Selling house - Charging Order/Restriction - NR
Discussion
Can anyone recommend a solicitor, that is aware of the Northern Rock scam of placing a "Charging Order" on a jointly owned house, for an unsecured loan?
Ultimately they need to know the difference between a Charging Order and a restriction.
Spoken to a couple of high street solicitors, and they've never heard of such a situation.
For reference:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/18...
Thanks
Ultimately they need to know the difference between a Charging Order and a restriction.
Spoken to a couple of high street solicitors, and they've never heard of such a situation.
For reference:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/18...
Thanks
bunchofkeys said:
Can anyone recommend a solicitor, that is aware of the Northern Rock scam of placing a "Charging Order" on a jointly owned house, for an unsecured loan?
Ultimately they need to know the difference between a Charging Order and a restriction.
Spoken to a couple of high street solicitors, and they've never heard of such a situation.
For reference:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/18...
Thanks
Are you the debtor, or the poor innocent party?Ultimately they need to know the difference between a Charging Order and a restriction.
Spoken to a couple of high street solicitors, and they've never heard of such a situation.
For reference:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/18...
Thanks
The link isn't much help, as there are 432 pages of discussion!
I've not read anything except the opening message in the thread, but a Charging Order is emphatically not a scam. It's something that can be imposed on a house (or any other property) by the Court after a County Court Judgment has been obtained against the owner of the house.
So basically it means that the house owner, or one of them, has borrowed money from Northern Rock, defaulted on the loan, been taken to Court and had a CCJ registered against them.
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
However, the large majority of conveyancing is now dealt with by unqualified muppets rather than qualified solicitors, and because they have virtually no legal knowledge they don't appreciate this fact. They see `Charging Order' and their dim little heads assume that the debt must be repaid on completion of the sale.
In that situation the seller needs to insist that the debt is not repaid from the sale proceeds, and if the conveyancer says that it has to be the seller needs to get someone involved who actually understands the law.
I've not read anything except the opening message in the thread, but a Charging Order is emphatically not a scam. It's something that can be imposed on a house (or any other property) by the Court after a County Court Judgment has been obtained against the owner of the house.
So basically it means that the house owner, or one of them, has borrowed money from Northern Rock, defaulted on the loan, been taken to Court and had a CCJ registered against them.
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
However, the large majority of conveyancing is now dealt with by unqualified muppets rather than qualified solicitors, and because they have virtually no legal knowledge they don't appreciate this fact. They see `Charging Order' and their dim little heads assume that the debt must be repaid on completion of the sale.
In that situation the seller needs to insist that the debt is not repaid from the sale proceeds, and if the conveyancer says that it has to be the seller needs to get someone involved who actually understands the law.
Pro Bono said:
The link isn't much help, as there are 432 pages of discussion!
I've not read anything except the opening message in the thread, but a Charging Order is emphatically not a scam. It's something that can be imposed on a house (or any other property) by the Court after a County Court Judgment has been obtained against the owner of the house.
So basically it means that the house owner, or one of them, has borrowed money from Northern Rock, defaulted on the loan, been taken to Court and had a CCJ registered against them.
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
However, the large majority of conveyancing is now dealt with by unqualified muppets rather than qualified solicitors, and because they have virtually no legal knowledge they don't appreciate this fact. They see `Charging Order' and their dim little heads assume that the debt must be repaid on completion of the sale.
In that situation the seller needs to insist that the debt is not repaid from the sale proceeds, and if the conveyancer says that it has to be the seller needs to get someone involved who actually understands the law.
Nail on the head!I've not read anything except the opening message in the thread, but a Charging Order is emphatically not a scam. It's something that can be imposed on a house (or any other property) by the Court after a County Court Judgment has been obtained against the owner of the house.
So basically it means that the house owner, or one of them, has borrowed money from Northern Rock, defaulted on the loan, been taken to Court and had a CCJ registered against them.
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
However, the large majority of conveyancing is now dealt with by unqualified muppets rather than qualified solicitors, and because they have virtually no legal knowledge they don't appreciate this fact. They see `Charging Order' and their dim little heads assume that the debt must be repaid on completion of the sale.
In that situation the seller needs to insist that the debt is not repaid from the sale proceeds, and if the conveyancer says that it has to be the seller needs to get someone involved who actually understands the law.
Pro Bono said:
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
Out of interest what should NR have applied for or done in order to ensure they recovered the money they were owed?The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
Countdown said:
Pro Bono said:
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
Out of interest what should NR have applied for or done in order to ensure they recovered the money they were owed?The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
I use https://www.solicitorscentral.co.uk/solicitor/7623... Keith Morris. He's on our fourth transaction now and great old school bloke. No idea if he can sort your issue, but he's dealing with quite a complex title issue for me. Great to chat to as well, very laid back and far too cheap.
Pro Bono said:
Countdown said:
Pro Bono said:
I would imagine what the thread is getting at is that if a CO is only against one of joint owners it does not give the creditor very much protection, as the CO is only registered against that owner’s share in the house - his `beneficial interest' - not the property itself.
The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
Out of interest what should NR have applied for or done in order to ensure they recovered the money they were owed?The CO is `protected' (in name only) by a restriction that's registered at the Land Registry. But the restriction is useless, as it merely requires that the creditor is notified of the sale. As notification can take place after the sale it enables the debtor to avoid repayment from the sale proceeds.
basically i can't see what NR should have done. they couldnt have made an unsecured loan jointly. They can't take both people to Court. The debtor has equity in a property and they've put a charge on his/her share of the property but it seems that both owners can jointly sell the house and then move on without having to repay the CCJ and with no comeback for NR?.
Depends on where you're located to a certain extent, but Jane Hinds at Johnson Astills has been our go-to person for complex issues with both wills and properties. She's a proper solicitor and head of their wills and probate team. If there's someone more qualified to deal with your situation in the firm, she would get them involved. We've done our last few bits, two property issues and 2 wills, via Zoom and Skype recently so it probably doesn't matter if you're nowhere near.
https://www.johnsonastills.com/site/people/profile...
https://www.johnsonastills.com/site/people/profile...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff