Free Civil Legal Advice??
Discussion
is there anywhere to get free legal advice on a civil matter? It's seems to be very hard to get these days, have solicitors done away with this free hour/half hour thing or is only for compassionate matters like family law. Is civil law just seen as petty unimportant stuff now. Shame as it's something a trained solicitor could probably answer in about 60 seconds.
I KNOW that qualified people have to train, and that many things are not free. However, solicitors used to offer an hour's free consultation, across the board. It was, IIRC, a government dictate. However it isn't that common nowadays. My question was, is it possible to still get free advice or not? I don't want to be given s
t about whether it's fair or not, it used to exist.
t about whether it's fair or not, it used to exist. soprano said:
You can charge the beneficial interest of the individual against whom you have a judgment.
OK, does that mean i have just made the wrong application to the land registry, or i need to have the charging orders re-drawn? As the orders currently show only his name, the land reg have told me all i can do is apply for restrictions to be put on his properties, citing the charging orders. The restriction apparently requires that he has to ask my permission to sell, however it doesn't require him to pay me anything so that would need to be some kind of agreement between him and I before I gave permission. Not sure I like that as he could just fail to honour his side and that would be that.
JustinP1 said:
I think I remember your situation now.
It's difficult either way round. The final sanction is the threat of bankruptcy.
Then, he won't be safe in the knowledge that he can hide behind claims of assets in his wife's name. The Official Receiver will look to sell one or more of the properties.
If they are on a buy to let mortgage, the minimum equity is 20% now. There will be some money there.
He may not be scared of going bankrupt, but most likely he will be, or certainly his wife will also be affected due to the joint properties. That's the best leverage you've got.
IIRC the cost is £600 in fees. If the gamble pays off, and he wants to avoid bankruptcy, putting charges on the properties and agreeing for the sale of one to pay you back before a certain date would be something that he and the wife would be forced into doing without court orders.
ETA: I was in court a couple of weeks ago and in the waiting room I overheard a heated conversation between solicitors for both sides on a bankruptcy petition which was going to be heard in 30 minutes. The potential bankrupt was making all sorts of offers of immediate payment once the inevitable happened.
In your case, your debtor risks that his and his wife properties are taken from him, his bank accounts frozen, the rent then goes to the receiver, and the properties are sold. Even if the chap is hard nosed he must realise that he will get a much better return by selling the properties himself.
Sure, I think i remember you mentioning this previously. It would indeed be the last resort. I had hoped that he had money to pay all his debts and it was just tied up in his properties, which he appears to be starting to sell. If he was doing that already and I could latch on a charging order to get a piece of that when it's being dished out to all his creditors then great. It seemed the best course of action as it was starting to happen anyway, and i didn't feel i needed to force it by threatening bankruptcy. I guess that's the root of the question, can i do something with these charging orders now they've been made, or are they useless?It's difficult either way round. The final sanction is the threat of bankruptcy.
Then, he won't be safe in the knowledge that he can hide behind claims of assets in his wife's name. The Official Receiver will look to sell one or more of the properties.
If they are on a buy to let mortgage, the minimum equity is 20% now. There will be some money there.
He may not be scared of going bankrupt, but most likely he will be, or certainly his wife will also be affected due to the joint properties. That's the best leverage you've got.
IIRC the cost is £600 in fees. If the gamble pays off, and he wants to avoid bankruptcy, putting charges on the properties and agreeing for the sale of one to pay you back before a certain date would be something that he and the wife would be forced into doing without court orders.
ETA: I was in court a couple of weeks ago and in the waiting room I overheard a heated conversation between solicitors for both sides on a bankruptcy petition which was going to be heard in 30 minutes. The potential bankrupt was making all sorts of offers of immediate payment once the inevitable happened.
In your case, your debtor risks that his and his wife properties are taken from him, his bank accounts frozen, the rent then goes to the receiver, and the properties are sold. Even if the chap is hard nosed he must realise that he will get a much better return by selling the properties himself.
soprano said:
Blown2CV said:
OK, does that mean i have just made the wrong application to the land registry, or i need to have the charging orders re-drawn?
As the orders currently show only his name, the land reg have told me all i can do is apply for restrictions to be put on his properties, citing the charging orders. The restriction apparently requires that he has to ask my permission to sell, however it doesn't require him to pay me anything so that would need to be some kind of agreement between him and I before I gave permission. Not sure I like that as he could just fail to honour his side and that would be that.
What did you put in the original N379 form, in part 4 of the application? Did you obtain office copy entries for the properties to check the ownership position before you made the application?As the orders currently show only his name, the land reg have told me all i can do is apply for restrictions to be put on his properties, citing the charging orders. The restriction apparently requires that he has to ask my permission to sell, however it doesn't require him to pay me anything so that would need to be some kind of agreement between him and I before I gave permission. Not sure I like that as he could just fail to honour his side and that would be that.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Blown2CV said:
OK, does that mean i have just made the wrong application to the land registry, or i need to have the charging orders re-drawn?
As the orders currently show only his name, the land reg have told me all i can do is apply for restrictions to be put on his properties, citing the charging orders. The restriction apparently requires that he has to ask my permission to sell, however it doesn't require him to pay me anything so that would need to be some kind of agreement between him and I before I gave permission. Not sure I like that as he could just fail to honour his side and that would be that.
Where property is jointly owned, I'm afraid that's all your entitled to. As the orders currently show only his name, the land reg have told me all i can do is apply for restrictions to be put on his properties, citing the charging orders. The restriction apparently requires that he has to ask my permission to sell, however it doesn't require him to pay me anything so that would need to be some kind of agreement between him and I before I gave permission. Not sure I like that as he could just fail to honour his side and that would be that.
The Land Reg is correct - you can't register the charging order against the legal title if it's jointly owned and the debt is owed by only one of the co-owners. All you can do is register a Restriction against his beneficial interest in the equity.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Blown2CV said:
CAB said it was outside of their remit. I am not saying i can't afford solicitors' fees.
But you'd prefer not to pay them....?FWIW, I'm not sure there has ever been an obligation to provide a "free hour" or "free half-hour" in all the 20 years-ish I've been in practice. You used to be able to get legal aid for certain types of civil claim (usually means tested though, IIRC) and the solicitor may have been able to give you some initial advice and claim the cost back under the Green Form (?) scheme. But not all solicitors did legal aid work anyway, so there wasn't a general obligation.
I used to take cold calls to our Reception but I'd frequently spend 20-30 minutes on the phone and then never hear from the client again. A few years ago, we swapped to a system by which we charged a fixed fee (£75 plus VAT) for an initial meeting or an hour or so to give some preliminary advice and to allow the client to understand whether it was worth taking further. That's a substantial discount on my usual hourly rate.
soprano said:
Lurking Lawyer said:
Where property is jointly owned, I'm afraid that's all your entitled to.
The Land Reg is correct - you can't register the charging order against the legal title if it's jointly owned and the debt is owed by only one of the co-owners. All you can do is register a Restriction against his beneficial interest in the equity.
Which gives rise to an interesting question as to whether that amounts to "security", which if soprano is right would prevent you petitioning for his bankruptcy. I don't immediately known the answer to that.
LL I'm not sure that is correct. You are right that you can't charge the legal interest, but you can charge the beneficial interest of the debtor, unless something has changed of late?The Land Reg is correct - you can't register the charging order against the legal title if it's jointly owned and the debt is owed by only one of the co-owners. All you can do is register a Restriction against his beneficial interest in the equity.
Which gives rise to an interesting question as to whether that amounts to "security", which if soprano is right would prevent you petitioning for his bankruptcy. I don't immediately known the answer to that.
I think its CPR 73.4(2)(a) and there is an old case, Natwest v Stockman which is on point. Like I say this is not my area and I am happy to be corrected, but that is my understanding.
basically it's pretty stupid if they're a married couple as financially they are at least in some way merged. It's not like the proceeds from the sale will be divided into two separate bank accounts. They probably won't see it at all, but that's another matter! I don't really care if he owes me the money from their joint 100% or from his individual 50%, it's the same debt and it would be paid from the same ultimate pot. All v frustrating.
soprano said:
What does the charging order of the court you have say? It should say that the beneficial interest of the debtor stands charged with X if the application has been made correctly and the order drawn correctly.
Court Order said:
... the judgement debtor is the owner of, or has beneficial interest in the asset described in the schedule below.
own
...
The address of the land or property charged is 123 crap street, scumbagtown etc
own
...
The address of the land or property charged is 123 crap street, scumbagtown etc
aha i thought unless the sale had been forced through a pre-existing charge (pre-existing before the restriction came into force i mean) then i could indeed stop the sale, as it would require my consent (Land reg says). If it was forced in this way i would still be notified but could not affect proceedings.
soprano said:
Blown2CV said:
soprano said:
What does the charging order of the court you have say? It should say that the beneficial interest of the debtor stands charged with X if the application has been made correctly and the order drawn correctly.
Court Order said:
... the judgement debtor is the owner of, or has beneficial interest in the asset described in the schedule below.
own
...
The address of the land or property charged is 123 crap street, scumbagtown etc
own
...
The address of the land or property charged is 123 crap street, scumbagtown etc
The interest of the judgement debtor Mr Dick Wad in the asset as described in the schedule below standard charged with payment of £X together with any further interest becoming due and the costs of the application.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Blown2CV said:
aha i thought unless the sale had been forced through a pre-existing charge (pre-existing before the restriction came into force i mean) then i could indeed stop the sale, as it would require my consent (Land reg says). If it was forced in this way i would still be notified but could not affect proceedings.
TBH, if that's what HMLR is telling you, it's probably right! Far more likely to be right than my half-remembered partial recollection of the rules on charging orders in respect of a sole debtor and jointly-owned property. Now, if you were paying me, I'd go and look at the Rules and check 
As itis, I think I'll bow out semi-gracefully at this point before I embarrass myself further
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff