Restriction K's

[eggboxy1]

There are no points of view ascribed to you that I have expressed as yours; I asked "if" they were. I would imagine, however, that your protestations leave little doubt as to your true feelings on this matter to anyone reading this thread.

 

And trying to claim privacy regarding those feelings on the matter after making the statement;

 

"And, actually, what's the point when you will still owe the money afterwards anyway?"

 

is a little like trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted isn't it?

 

Your claim, too, about "realism" coming from your knowledge of conveyancing smacks more of self interest, to me, rather than helpfulness. You just seem a little too concerned people might actually follow what they are legally able to do and succeed? Very strange?

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

"I, and an awful lot of other people, find this an absolute scandal given the amount of interest the Creditor will have received under the "unsecured" banner. Where was this warning on the loan agreement? In a lot of cases, they are also trying to take a chunk of all that some families have left to their name. In my particular case, my ex wife was being charged 29%pa because she was deemed a risk because of only being able to repay minimum after losing her job. This was despite no missed payments with anyone. When she contacted the company involved to ask for a reduced rate of interest during her unemployment they REFUSED saying they were "contractually obliged" to charge that rate of interest"

 

Exactly. The real scandal is that the courts are prepared to give the lenders what is effectively a bail out for an eventuality (the default) that's already been paid for by the outrageous interest rates they charge their customer base. Also, the financial sevices industry regularly advertises unsecured lending as something that does not put your home at risk. One further thing to bear in mind - a Restriction holder will also have a CCJ in his pocket so even if he was bypassed by the completion process he would probably not have too much difficulty in getting hold of the money, either via a garnishee order or bankruptcy petition.

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Yep, the interest rates are so high for products like those because the payers subsidise the non-payers. Unfortunate for those who own property because they have no choice but to pay if they get a charging order; only upside is that the interest stops on judgment (or at worst is limited to 8% if an unregulated loan). Guess the lesson is always to take a secured loan over an unsecured one if possible.

[eggboxy1]

"Yep, the interest rates are so high for products like those because the payers subsidise the non-payers."

 

That's understood when you pay 12.9% for "unsecured" instead of 5.9% "secured" but how can they justify 30%?

 

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

 

That was the, perceived, opinion but, thankfully, the power of the Internet has shown people that doesn't have to be the case with CO's (despite a bitter few who are desperately trying to maintain the status quo)

 

"Guess the lesson is always to take a secured loan over an unsecured one if possible."

 

Secured loan - lose house

Unsecured loan - don't lose house

 

............Mmmm tricky one?

[shazzyball]

My husband has an Interim charging order on our home for £13000. It is a debt he incurred not me. He had a ccj issued but never paid it so by default it was registered. Then he was told to attend court for an interview but they were not satisfied even though he made an offer of £100 per month, so now he has been told to attend before a judge and an agent of the solicitors who want more details of our mortgage, second mortgage and other financial information, Is this the norm?How much information are they allowed to have.

 

We already have ccj's and our home is in almost negative equity. I feel that if the order is made final they will go for a forced sale even though this debt has nothing to do with me. Can I apply to remove this order on my home as its not my debt?

 

Any advise is welcomed

[toymaker1]

My husband has an Interim charging order on our home for £13000. It is a debt he incurred not me. He had a ccj issued but never paid it so by default it was registered. Then he was told to attend court for an interview but they were not satisfied even though he made an offer of £100 per month, so now he has been told to attend before a judge and an agent of the solicitors who want more details of our mortgage, second mortgage and other financial information, Is this the norm?How much information are they allowed to have.

 

We already have ccj's and our home is in almost negative equity. I feel that if the order is made final they will go for a forced sale even though this debt has nothing to do with me. Can I apply to remove this order on my home as its not my debt?

 

Any advise is welcomed

 

I cant see how they have any legal right to put a charge on your share of the property.

[shazzyball]

thanks for the reply, they have an interim order and now he has to go back to make the order final. I dont understand what it all means but surely this is not a joint debt so how can i sort this out. Obviously it could be that if it was made final they could force a sale but i dont know what to do.

[toymaker1]

thanks for the reply, they have an interim order and now he has to go back to make the order final. I dont understand what it all means but surely this is not a joint debt so how can i sort this out. Obviously it could be that if it was made final they could force a sale but i dont know what to do.

Hopefully someone who has a knowledge of the law will give you an answer. However, as I said, I cant see how they can put a charge on your part of the property if it is not your debt.

[eggboxy1]

Hi shazzyball,

 

First of all stop worrying as all the creditor is doing is going through the motions of trying to gain some priority for his debt. But if, as you say, you are close to negative equity then they are chasing nothing anyway.

 

It's virtually impossible to stop a Charging Order but, if the house is in joint names and the debt is not against you, the CO will only be made against your other halves "Beneficial Interest" in the Property. The Creditor cannot try to claim anything of your share if you are not part of the debt.

