Restriction K's

[sequenci]

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

 

A very good point.

 

At least we know some interesting facts.

 

Between Jan and March there were 313,996 money claims in the county court, of which 28,106 applications were made for charging orders. 24,006 of those orders were made final and only 122 orders for sale were made.

[gprit]

Borrowing sole name..property Joint names.

The Interim Charging Order has resulted in a simple RESTRICTION being placed by the Land Registry, which research says is basically meaningless .

I was going to contest the Final Charging Order with among other things, the fact that NatWest had not listed, let alone contacted other creditors as required under The Charging Orders Act, but I am just wondering if I do this am I opening a can of worms? Should I just enter a basic mitigation and let the Charging Order become final, leaving just the one meaningless RESTRICTION?

[Clynite]

Purely as a result of this article, I am today drafting my objections to the CO application. I am going against my sols advice! But, the contributions on this thread have given me, at least some hope. I would like to thank in particular, eggboxy1 - and all other contributors.

Rather than accept the inevitable so to speak, surely it has to be worth a shot. cymruambyth has proved that. Many thanks from a taffy for sharing with us your CO defence. It has given me some good pointers.

Sometimes, a shared positive attitude can have a dramatice effect.

 

My thanks to the Forum:-)

[Clynite]

Would there be any merit in telling the court that I have been offered a potential 'deal' before hearing takes place? Why are homeowners treated differently from tenants. If I understand correctly, this action would not be possble if I was renting accomodation. It seems disproportionate. Appreciate any feedback.

[cymruambyth]

it is disproportionate, however this is a means of trying to secure the debt so that they get money.

I just threw everything that I thought would help in to my defence.

 

South Wales rules:whoo:

[Basil Fawlty]

Having had a good read around this place and others, I thin a CO is not as bad as it seems, particularly with one alternative being bankruptcy and probably certain loss of your property. If its only a restriction, even better.

 

A question for sequenci in particular (or anyone else who knows), would a voluntary CO ever be a good option (with an agreement of no sale if payments are kept up) and could it be arranged before going to court in order to stop any court proceedings?

 

BF

[sequenci]

Good question, and yes a vol charge is often a good option in certain circumstances. You call the shots with the terms so you cna ensure interest is frozen, no orders for sale, that kinda thing. We often suggest these for the asset rich and cash poor - lots of retired people so that they don't have to consider terrible equity release schemes which will leave their children little or nothign at all.

[Basil Fawlty]

Good question, and yes a vol charge is often a good option in certain circumstances. You call the shots with the terms so you cna ensure interest is frozen, no orders for sale, that kinda thing. We often suggest these for the asset rich and cash poor - lots of retired people so that they don't have to consider terrible equity release schemes which will leave their children little or nothign at all.

 

Thanks. Are creditors normally receptive to doing this, or would they rather take it all the way to court and get a CO without any conditions being attached?

 

BF

[sequenci]

Thanks. Are creditors normally receptive to doing this, or would they rather take it all the way to court and get a CO without any conditions being attached?

 

BF

 

That's really a great question, I guess it's all down to the creditor. As you can imagine some can be a complete pain in the neck whilst others seem to be pretty reasonable. The majority of cases where a voluntary charge might be useful is for those in senior years who may now have limited income. I guess creditors know that they may not have to wait too long for their money!

[Basil Fawlty]

That's really a great question, I guess it's all down to the creditor. As you can imagine some can be a complete pain in the neck whilst others seem to be pretty reasonable. The majority of cases where a voluntary charge might be useful is for those in senior years who may now have limited income. I guess creditors know that they may not have to wait too long for their money!

 

Good point. Thanks sequenci.

 

BF

[sparklyfairy]

Great thread. Just wanted to add for those looking in if they are going to fight a charging order - take any case law that you feel *might* crop up during your hearing - it's better to take more than you need..something I wish I had when my dj agreed with MBNA/Restons could add the 8% interest to my credit card debt. My dj clearly needed to be "educated" in this area. But having said that, since I have a Restriction, it's not too much of a concern.

 

Also, I plan on putting my house on the market next spring but I think I'll make finding a clued up solicitor my priority now...thanks so much to Egg & Sequenci - all your advice gives people like me some confidence!

[Basil Fawlty]

There are cases on here and other forums whereby people have sold with a restriction and not had to pay the creditor first, so it does work as long as you find a solicitor who knows what he's doing.

 

BF

[sparklyfairy]

Basil, I hope to be another one to add to that list! I'm prepared to do all I can to find a worthy conveyancing solicitor & be armed with the fab info eggbox supplied from the Land Registry & see if they make the grade...

