Restriction K's

[shazzyball]

ihave started the phone calls to local lawers but most do not know what i am on about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can enyone help please

[sequenci]

Where are you based?

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

what have you actually explained to the Solicitors (lawyers)

[Clynite]

shazzyball

 

Hope you are successful in your endeavours. You have my every sympathy. If I learn anything useful, you will be the first to know!

 

eggboxy1

 

Thanks for your post. Sol advised me today that, no point in objecting to CO as it was inevitable given the size of debt vs my repayments, that CO would be granted anyway! You couldn't make it up.

 

Advised that they would accept instalment payment if I agree to a CO. ( and this sol is supposed to be on my side )

 

I think I am going to take your advice:-)

 

Thanks for the moral support.

[Ganymede]

Sol advised me today that, no point in objecting to CO as it was inevitable given the size of debt vs my repayments, that CO would be granted anyway! You couldn't make it up.

 

 

Unfortunately is almost certainly right, however what have you got to lose by representing yourself and objecting to the CO.

 

As has been mentioned you can ask the DJ to insert a term that the CO cannot be enforced whilst payments are maintained.

[eggboxy1]

Clynite

 

I'm glad you feel that way as it does seem your Solicitor hasn't done you any favours (and I'd certainly be inclined to have a word with the Law Society about your experience!)

 

But hopefully you are beginning to see a little more light at the end of the tunnel and have started beginning to feel a little more at ease? The experience is not pleasant but you have to learn to, firstly, take the fear and "personal" side of it out of the equation (it's just a job to these people at the end of the day and they will use every tactic available to win) and secondly, you have to heed the pooled advice on these pages to realise it doesn't have to be all one way traffic and there are ways to fight back.

 

When is your final CO hearing, by the way?

Edited July 5, 2011 by eggboxy1

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

clynite

 

Have just located your thread but as its 200 posts long can you give a quick explanation how it got from 6k to £25k ???

 

But, yes I wouldn't be concerned given both the debt is only in your name and also you wife's unfortunate circumstances. As posted previously, only 0.3% of CO's ever progress to OFS which, in my opinion, is because creditors know they are so very difficult to obtain (plus, I believe they are expensive to do as well.)

 

Your stat is inconsistent with a previous post by you in which you state that only 0.3% of OFS applications are granted - somewhat different. There are two main reasons why charging orders do not turn into OFS proceedings which are 1) that there is insufficient equity in the property to justify an OFS and 2) that the creditor is concerned about reputational issues. I think you will find that the number of OFS applications which are granted is more than 50%. It is a matter for the judge's discretion as to whether an OFS is granted, and I have seen them granted for less than 5K. And they are not expensive by the way, issue fee only £175, and all costs automatically recoverable in full and added to the charge so little risk to the creditor. It is, however, very much a remedy of last resort for any creditor and generally reserved only for the "won't pays" and not the "can't pays". Notwithstanding that the OP might be perceived as a troublemaker by the creditor because of repeated failed appeals etc, I would very much doubt the creditor would consider an OFS here. If, however, it does then I think the OP should not rely on hoping that the judge takes sympathy.

[sequenci]

I think you will find that the number of OFS applications which are granted is more than 50%.

 

I don't know what the wider stats are but for credit debts - which is going to be the brunt of what folks on here will have I would attest that OFS applications are quite rare. I don't think they are as rare as 0.3% but I hardly think that one in two CCA-regulated judgment creditors will make an order for sale application. I don't know what the official stats are but in my day job I help 2/3 people a day with potential CO applications. I might get a handful a year that are facing an OFS - and most of those can be stopped in their tracks. I can imagine that the situation with business-related debts could be very different, that's an area I don't get involved with.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

I meant the percentage of OFS applications, once issued, that result in orders being made. Undoubtedly the number of charging orders that result in an OFS application is very small.

