I called BH and they did remove the charge no apoologies just a 3 line letter saying it had been removed.

#

After the legal advise we recieved we have 2 choices either take them to court with all the evidence we have and as we have been told on many many poccasions by legal reps, Consumer direct and TS that I have a 99.99% of winnign and it would be set aside (ccj) or as I told BH yesterday they can set aside by consent and 0once I get my job (this is ther only this thing holding my start date up) and I would be able to clear the debt very quickly instead of the £1.00 per month outlined by the court)

 

She seemed to get very flustered when I mentioned that if indeed I took them to court that the judge would niot be best please despite the information that they had that they still went ahead with a charge and I have to put it in writing (poss to be binned under r for rubbish) as a complaint

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Sorry can you explain why Black Horse getting a charge over a property you have no interest in somehow makes the CCJ defective? I don't know who has been advising you but it's garbage. Basically this is the fault of the buyer's solicitors for not registering a priority search which would have prevented BH from registering the interim charging order. Any conveyancing solicitor knows that, so any losses are down to their solicitors, not BH who are entitled to rely on what the Land Register showed i.e. that you were still the registered proprietor. Even if they made a mistake in pursuing the charging order, that has absolutely no relevance to whether the underlying CCJ is defective or not. I also can't see what possible losses you have suffered, the only party who might have suffered a loss is the purchaser, so he should go and speak to his solicitor about why he didn't do his job properly which would have stopped BH's charge getting registered.

 

Go ahead and apply to set aside if you wish, but you will lose and get a costs order against you.

[asokn]

The OP needs to recognise the difference between the judgment and the attempt to enforce that judgment. They are two entirely different things; the judgment says you owe the money and the attempt to enforce is just a way of trying to secure or obtain that money.

 

Even if the CO application was totally wrong that does not affect the judgment, you still owe the money. Imagine a worse scenario; if bailiffs had attended at someone else's house and removed all of their goods that would not give you grounds to set aside the judgment. If the creditor had made you bankrupt on the basis of an unsatisfied judgment you still wouldn't be able to set the judgment aside.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

In fairness the OP is relying upon advice, but TBH whoever is giving that advice ought to stick to their day job.

[asokn]

Precisely; I'm trying to highlight the true position in spite of the 'advice' already given. There's not much point in saying the advice given is wrong without explaining the position a bit, otherwise the OP will continue to rely on the original advice.