[Basil Fawlty]

Good luck with that sparkly, let us know how you get on.

 

BF

[eggboxy1]

Hi Sparkly!

 

I wish you well too. I've just been notified on another thread to have a look into what was termed the "Northern Rock Fiddle"?

 

Apparently NR aggressively pursued CO's and OFS when it fell into trouble and (so the contributor states) hundreds of people found a way out of their problem?

 

I'm assuming it's what we are talking about on here but anyone else heard of it?

[Gaston Grimsdyke]

Thanks. Are creditors normally receptive to doing this, or would they rather take it all the way to court and get a CO without any conditions being attached?

 

BF

 

Most creditors would be willing to make concessions in return for a voluntary charge - especially those who are only interested in taking court proceedings specifically to get a charging order. Remember that, in the case where the underlying debt is an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, if they get a judgment no further interest will accrue and therefore neither will interest be added to the charging order. Therefore it will be legitimate to propose that, if you are prepared to grant a voluntary charge, the sum charged should not be subject to interest. In fact, voluntary charges are sufficiently attractive to creditors you could even try and negotiate a lower figure.

 

It's not always easy to get voluntary charges registered though, particularly where the first mortgagee is required to give consent first (which is identified by the presence of a relevant restriction on the Land Register). Some lenders are notoriously awkward at giving that consent in which case the only option then for the creditor is a CCJ and CO.

[gprit]

My question seems to have got lost with all the advice here...anyone with any thoughts?

Borrowing sole name..property Joint names.

The Interim Charging Order has resulted in a simple RESTRICTION being placed by the Land Registry, which research says is basically meaningless .

I was going to contest the Final Charging Order with among other things, the fact that Natwest had not listed, let alone contacted other creditors as required under The Charging Orders Act, but I am just wondering if I do this am I opening a can of worms? Should I just enter a basic mitigation and let the Charging Order become final, leaving just the one meaningless RESTRICTION?

thanks

[Clynite]

eggboxy1

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1839539&highlight=charging+orders+the+myth

 

I think this is the link you are looking for.

[shazzyball]

sequenci,

 

We are based in birmingham but we will use any lawyer in any part of the country

[sequenci]

sequenci,

 

We are based in birmingham but we will use any lawyer in any part of the country

 

Have you considered these guys?

 

http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/directory/detail/birmingham-law-centre/

[eggboxy1]

My question seems to have got lost with all the advice here...anyone with any thoughts?

Borrowing sole name..property Joint names.

The Interim Charging Order has resulted in a simple RESTRICTION being placed by the Land Registry, which research says is basically meaningless .

I was going to contest the Final Charging Order with among other things, the fact that Natwest had not listed, let alone contacted other creditors as required under The Charging Orders Act, but I am just wondering if I do this am I opening a can of worms? Should I just enter a basic mitigation and let the Charging Order become final, leaving just the one meaningless RESTRICTION?

thanks

 

Other creditors don't seem to object to another creditor going for a CO and (from my experience) it's not something the Court tends to worry about too much, either, if the other creditors have been notified (so I wouldn't be too concerned about opening a can of worms.)

 

And whilst I would have to concede its an awfully long shot; the Judge may decline Natwest their CO until they have notified other creditors and they may not return to Court? (I wouldn't hold my breath but sometimes delays stop things going ahead completely?)

 

And it's always worth attending Court to put in an objection to try and limit what the creditor gets away with (eg: not getting done like Sparklyfairly did who had interest incorrectly added to her debt!)

[eggboxy1]

sequenci,

 

We are based in birmingham but we will use any lawyer in any part of the country

 

Let me know if they turn out to be any good shazzy as I'm only up the road in Wolves

[eggboxy1]

eggboxy1

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1839539&highlight=charging+orders+the+myth

 

I think this is the link you are looking for.

 

Thanks Clynite!

 

As you will see I contributed to that thread towards the end but I missed bluback's reference to NR at the beginning.

[sparklyfairy]

Thanks Clynite!

 

As you will see I contributed to that thread towards the end but I missed bluback's reference to NR at the beginning.

 

Ha! I was going to mention that to you, egg - it's a shame Bluback doesn't seem to post anymore - but it is so well explained on that thread by both of you - clarifies it all - almost thought you guys were one in the same!

[Clynite]

As a result of the case 'Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Ellis in 1987', a CO application will not be allowed if instalments have been paid, post judgement. This is as long as the instalments are a formal arrangent via court order. At least thats my understanding.

 

What if, instalments have been paid in this fashion without the formality of a court order? Can the above argument be used in principle?

Any views appreciated.