[cymruambyth]

Clynite, from my limited experience, I don't think that the costs that would be claimed against you for a CO (if successful) would amount to much, especially in comparison to everything else that you have been hammered for. You may not have any luck, but you may get a different DJ. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Good luck.

[eggboxy1]

Gaston

 

You are quite correct that I did originally quote the 0.3% figure wrongly but I did correct it in my last post on a re-read. I think most concerned parties on here, however, will have read the original link that explained this in more detail. (So don't worry yourself too much, ok)

 

But the pick up is a bit rich coming from someone who incorrectly stated;

 

"Unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order"

 

As you are fully aware now, both a Solicitor at the Land Registry and the Inland Revenue have confirmed (which I'm sure you would have to agree are a little more knowledgeable on the matter than yourself), there is no obligation when the CO can only be registered as a "Restriction".

 

I know you wish it was true but, thankfully for an awful lot of people in trouble on here, it is not.

[eggboxy1]

Sequenci wrote;

 

"I don't know what the official stats are but in my day job I help 2/3 people a day with potential CO applications. I might get a handful a year that are facing an OFS - and must of those can be stopped in their tracks."

 

Thank you for highlighting the reality of what actually happens rather than the slanted ramblings by another contributor.

[sequenci]

I meant the percentage of OFS applications, once issued, that result in orders being made. Undoubtedly the number of charging orders that result in an OFS application is very small.

 

Oh sorry, I've got you now! It's been a long day. There are plenty of arguments that can stop an order for sale, anyone with a family home and children have significant protection afforded to them under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act - it has to be a jointly owned home, however.

 

I guess the tactic to undertake for anyone with a CO that is likely to be made final is to request that courts make an order to prevent further execution/enforcement on the proviso that a small affordable instalment is kept up with.

[eggboxy1]

Sequenci

 

The 0.3% figure comes from the Shergroup which is a debt enforcement organisation and is definitely pro creditor (so hardly likely to underestimate the figure).

 

And whilst Gaston is still giving it a good go on here to dampen the spirits of those on here looking for encouragement, his 50% figure of OFS being granted is very reassuring.

 

Reassuring because if only 0.3% of CO's are ever progressed to OFS status then those chosen must be thought of as dead certs by creditors. That HALF of these still fail, too, means an OFS really is almost impossible to obtain.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Gaston

 

You are quite correct that I did originally quote the 0.3% figure wrongly but I did correct it in my last post on a re-read. I think most concerned parties on here, however, will have read the original link that explained this in more detail. (So don't worry yourself too much, ok)

 

But the pick up is a bit rich coming from someone who incorrectly stated;

 

"Unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order"

 

As you are fully aware now, both a Solicitor at the Land Registry and the Inland Revenue have confirmed (which I'm sure you would have to agree are a little more knowledgeable on the matter than yourself), there is no obligation when the CO can only be registered as a "Restriction".

 

I know you wish it was true but, thankfully for an awful lot of people in trouble on here, it is not.

 

I was always fully aware of it, thanks very much so you haven't been able to educate me. Although you think you've stumbled on some fabulous escape clause to get out of charging orders, you'll be surprised to know people have discovered it before you and, indeed, used it to their advantage. I have no interest whatsoever in the effectiveness or otherwise of protecting charging orders, I was merely giving a reality check to those who might place reliance on your uninformed ramblings that they are likely to find it not easy, in practice, to find a conveyancer who is willing or able to exploit the law. Why don't you search these forums and you will find threads where people have been trying unsuccessfully to persuade their solicitors to complete a sale without paying a charging order protected by a restriction. As I pointed out before, this anomaly in the registration system has been around since 1925 but it's had little practical effect, so much as you'd like to be a pioneering saviour it's actually old hat. If avoidance of restrictions ever becomes a widely used practice the Land Registration Rules will be changed to close the gap.