 

Also, in the above circumstances, all that can be registered on the Land Registry Title Deeds is a "Restriction". All this means is that a Creditor has to be notified when you sell the house but please note: IT HAS NO LEGAL POWER TO FORCE YOU TO PAY THE CREDITOR.

 

And whilst Charging Orders are virtually impossible to stop, a creditor gaining a "forced sale order" is virtually impossible to gain also. The Court have very little choice but to grant CO's but they have much wider powers to deny a "forced sale" (only 0.3% are ever granted which is why creditors don't waste money going after them)

 

Like a lot of people (and there are a lot of people) you have been led to believe by the creditor that you will lose your home if you don't pay more. So understand the type of people you are dealing with, ok! That won't happen and the only way you ever will lose your home is if you, unfortunately, can't pay any secured loans against the property (ie the mortgage)

 

Have a read on "Charging Orders the Myth" on the moneysavingexperts website as it explain a few things that will, hopefully, put your mind at rest.

[cymruambyth]

Sorry i have to disagree about being impossible to stop COs. Even if the judgement is forthwith, an instalment order can be applied for and if this is granted before any Interim Charging Orders are made then the defence of Mercantile Credit v Ellis can be used.

I have successfully overturned an ICO using this.

[shazzyball]

thanks for the help, my other question is , can the creditor demand my hubby show all financial information, mortgage balances, bank details etc?

[cymruambyth]

I believe only a court can demand this information. They only have the financial details of the debtor, not their partner.

[Cadbury1879]

Hi

I have been through the procedure and is a total disgrace IMO. However, CYM is correct as he defeated a C/O , Eggboxy is correct also as the creditor is putting pressure on you through a fraud.

The chances of losing your home is virtualy nil, and a restriction offers no obligation to pay when you sell.

I'm very much looking forward to selling my house & not paying the C/o creditor. I'm not looking to avoid debt, but I'm so angry about the process.We offered over 60%of our contractural payment, to no avail.

To put in to context I would defend, defend.Offer a payment if neccesary within your means,

Do not offer more in the false hope this willl make a difference to the creditor.

In our case, my oh has a C/o, it hasn't made that much difference in truth for 4 years so don't worry to much.

If I can help in any way let me Know.

All the best

Cad

[eggboxy1]

cymruambyth

 

I did say "virtually" impossible stop and I'm certainly not advocating people giving up attempting to try and stop a CO. I'm just reflecting the stats on how many people actually succeed (but great that you did and you should post up or link to how you succeeded stopping the CO to help others defending)

 

Cadbury 1879, however, exposes the greed and mentality of these type of creditors; so don't feel obliged to pay anything to these people who obtain a CO. Once they take this route my opinion is that they limit their bargaining power on getting future repayments from you. They are not going to get an Order for Sale so what else are they going to do?

[cymruambyth]

As requested the link to my thread which includes the defence that I used, post 22. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?299564-Yet-Another-Charging-Order-Thread!-***WON***-ICO-removed***

Edited June 24, 2011 by cymruambyth

[shazzyball]

Hi Cadbury,

 

So am i right in thinking that the creditors solicitors / agents who are attending the court for questioning before a district judge are not entitled to have financial details of myself ?. What about our joint mortgages ? Her bank account etc?

 

They also have asked for a valuation of our home together with statements from the mortgages yet it appears they already have a restriction (notice from Land Registry) The court have stated the C/O is Final yet the solicitors want him to attend a meeting for questioning and again he will be charged for that.

 

Thank you in advance you all have been a great help, hubby feels a lot more confident to attend knowing we have you guys behind us.

 

We will keep posting threads to keep you all informed

[shazzyball]

Hi again,

 

Thought i would contact land registry to enquire if indeed a restriction has been placed on the register and it was entered in october 2010, interestngly i was advised as to another charge by black horse back in 2008, it is an "equitable charge" on the property not restricted to my husbands name as he was the one who took out the loan. Is this right? The debt has been passed to "hillesden securities Ltd formally Black Horse ltd" ???? Can we do anything about this?

[eggboxy1]

Hi shazzyball

 

An Equitable Charge is usually an indication that a secured loan has been taken out (either more borrowing on the mortgage or a loan secured against your property)

 

Also, while I'm no expert on this, I'm pretty certain a lender would require both parties signatures for a secured loan?

 

Do you know if the Blackhorse loan your other half took out was a secured loan?

 

As regards the information you are being asked for you do not have to supply anything. However, I would suggest you ask them for why they want the information to see what they are up to?

Edited June 24, 2011 by eggboxy1

[eggboxy1]

cymruambyth

 

I'm glad you managed to avert your CO and it should empower people in a similar position to your self. However, the CO's that I was talking about that are virtually impossible to stop is where the debtor simply cannot afford anything but a token repayment.

 

Many DJ's now won't accept token repayments from debtor's and give impossible monthly amounts to be paid in the Installment Order. As soon as the first payment is defaulted the Creditor moves for a CO; it's these that are virtually impossible to stop.

