Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Restriction in propriety register jointly owned property


olgaand
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3029 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello

 

Many thanks for reading this- kindly appreciated.

 

I jointly own a property with my ex-husband.

 

We had a NRAM together mortgage with the unsecured loan,

I went into IVA once we split up and he is now solely responsible for the remainder of the unsecured debt.

 

 

As he ignored paying towards this debt (any debts really!)

NRAM took him to Court and the following restriction has been entered in the proprietorship register

in the Land Registry document:

 

"No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his

conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to NRAM being the person with the benefit of interim charging order on the beneficial interest of Mr... (my ex-husband) made by the [name of court] on [date] [Court

reference…]."

 

I put the property on the market after being assured by my conveyancer that the restriction can be easily removed.

Close to the exchange of contracts my solicitor suggested that she can't give undertaking to my buyer that the restriction will be removed as NRAM are not willing to remove the charge

- please see the correspondence received from NRAM attached.

 

 

The deal fell through partly because of this and partly because my ex stopped corresponding and signing paperwork.

He is not corresponding with NRAM either.

I will have to go back to Court to ask the Court to sign property sale documents on my ex's behalf I gather...

 

My question is whether I can sell the property?

How can this restriction be removed?

Is there any recommendations for the conveyancing solicitors who are experts in this matter and are prepared to give the undertaking so I can sell and move on with my life?

Or is there any other solution to this please?

 

I would so much appreciate some help with this please.

 

Thank you.

NRAM letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Many thanks for reading this- kindly appreciated.

 

I jointly own a property with my ex-husband.

 

We had a NRAM together mortgage with the unsecured loan, I went into IVA once we split up and he is now solely responsible for the remainder of the unsecured debt. As he ignored paying towards this debt (any debts really!) NRAM took him to Court and the following restriction has been entered in the proprietorship register in the Land Registry document:

 

"No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his

conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to NRAM being the person with the benefit of interim charging order on the beneficial interest of Mr... (my ex-husband) made by the [name of court] on [date] [Court

reference…]."

 

I put the property on the market after being assured by my conveyancer that the restriction can be easily removed. Close to the exchange of contracts my solicitor suggested that she can't give undertaking to my buyer that the restriction will be removed as NRAM are not willing to remove the charge- please see the correspondence received from NRAM attached. The deal fell through partly because of this and partly because my ex stopped corresponding and signing paperwork. He is not corresponding with NRAM either. I will have to go back to Court to ask the Court to sign property sale documents on my ex's behalf I gather...

 

My question is whether I can sell the property? How can this restriction be removed? Is there any recommendations for the conveyancing solicitors who are experts in this matter and are prepared to give the undertaking so I can sell and move on with my life? Or is there any other solution to this please?

 

I would so much appreciate some help with this please.

 

Thank you.

 

If the proceeds of sale are sufficient to discharge BOTH charges : no reason for your solicitor to not agree to give the undertaking to pay off both charges. They won't want to give the actual undertaking until completion as otherwise they are committing to pay it off when the sale could still fall through ........

 

Otherwise : a bridging loan?. Hazardous if the sale then fell through and you couldn't pay it off, so take full independent advice before pursuing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read that pointed link in post 2

 

 

if your brief is cutehe should know you don't have to tell anyone or settle it if you sell...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read that pointed link in post 2

 

 

if your brief is cutehe should know you don't have to tell anyone or settle it if you sell...

 

Thank you for the advice.

 

My solicitor could not give undertaking because NRAM stated that they were not going to remove the charge as per my letter attached.

 

 

I think they deliberately trying to confuse conveyancing solicitor

- they are not stating that they won't remove the restriction against my ex's interest in the property.

Surely my human rights are affected if I can't move because of my ex's debt?

 

As my ex is not signing any documents any more

I need to go to Court to force the sale

but Court can't make the decision with regards to where my ex's share of profit goes

so it will need to sit with the solicitor until he responds I gather.

 

 

. So the debt relevant to the restriction cannot be paid off with his share as he needs to agree to this.

 

Can anyone advise which conveyancing solicitor is likely to understand the issue please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a Restriction?

 

A restriction is an entry made in the Proprietorship register of the title to freehold property, which restricts what dispositions (sales, mortgages, gifts etc) can be registered against the title. It is registered using form RX1 and removed with form RX4. A restriction can be used to protect any number of interests, and there are many standard forms. The full list can be found in Land Registry Practice Guide 19 at section 10.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notices-restrictions-and-the-protection-of-third-party-interests-in-the-register/practice-guide-19-notices-restrictions-and-the-protection-of-third-party-interests-in-the-register

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the advice.

 

My solicitor could not give undertaking because NRAM stated that they were not going to remove the charge as per my letter attached.

 

 

I think they deliberately trying to confuse conveyancing solicitor

- they are not stating that they won't remove the restriction against my ex's interest in the property.

Surely my human rights are affected if I can't move because of my ex's debt?

 

As my ex is not signing any documents any more

I need to go to Court to force the sale

but Court can't make the decision with regards to where my ex's share of profit goes

so it will need to sit with the solicitor until he responds I gather.

 

 

. So the debt relevant to the restriction cannot be paid off with his share as he needs to agree to this.

 

Can anyone advise which conveyancing solicitor is likely to understand the issue please?

 

If the buyer is asking for an undertaking that the Restriction will be discharged upon completion is it not something most solicitors will agree to.

 

An undertaking is a very serious matter for a solicitor in the legal world and not to be agreed to lightly.

 

If the buyer won't agree unless an undertaking is given then you may in stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...