Bristol and Wessex Water & Charging order, they say they want paying now..

[steampowered]

It is unlikely that anyone has searched the land registry by name. I doubt anyone knows about this piece of land. Its actually very difficult to search the land registry to find out what property people own without a court order specifically authorising the search. Please refer to http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/public/can-i-search-against-a-persons-name-to-find-out-what-properties-they-own.

 

The judge will not have done any searches. The judge's job is just to decide the application. He would have had no idea you had other land. If you would have preferred them to get a CO over the land instead of your house, you could have offered this during the legal proceedings.

 

I doubt the water company know either. As the land is vacant, the water company would have no problem getting an order for sale if it knows where the land is !!.

[steampowered]

Thank you steampowered for your reply. Very interesting indeed. I therefore assume that my water supplier searched the land registry using my home address to see if I owned the property. When they discovered that I owned my house, they put the debt in my name even though the water account was in my wife's name, then applied to the court for a CCJ against me and then a charge order. I do wonder why the water supplier didn't obtain a CCJ against my wife because she was the only earner at the time. They could then apply for an attachment to earnings against my wife and recovered the debt by now. Instead they seem to be happy to wait years for their money. Very strange in my opinion. I did phone my water supply company and asked them why they took the action against me rather than against my wife. They said that they weren't prepared to discuss this any further.

 

Yes, it would have been easy for them to search the land registry if they knew your address. It is easy to do searches by address but not by name.

 

Yes that does sound strange that they got the CCJ against you rather than your wife. But I guess we are where we are. If you want to get rid of the charging order that is relatively simple to do once the debt has been paid.

[steampowered]

The county court judge would not have known that your wife is the earner. He won't have known anything about your family situation unless you specifically told him. Perhaps it is surprising to some people, but please be aware judges do not have access to any more personal information about you than a random member of the public. It doesn't really matter anyway - the courts are there to decide whether you owe money, not on your marital dispute or whether you have any income.

[steampowered]

I don't understand why you aren't able to sell the house. As far as I'm aware a charging order does not stop you from selling. If you want to sell then go ahead and approach estate agents.

 

You are incorrect to state that the water company own the house. If you sell the house, the £1800 or so will be paid to the water company and the remainder will be paid to you.

 

You are incorrect to think that the order for sale would affect divorce proceedings. In long marriages, the court will start from the position that each side gets 50% of marital assets, subject to ensuring that the basic needs of both parties are met. This can be achieved in whatever way is most appropriate depending on the individual circumstances. It could mean a 50% share in the marital home, it could mean the house is sold and the money divided, or it could mean something else entirely. If you are forced to sell the house by the water company the wife could simply ask for 50% of the money. You can't really get around this.

 

I don't see how you can be 'accused' of selling the house with 'intent to deprive'. The accusation doesn't mean anything. The concept of 'intent' is not really relevant in civil cases and it would only be criminal if you moved the money outside the UK to try to stop her from getting anything. I think you need you need to think about the division of marital assets between you and your wife and the charging order from the water company as separate issues.

 

Bankruptcy is not appropriate here. Even if you do go bankrupt and it is discharged after 1 year, the CCJ would remain on your credit record for the full 6 years. Your credit record would also show a bankruptcy for 6 years ... which is worse than just having CCJs. Furthermore, the CCJs would not simply get 'wiped away' - the water company would still get paid because it has a charging order.

 

It sounds unlikely that the court would order a sale of the house over a debt of £1800. Your best option is to send an income & expenditure statement to the water company and seek to agree a repayment plan, even if you are only able to make very small repayments. You can approach an organisation like https://www.nationaldebtline.org for help.

 

I don't understand why you think this is entirely your wife's debt when you are the sole owner of the house. If you are the owner surely water usage is your responsibility and presumably you were using the water.

[steampowered]

Surely if the water company force the sale of my house my wife would know nothing about it because she hasn't registered an interest in the property at the land registry. Therefore a forced or unforced sale would only require my signature on the sale contract agreement. I cant possibly see why my wife's signature would be required under these conditions.

Agreed. Your wife's signature would not be required to sell the house. She has no ability to stop it from being sold. My point is that if she asks for 50% of your assets as part of sorting out the divorce, you'd need to explain what happened to the house as that is your main asset.

 

 

Also you imply that my wife ownes half the house but me being the sole owner is responsible for all the debt. Surely if she ownes half the house she must therefore own half the debt. You can't own half of something and not own half of the same thing simultaneously. You either own half or you don't.

I don't think your wife owns half the house. It sounds like you are the sole registered owner and therefore (I assume?) liable for the water bill. Assuming the house is a marital asset, she can ask the court to allocate her some of the marital assets accordingly. The court has a general power to reallocate marital property on divorce ... but she wouldn't actually own anything until the court makes an order or you both reach an agreement.