[sequenci]

Thanks for that Eggboxy

 

The stats are actually widely available from the MOJ:

 

Take a look at the latest, it makes for interesting reading and I concur with Shergroup. Which is probably the ONLY time in my life that I will!

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/courts-and-sentencing/court-stats-quarterly-q1-2011.pdf

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Unfortunately only gives the number of orders for sale made, would be useful to know how many OFS applications were issued. Also how many orders for sale actually resulted in possession being taken; I would expect relatively few because either the debt was paid or the property sold voluntarily.

[sequenci]

Those stats would be interesting for sure. At least we can evidence how slim an actual order for sale is for those worried about losing their homes due to not being able to meet their credit debt commitments. Which is VERY useful for our users on CAG.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Sequenci

Reassuring because if only 0.3% of CO's are ever progressed to OFS status then those chosen must be thought of as dead certs by creditors. That HALF of these still fail, too, means an OFS really is almost impossible to obtain.

 

Yes of course creditors are only going to go for an OFS on selected cases - it's an extreme remedy and only suitable for extreme cases. I didn't say half of those failed btw, I said I expect more than 50% end up with orders being made - many cases will not be pursued because an arrangement is made after issue of proceedings rather than because they are refused.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Those stats would be interesting for sure. At least we can evidence how slim an actual order for sale is for those worried about losing their homes due to not being able to meet their credit debt commitments. Which is VERY useful for our users on CAG.

 

That is undoubtedly the case, there is a tiny prospect of a CO ending up with an eviction; but any users of CAG who are the recipient of OFS proceedings need to treat them very seriously.

[Cadbury1879]

The morality of Charging Orders Is what Eggboxy has quite rightly pointed out here.

It's not correct that a creditor can go down this route, except in exceptional circumstances.This would be the same for bankruptcy.

A company advertises an unsesecured credit product, at higher interest, than a remortgage,secured, product.

As soon as circumstances change, they use this route to intimidate and "secure the debt" using the Law to there benifit.

The law in regard to these "restrictions" is well known know buy good few,and yet you have a fight on hands with your conveyancer to comply with your instructions.

Some sort of conveyancer club, need good title bollocks.

Need easy life more like

The more people can sell there properties, after going through this sham, the better.

I don't think this approach works for the creditor either, as it backs the debtor into a corner, and in my case make me bitter, to a point that selling my property I could easily pay off the debt, but now will not.

Cad

[eggboxy1]

Gaston

 

Nobody has stumbled on anything "fabulous" and the possibility of resistance from conveyancers has been stated. I'm merely helping spread the word of what the law states and helping support people who want to help themselves using the law (which is not "exploiting" it by the way!)

 

But please don't be coy about your true feelings on debtors using the law to their advantage in this situation as your proclivity towards the negative on this thread shines like a beacon. Your pretence to be not bothered one way or the other is, also, both insulting and fatuous to the many people in a desperate situation who read this thread and are looking for help.

 

And you say you haven't been educated? Then please, educate me, and explain how you can purport to "have no interest whatsoever in the effectiveness or otherwise of protecting charging orders" yet you tell people "it's "unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order" when you, now, say you have known all along about Restrictions?

 

I'll quite happily wait and listen to be educated on that one.

[cymruambyth]

Why is this degenerating into an academic debate instead of pro actively helping people who are often in a terrible state?

[Clynite]

cymruambyth

 

Thank you, my sentiments exaclty.

[eggboxy1]

For my part; I'm not prepared to stand by and see another contributor trying to diminish the hope of people genuinely reading this thread (perhaps recently like Clynite) looking for help with their situation when that person is using inaccurate and highly dubious information to support their views.

 

Anyone using statements like; "why bother when you owe the money anyway" (in response to not paying a CO when you sell you house) and

it's "unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order" cannot pretend to be unconcerned either way over CO's. Once people understand that they can then put into context from which side of the fence the information given is coming from.

 

It's also naive for anyone to think the only people reading and using this thread are those trying to help people in debt.