Restriction K's

[eggboxy1]

Hi Ganymede

 

I never mind anybody correcting me if I'm wrong but on this I'm not.

 

If you read what shazzyball has put regarding the loan from Blackhorse (on which the Equitable Charge has been made in 2008) she states it was only taken out in her Husbands name. Therefore an Equitable Charge wouldn't have been able to have been registered.

 

However, an Equitable Charge can also be registered for secured loans see here SECTION 3 "Equitable Charges"

http://www.diyconveyance.co.uk/mortgages-other-charges-registered-against-land.html

 

So something is definitely amiss here and that is why I have suggested shazzyball needs to find out "Exactly" why this has happened?

Edited June 25, 2011 by eggboxy1

[shazzyball]

Dear eggbox,

 

Thanks for the thread, interesting reading. When my husband took out the loan it was given as an unsecured loan. I will write to land registry and ask for further information as this is incorrect.

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

No problem, we are all in this together!

 

So please report back what the LR says as it helps others who come up against the same problem.

[Ganymede]

Hi Ganymede

 

I never mind anybody correcting me if I'm wrong but on this I'm not.

 

If you read what shazzyball has put regarding the loan from Blackhorse (on which the Equitable Charge has been made in 2008) she states it was only taken out in her Husbands name. Therefore an Equitable Charge wouldn't have been able to have been registered.

 

However, an Equitable Charge can also be registered for secured loans see here SECTION 3 "Equitable Charges"

http://www.diyconveyance.co.uk/mortgages-other-charges-registered-against-land.html

 

So something is definitely amiss here and that is why I have suggested shazzyball needs to find out "Exactly" why this has happened?

 

 

Thanks for the link.

 

That is true regarding a secured loan but doesn't apply in the context of registering a Charging Order.

 

In the scenario on that link there is no CCJ and the borrower agrees to the secured loan and the security and it was always the intention to secure it. That site explains what would happen if the mortgagor objects to the placing of a 2nd charge etc, but technically it can happen.

 

I do agree with you though that if the Charging Order is in one name it cannot be registered as an Equitable Charge, the OP should do some digging.

[eggboxy1]

Hi Ganymede

 

But the point is we don't know if it is regarding a Charging Order as shazzyball has said there is also a Restriction placed, too?

 

The point I was making is you shouldn't automatically assume that an Equitable Charge is only for a Charging Order (or a Secured Loan for that matter) and it's certainly wrong to state it has nothing to do with a secured loan if you aren't certain of the circumstances of why it's there? That's why clarification is required.

 

This is certainly NOT directed at shazzyball but, sadly, there are instances where people don't know that their other half has taken out a loan and added their name to it with a false signature. And there are also instances where people don't know they are signing for a secured loan either. I know, personally, people who have suffered both of the above instances.

 

I'm sure shazzyball will be able to get to the bottom of why the Equitable Charge is showing (wrongly or rightly) and put it right as she is sure on the circumstances of the loan. But she needs to be aware of all possibilities for it's existence and not just some of them.

Edited June 25, 2011 by eggboxy1

[Ganymede]

Hi Ganymede

 

But the point is we don't know if it is regarding a Charging Order as shazzyball has said there is also a Restriction placed, too?

 

The point I was making is you shouldn't automatically assume that an Equitable Charge is only for a Charging Order (or a Secured Loan for that matter) and it's certainly wrong to state it has nothing to do with a secured loan if you aren't certain of the circumstances of why it's there? That's why clarification is required.

 

This is certainly NOT directed at shazzyball but, sadly, there are instances where people don't know that their other half has taken out a loan and added their name to it with a false signature. And there are also instances where people don't know they are signing for a secured loan either. I know, personally, people who have suffered both of the above instances.

 

I'm sure shazzyball will be able to get to the bottom of why the Equitable Charge is showing (wrongly or rightly) and put it right as she is sure on the circumstances of the loan. But she needs to be aware of all possibilities for it's existence and not just some of them.

 

 

Very true and good point. I was looking at it only from a CO point of view. Was trying to help distinguish between the two methods of registering a restriction, it didn't cross my mind that there might have been a fraud involved.

 

You're right in that there may have been some fraud committed to sign up for a secured loan as the OP says she never signed for one.

 

Shazzy, what does the wording of the charge say? That would clear things up.

[seen this before]

the charging order amount is a fraction of the value of the property you can try robinson v bailey 1942 also.

[Guest]

the charging order amount is a fraction of the value of the property you can try robinson v bailey 1942 also.

 

but note in the Packman Lucas (HC) case 2010 it was said that the size of the debt in comparison factor considered in Robinson did not appear to have been a 'critical issue'? and so 'size' was not relied on.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ford
typo

[Cadbury1879]

Indeed,Ganymede, Eggboxy you've identified the issues here and once the wording is revealed we can move on to help Shazzyball.Rather strange scenario?

 

Cad

[eggboxy1]

Hi Ganymede

 

It is a strange one and I sincerely hope there is nothing fraudulent about it for shazzyball to have to deal with.

 

Let's hope so!

[shazzyball]

hi all

 

The wording from the land registry says "equitable caharge", this is all i know at the moment. My hubby took out a loan UNSECURED with black horse, he defaulted for 9k and then we get to find out that a charge, EQUITABLE CHARGE has been put on. I have searched for papers and found that aplins were involved then it went to hillesdens, this was back in 2007,

 

The entry for the charge at land registry is 2008 but the loan was taken out 2006 so i know it was not a secured loan.100% he would not of signed anything on my behalf, 100% this was not a secured loan.

 

Hope this helps you guys because i am brain dead with it all. my hubby suffered a complete breakdown as his business failed and it is my turn to be strong so he can get well, pick himself up and start again, I need him, his kids need him and his grndchildren need him, so i appreciate all your efforts and help.

 

Thanks Guys and Gals

[Ganymede]

hi all

 

The wording from the land registry says "equitable caharge", this is all i know at the moment. My hubby took out a loan UNSECURED with black horse, he defaulted for 9k and then we get to find out that a charge, EQUITABLE CHARGE has been put on. I have searched for papers and found that aplins were involved then it went to hillesdens, this was back in 2007,

 

The entry for the charge at land registry is 2008 but the loan was taken out 2006 so i know it was not a secured loan.100% he would not of signed anything on my behalf, 100% this was not a secured loan.

 

Hope this helps you guys because i am brain dead with it all. my hubby suffered a complete breakdown as his business failed and it is my turn to be strong so he can get well, pick himself up and start again, I need him, his kids need him and his grndchildren need him, so i appreciate all your efforts and help.

 

Thanks Guys and Gals

 

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Are you sure that there were no joint loans etc taken out by you both? Otherwise the Land Registry have made a mistake in allowing the Equitable Charge to be registered.

 

This may seem like a daft question as well but are you registered as an owner of the property along with your husband?

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

Nobody is accusing your other half of anything, but you do need to request copies of ALL loan documents from Black Horse to verify 1) there wasn't a secured loan and b) they didn't carry your signature. They will then provide you with the required proof you need to remove the "Equitable Charge" from the Land Registry.

 

Can I just ask when your OH defaulted on the Black horse Loan and also who your second mortgage was with?

[shazzyball]

we are both registered as joint owners on the property, The loan was made to him only.Second mortgage is with ascenden

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

Then you do need to sort out what has happened because as Ganymede says, after 2003 it isn't possible to register an Equitable Charge for a CO for a sole debt on joint property. And as you also weren't a signatory on the loan in 2006 (or any other time) then an error has been made somewhere?

 

It's fishy, too, that the Equitable Charge was placed in 2008 when the loan was taken out in 2006? However, I note you say Hillsdens became involved in 2007?

 

I'd have a closer look at this involvement if I were you as the "practices" of Debt Collection companies weren't as closely monitored by people pre recession and it may, possibly, shed some light on the matter?

[shazzyball]

my hubby had a reply from hillesdens, they say a ccj was obtained and subsequently a restriction placed on the property, the judgement was oct 2007, the restriction went on after that date 2008, I have requested all the paperwork, along with this i have asked for a settlement of 5-10% but they have dismissed this, they do know we have near negative equity.

[Cadbury1879]

Hi Shazzyball,

It seems that there is something seriously amiss with this Equitable Charge, more than likely The DCA have done this Illegally.

Perhaps, best to concentrate on one issue at a time though, to save confusion, and focus the mind.

I would sort the C/O, then move to the Equitable Charge.

All the Best

Cad

[shazzyball]

Hi cad,

 

Yes i agree, he will go on thurday,( if the courts are open due to the strike) and deal with the questioning and then move on to the other matter.

[eggboxy1]

shazzyball

 

Cadbury1879 is bang on the money as a Restriction cannot be placed without a Final Charging Order hearing of which you, personally, have to be notified of by law as a joint owner to state any objections or unfairness etc a CO may have. Did you, personally, receive anything from the Court regarding this at this time?

 

A simple phone call to the Land Registry asking how an "Equitable Charge" can have been placed (given your circumstances) may save you an awful lot of time. They will have to investigate the details passed on to them from the Court given you have proof everything was solely in your OH's name.

[Cadbury1879]

Hi cad,

 

Yes i agree, he will go on thurday,( if the courts are open due to the strike) and deal with the questioning and then move on to the other matter.

 

Perhaps you should defend, as per Cyms defence, and attend the hearing! If not try to get the best result

possible within your means. A hearing is there for all parties to state there case. If you don't! The creditor controls the scenario, which exactly what they want.

Cad

[Cadbury1879]

Perhaps you should defend, as per Cyms defence, and attend the hearing! If not try to get the best result

possible within your means. A hearing is there for all parties to state there case. If you don't! The creditor controls the scenario, which exactly what they want.

Cad

Should have said definitely shazza ,that you should attend!!

[Cadbury1879]

Hi

Hope all goes well Thursday, keep me/us updated.

Cad

[shazzyball]

Hearing went ahead despite strike action. asked questions in front of DJ, The District Judge advised that the creditor may try for a order for sale and to get some advise. They know we have a disabled son and that we have near negative equity, no order for installments made only an order to supply details of a suspended possession order on our second mortgage. They have all the other paperwork.

 

Previously my hubby made an offer of £100 per month but was rejected by the solicitors. They asked if this was still available and he told them not now as they have a restriction charge, but the dj said they would want some kind of offer.No order for installments.

 

to be honest i dont know how they are going to play this out, perhaps they will go for an order for sale. what is our next move?

[Ganymede]

Hearing went ahead despite strike action. asked questions in front of DJ, The District Judge advised that the creditor may try for a order for sale and to get some advise. They know we have a disabled son and that we have near negative equity, no order for installments made only an order to supply details of a suspended possession order on our second mortgage. They have all the other paperwork.

 

Previously my hubby made an offer of £100 per month but was rejected by the solicitors. They asked if this was still available and he told them not now as they have a restriction charge, but the dj said they would want some kind of offer.No order for installments.

 

to be honest i dont know how they are going to play this out, perhaps they will go for an order for sale. what is our next move?

 

 

 

They won't get an OFS with negative equity in the house and a disabled son.

[sequenci]

You have protection under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 which should stop a sale order in its tracks notwithstanding the negative equity aspect. If the property is jointly owned the interests in children should far outway that of charge holders.