 

You were correct in successfully applying Mercantile v Ellis to your particular case and I note you state you had a DJ who knew the relevant Law in this area. Sadly, as many, many others will attest on CAG most DJ's have a fairly poor understanding of the CCA and its pot luck who you get.

[cymruambyth]

cymruambyth

 

 

 

You were correct in successfully applying Mercantile v Ellis to your particular case and I note you state you had a DJ who knew the relevant Law in this area. Sadly, as many, many others will attest on CAG most DJ's have a fairly poor understanding of the CCA and its pot luck who you get.

 

The lack of knowledge of the CCA was reason that I had to defend a CO application!

 

I am going to take over 20 years to repay.

[shazzyball]

Dear Eggbox,

 

The loan was unsecured and only in his name with black horse, then we get a letter from hillesden claiming to be the former black horse claiming he owes 11k.

 

The letters from hillesden only state my husbands name, at no time did he sign for a secured loan.

 

With regards the information, he has a list of things they want to see, mortgage statements, balances etc, as the mortgage lenders refused to give any details, income/expanditure, tax returns, you name it. If they have a "restriction" then surely they shaould be satisfied with that. As it is only his debt then anything to do with me is nothing to do with them, am i right?

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

If you are 100% sure the loan was not secured and also only in your Husband's name; then you need to contact the Land Registry and object on those grounds as it shouldn't have been registered. They will then have to inform you how (or why) it has happened and you can take it from there once you get the info.

 

Also, you need to clarify if Hillsdens (who are a debt collection company) have bought the debt of Blackhorse or are only acting on their half. If Hillsdens say they own the debt they need to validate that fact by providing a letter of assignment from BH.

 

Understand, though, that a creditor gaining a Charging Order has not gained definite security for it's debt! It has merely secured a Court Judgement of that debt. That is why it is still chasing as it hasn't got any real guarantee from the CO of getting any money back. That is why they are still trying to push for a payment off you.

 

However, as I have said more than once on here; my feeling is that once a Creditor goes to these lengths he is a busted flush. Given the "Order for Sale" is a no go, and given you also say you are nearly in negative equity anyway, there is absolutely nothing they can do now?

 

Don't underestimate how low these people will go to put the frighteners on you, however, to pay up and I know it's strange when it first starts to happen. But you can ignore their demands and threats as they carry no weight and once they understand they are being ignored you will see how little they can do now.

[Ganymede]

Hi shazzyball

 

An Equitable Charge is usually an indication that a secured loan has been taken out (either more borrowing on the mortgage or a loan secured against your property)

 

Also, while I'm no expert on this, I'm pretty certain a lender would require both parties signatures for a secured loan?

 

Do you know if the Blackhorse loan your other half took out was a secured loan?

 

As regards the information you are being asked for you do not have to supply anything. However, I would suggest you ask them for why they want the information to see what they are up to?

 

 

I hope you don't mind if I correct you on a few things as I've seen a lot of similar posts and thought I'd help out and clear up the position.

 

If a Claimant enforces a CCJ by way of a Charging Order he can register that Charging Order against a persons property in one of two ways, either a Restriction or an Equitable Charge.

 

If there is more than one home owner registered on the title and the debt in is one home owners name then the Charging Order can only be registered as a Restriction.

 

If the CCJ, and subsequent Charging Order, is in both homeowners names (ie it was a joint unsecured loan or overdraft etc) then the Charging Order can be registered as an Equitable Charge. This is a much more powerful way of registering the Charging Order as the debt gets priority and must be paid when transferring the property.

 

An Equitable Charge has nothing to do with a secured loan or mortgage etc and is simply one of two ways of registering a Charging Order.

 

Hope this helps.

[Cadbury1879]

Hi Shaz,

I echo all the points mentioned by cym & egg.

In reply to questions I can only give you what happened in our case. After my oh received a CCJ . We attended a hearing to defend the C/o and have a redermination of our forthwith order, to pay instalments.

I had already given the creditor a i&e which I had from National Debtline. I also took with me bank statements,wage slips etc.I DID NOT supply these to the creditor prior to the hearing. I definitely didn't supply mortgage statement. Valuations no!!!!!

The hearing lasted perhaps 10-15 mins and we lost, so received a restriction.Judge asked how much can you afford to pay stated an amount, less than out previous offer

End of case . Pay that to this day. No asking for i&e , proof of anything.Creditors legal person argued over the amount of time to pay the debt, judge ignored her.

That's it. Each judge is different, and times may have changed this was 4 years ago.

Hope it helps though.

Regards

Cad

[shazzyball]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the information, i will not supply valuations or other details as requested by the solicitors for the creditor. For the moment we will concentrate on the charging order/ interview on the 30th, once we have dealt with that then we will get on to black horse/hillesden. Many many thanks all of you for your support in this unfamiliar matter.