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

[SuperVillain]

Look at it this way - if the house is worth nothing, then selling it would generate nothing - how would the water company get their money back?

[chiefmegawatty]

Hello again.

 

Would you mind typing up the water company letter minus any personal details please?

 

I think it would help us to advise you.

 

HB

 

My flat bed scanner won't work with this computer so here goes as I copy type my letter from Bristol & Wessex Water.

 

Dear Mr Smith and Mrs Smith,

 

We have a charging order secured against your property.

The charge order prevents you from re-mortgaging, taking out a secured loan or selling the property.

If you pay in full we will remove the restriction.

We may take further enforcement action if you do not pay.

Please contact us to arrange payment.

 

Yours, Sincerely, xxxx

 

A payment slip is attached to the bottom of the letter for payment of the full amount.

I don't know why they addressed the letter to Mr & Mrs because the CCJ is in my name only.

Also I have a charge order and not a restriction because the house is in my name only.

The water company seem to have their legal wires crossed.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[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.

[Ganymede]

As you have been told several times

 

 

you can sell your house whenever you want,

 

 

you just need to pay the water company first from the proceeds before you can have the rest of the money.

 

The debt is joint and several so you are both responsible for the full amount until the debt is repaid.

[chiefmegawatty]

OK thanks for your advice.

 

I therefore assume that the water company stating that the charge order prevents me selling my house is a lie.

 

You say that the debt is joint however, if I offer to pay half the debt the water company won't accept it because the CCJ is in my name only.

I therefore assume that the debt isn't joint.

 

I asked the water company how they would recover the debt if my house was sold due to a divorce.

 

They said that the charge order debt would be taken from my half of the proceeds as the CCJ was in my name only.

 

I therefore don't understand how this can be a joint debt.

[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.

[dx100uk]

its a joint debt because you lived there too

just like CTAX electricity / gas is.

 

you were a couple.

 

so any of the util companies can go after either or both partners.

 

and get a CCJ against either one of you.

 

how many more times do you need telling these things?

 

dx

[chiefmegawatty]

As both of us lived here wouldn't it be more logical to split the debt 50/50?

[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.

[chiefmegawatty]

OK thanks.

 

Therefore the courts persue the partner with no income rather than persue the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume again that the courts are trying to make people homeless when there is a much simpler and faster way to recover the money

by placing the CCJ on the sole house earner and then applying for an attachment to earnings.

 

If the water company had done that, they would have been paid back by now.

 

If I was the water company and a county court judge I would have placed the debt on the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume that county court judges think that people with no income are getting more income than people with full time jobs.

 

I think that my wife's £26,000 salary per year is greater than zero income.

 

However the courts seem to disagree with my simple logic.

 

Since when was 26,000 less than zero? Any ideas?

[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.

[Ganymede]

OK thanks.

 

Therefore the courts persue the partner with no income rather than persue the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume again that the courts are trying to make people homeless

when there is a much simpler and faster way to recover the money

by placing the CCJ on the sole house earner and then applying for an attachment to earnings.

 

If the water company had done that, they would have been paid back by now.

 

If I was the water company and a county court judge I would have placed the debt on the partner with a full time job.

 

I therefore assume that county court judges think that people with no income are getting more income than people with full time jobs.

 

I think that my wife's £26,000 salary per year is greater than zero income.

 

However the courts seem to disagree with my simple logic.

 

Since when was 26,000 less than zero? Any ideas?

 

 

Firstly the Court can only deal with the claim in front of it. They cannot decide that another person should be sued because they have more money than you. The Court is not trying to make you homeless.

 

And secondly as Steam said the water company has no clue how much you earn.

 

The water company can sue one or both of you for part of or all of the debt as it is 'joint and several.'

[chiefmegawatty]

When this debt came to light my wife wrote to the water company asking them to leave me out of the dispute

because she was employed and I was unemployed with no income.

 

Therefore the water company knew full well which occupant was employed and which occupant had no income.

 

I therefore still think that the water company plonked the debt on my house to try to make me homeless knowing that I had zero income at the time.

 

I have just received another letter from the water company stating that they plan to take enforcement action against me to recover the debt.

 

Oh well, goodbye house, hello tax payer who is going to keep me in social rented housing until I die.

[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.

[chiefmegawatty]

Hi Steampowered, thanks for your reply.

 

My wife transferred the water and sewerage account into her name back in 2006

 

which I why I consider her responsible for the debt or at least half of it.

 

I found out that she asked the water company to leave me out of it from transcripts of her emails to the water company.

 

The water company sent me these transcripts just before applying for the charge order.