[steampowered]

When a debt is 'joint and several', that means the entire debt can be recovered from either party.

 

 

The creditor can pursue either party for the full amount.

 

 

It would then be up to the person who paid the full amount to seek a contribution from the other person

- but this does not concern the creditor.

 

 

The creditor would be entitled to pursue only one party for the full amount and obtain a CCJ against them only.

The creditor could pursue both parties but does not have to.

 

The way it would work on a sale is like this.

A charging order is mentioned on the land registry.

 

 

The buyer would insist on the charging order being discharged as part of the sale.

 

 

Accordingly your solicitor/conveyancer would undertake to use the sale proceeds to pay off the charging order.

You would then get the remainder.

[steampowered]

Joint and several means they can pursue either. They don't have to pursue each person for 50% of the debt.

 

 

Also bear in mind the utilities company, I assume, will have no idea who is actually living in the property from time to time. They only know what they are told and potentially who is registered on the land registry.

[steampowered]

The water company have no idea what you earn or what your partner earns, neither did the county court judge.

 

The water company will simply pursue the person who is liable to pay the bill according to their records.

 

As the home owner you need to accept responsibility for things like this.

 

Leaving the outstanding debt as a charging order on the property is probably the best solution.

[steampowered]

Water companies generally don't go around making people homeless for the sake of it.

 

Most likely they simply go against the registered owner of the property.

 

If you had always been the person responsible for paying water bills they are unlikely to take your wife's word that she is liable.

 

To be honest I doubt they made a proper record of the letter

- I imagine their debt collection arm just follows the details registered in their system.

 

The responsible thing would be to contact the water company to inform them of your financial circumstances and set up a payment plan.

 

Alternatively, given that your wife wants them to leave you out of the dispute, she can pay the arrears.

 

Frankly this water bill is your responsibility and you need to sort it out

- the fact that someone else might also be responsible does not absolve you.

 

It sounds unlikely that there would be an order that your house is sold over a relatively small debt like this.

 

As you have been told already, an order for sale is MUCH more difficult to obtain than a charging order.

 

Particularly if you are making an effort to deal with the debt.

 

You might like to peruse the repossessions forum at

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?197-Home-Repossessions.

[steampowered]

Don't worry, its a very reasonable question.

 

The basic answer is that it is very difficult to get an order for sale,

especially for a relatively small debt like this.

 

I don't think they can insist on immediate full payment if you are unable to do so.

 

Are you able to make any payments at all towards this?

 

If so, and if they will not agree instalments,

 

I believe you can apply to the court to set monthly instalments using form N245

(http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n245-eng.pdf).

 

There is a fee charged for this though you may be exempt from paying court fees.

[steampowered]

You haven't thought this through. The course of action you are proposing is not wise. Please think rationally about this and put your own needs above any futile attempt to get revenge on the utility company. You need to understand a few points:

 

It is not the charging order that is affecting your ability to get credit/employment. It is the CCJ. It is the CCJ which goes on your credit record and it will stay there for 6 years regardless of what happens with the charging order. After 6 years the CCJ will drop off your record. An order for sale does not help you because it would not clean your credit record.

 

You should not worry about the prospect of having a charging order for decades. It honestly does not matter. Lots of people have charging orders against their property for a very long period of time. It simply means the creditor will get paid when the house is sold which could be decades from now. Having a charging order which sits there and does nothing is certainly much less stressful than having to find a new place to live with no money.

 

Asking for an order for sale is foolish. The reality is that if they do the sale, the house will probably be auctioned and you are unlikely to get the best possible price. If an order for sale is necessary you will become liable for their legal fees in addition to the debt. If you have decided to sell your house in order to pay back this debt, then you will achieve a better price through a private sale by marketing the house for sale through an estate agent in the normal way.

 

I am not sure on this point, but if it looks like you asked for the order for sale, I wonder if you would be classed as 'voluntary homeless'. If you fit into this category the local council will not help home you and they will not give you a council house (even if one is available in your area, which is very unlikely - due to housing shortages people are being kept in B&Bs for months). You should get out of your head any idea that the council will quickly find you a home and let you have a cushy life on benefits.

 

Personally, I think you are overreacting. You need to learn to accept that (1) you have a debt to this company, (2) you cannot afford the debt, (3) the debt is secured by a charging order and (4) the utility company will probably move you onto a pre-payment meter. There is nothing wrong with that and hundreds of thousands of people are in the same situation. They all manage to get on with their lives without trying to make themselves homeless. The most likely outcome is that the charging order will just sit there doing nothing, with the utility company getting paid when you decide to sell the house or when you pass away.

[steampowered]

This seems to imply that paying your debts is pointless. Therefore there must be something seriously wrong with the law. How on earth can a paid debt be as serious as an unpaid debt? Why does the law discourage you from paying your debts?

It is a decision made by credit reference agencies. If a CCJ is awarded against you, the credit reference agencies will record that for 6 years (though it falls off if paid within the first 28 days). If you pay the debt after 28 days it will be marked 'satisfied', which is better than 'unsatisfied' I suppose, but the CCJ will still remain on your record.

OK so why does my water supplier threaten me with enforcement if they have no intention to carry it out? There are no repayment terms on the CCJ or the charge order. Surely if my water supplier wait for decades for their money it won't be worth much in many decades.

Its pretty common for people to be threatened with enforcement, which can mean many things. The reality is that they are very unlikely to get an order for sale over a small amount. The amount will however be accruing interest at the rate of 8%.

The house is owned outright and in my name only. My wife left me over two years ago. I had a session with a solicitor regarding selling my house. The solicitor said that if I sell my house I will be in big trouble for selling my house with intention to deprive my absent wife of her half of the capital. However, if the water supplier force sell my house I cannot be held responsible for selling it to deprive my wife of her half. The blame would fall upon the water supplier and the court for ordering a sale without notifying my wife beforehand. The house is now worth about 250K and it will be interesting to see if the court order a sale for a debt of around £1,900.

I'm not sure about that advice. I don't think its correct to say that there is any issue with selling the house. The point is that under the normal allocation of assets on divorce your wife would end up with half, so if it was sold she would be able to claim half the proceeds. There would only be an issue if you tried to hide the proceeds in an offshore bank account or something like that. Honestly I don't think you should be too concerned about this aspect. Selling the house because you need to pay off a debt is a perfectly justifiable position.

 

However I still take the view that a sale of your house would be an overreaction to a relatively small debt. It sounds like being in debt is a new experience for you and you are struggling to cope. You should take comfort from the fact that many hundreds of thousands people are in the same position, some through no fault of their own. I would suggest getting in touch with nationaldebtline to discuss your options.

I worked in well paid employment for 30 years, bought my house outright and have never claimed any benefits. However, I now seem to be punished by the system for doing so. If I had lived a cushy life on benefits I couldn't possibly have a charge order because I wouldn't own any property. Now if the court grant an order for sale I cannot see how requesting this can go against me. Orders for sale are granted to the creditor on application irrespective of the debtors opinion.

Requesting an order for sale is unwise because (1) you'll be liable for the legal costs caused by the application and (2) you won't be in control of the sale process, hence the house is likely to be sold for a lower price than you would be able to achieve if you sold the house through an estate agent in the normal way.

[steampowered]

I think you should just pay them the 1 a month they are looking for.

 

If you want to sell the house, you are still free to do so. There is no real reason why you can't sell property while divorce proceedings are going on. The fundamental point is that if you did sell, the ex-wife would generally be able to get half the sale proceeds. Most divorce disputes are exactly the opposite of your situation: generally, the partner who is left wants the house to be sold so that they can get their money, instead of the money sitting as equity in someone else's house which is totally useless to them. Of course the most conservative approach would be to agree what should happen with the wife's solicitor.

[steampowered]

Hi Steampowered and thanks for your reply. Maybe paying £1 per month would prevent my water supplier from applying for an order for sale however. they have stated that they won't do that anyway. Therefore what's the point of paying any instalments?

Stops them chasing you further.

 

My absent wife hasn't registered an interest on the land registry regarding the house

so I could legally sell it and run away with all the money. If I were to do this I assume I would have to hide all the money in cash so there would be no trace as to it's location. Why my wife hasn't registered her interest on the land registry I just don't know. A very strange an unusual situation indeed.

This is the bit that could get you into trouble if she goes ahead with asking the court to make an order about your respective assets. Not the actual selling of the house, the hiding of the money.

[steampowered]

Yes indeed and should that happen I could claim that I had spent all the money on wine, women and song.

No court can freeze cash assets if the location of the cash is unknown. I know that a court can freeze a bank account when assets are in the account. However if the account contains little or no money the court can't really do anything.

Worst case scenario is that the court makes an order for you to disclose information about where the money went, and then jails you for contempt of court when you fail to comply.

[steampowered]

The court has to prove I am guilty and not my job to prove my innocence. Saying I spent the money on wine, women and song is disclosing where the money went. The court would then have to prove that I was hiding the money. How could the court prove I was hiding money when they have no evidence at all?

You'd have to disclose bank statements and so on. The English legal system has very strong tools to require disclosure of evidence before any decision is made about guilt.