 

The water company then transferred the water account into my name and then took me to court leaving my wife out of it.

 

There are no repayment conditions set on the CCJ or on the charge order.

 

Initially the water company said that they would not be looking for any payments to satisfy the debt

and would wait for the property to be sold my natural means.

 

A year later they are threatening me with further enforcement action unless I pay the debt in full.

 

Another year later I get the same threats from the water company but nothing actually happens regarding enforcement.

 

Would the water company easily get an order for sale if I asked them and the court to do so?

 

I know that sounds like a mad question but there are good logical and financial reasons why I ask the question.

[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.

[chiefmegawatty]

Hi Steampowered, thanks for replying to my posting.

 

I am living on a very small private pension so I cannot afford any instalments to clear this debt.

 

Assuming that the water company mean business with their threats of enforcement,

 

I wish they would just get on with it, sell my house and relieve me from the continuous worry.

 

Should they apply for an order for sale and fail to have it granted,

 

I will be very angry with them for issuing empty threats against me.

[chiefmegawatty]

Joint and several means that a money trustworthy person can get a CCJ whilst the money non-trustworthy person doesn't get a CCJ.

 

The trustworthy person who ownes the house is then legally considered to be a dodgy person with a very low credit rating,

even though he bought the house and ownes it outright with a perfect mortgage repayment history.

 

The law is therefore completely MAD.

 

I have a charge order on my house and a CCJ due to the years when I wasn't earning.

 

My wife had a full time job but the law expects me to pay a bill when I had no income?

 

How the hell do the courts expect me to pay bills when I have no income? Any ideas?

 

I am of the impression that courts think that there is blood in stones.

 

Well I can assure the courts and the advisors on this site that there is no blood in stones.

[SuperVillain]

The law is therefore completely MAD. I have a charge order on my house and a CCJ due to the years when I wasn't earning. My wife had a full time job but the law expects me to pay a bill when I had no income?

How the hell do the courts expect me to pay bills when I have no income? Any ideas?

I am of the impression that courts think that there is blood in stones. Well I can assure the courts and the advisors on this site that there is no blood in stones.

 

The Court really isn't concerned about your ability to pay. Only whether or not you owe the money. You do and that's why you have a Judgment against you.

 

Your ability to pay is a secondary issue for the Judgment Creditor to deal with.

[chiefmegawatty]

I have some valuable posessions I could sell to raise the cash to pay off my CCJ.

 

If I do this then the CCJ will be marked as satisfied on my credit report.

 

OK no problem however,

the charge order is for an amount of money which is £200 greater than the CCJ

due to court costs incurrred by the creditor obtaining the charge order against me.

 

I therefore assume that I would end up with a satisfied CCJ and a charge order for £200.

 

However,

I understand that you can't have a charge order for less than £1000 since this Government set the threshold sometime last year.

 

Therefore if I can raise the funds to pay off the CCJ,

 

what happens to the charge order?

[chiefmegawatty]

I have discovered from my CRA that paying off a CCJ that has no repayment conditions attached is pointless.

 

Apparently a satisfied CCJ causes equivalent damage to your CRA report as an unsatisfied CCJ.

 

I therefore recommend that any person with a CCJ without repayment conditions

should pay the debt when the CCJ is six years old.

 

The law insists that a debtor must have a destroyed credit record for six years

irrespective of paying the debt early so I say make the creditor wait six years for their money.

 

Personally, I think that a satisfied CCJ should not have a negative effect on a CRA report

but sadly the law thinks differently.

[renegadeimp]

Because with an unsatisfied one, the claimant can take enforcement action as and when they desire, providing they have the correct legal paperwork to enforce the debt.

[ims21]

A very odd and, I might say, misguided statement from the OP here.

 

For a money judgement the court would order a "forthwith" judgement or a time to pay order as I understand it.

 

It can be a dangerous route to take if the order of the court is not adhered to.

 

Enforcement action, charging orders, orders for sale etc can follow if the court's order is not taken on board.

[chiefmegawatty]

OK I understand, so why don't creditors take any enforcement action when they have the legal freedom to do so?

There is no point in securing a CCJ with no intention to enforce it.

[ims21]

OK I understand, so why don't creditors take any enforcement action when they have the legal freedom to do so?

There is no point in securing a CCJ with no intention to enforce it.

 

Some do and some don't. You would have to ask them for their underlying reasoning.

 

Restons, one of the lowest of the low legal outfits, for example do follow up and go for charging orders and given half a chance will attempt an order for sale.

 

Bear in mind that if there has been no attempt to enforce a CCJ for six years then it is more difficult for a claimant to enforce after that time as the courts would want to know why they haven't acted sooner.