£10k BILL IS THIS FRAUD
Discussion
i,m still using the solicitor in question and i have for years used the same solicitor to purchase various plots of land and never had the slightest hint of a problem, yes i do agree he should have pursued the charge being cleared 3 years ago and perhaps foolish of myself to believe that when i received conformation that the original sellers had agreed to clear the charge, i have agreed that my solicitor holds back £10k to clear the charge if the council hold out that it needs to be repaid to release the property free to complete, going back to the early days of this thread the original seller signed documents to say there were no financial ties or the equivalent to this property i have the original documents filed away and in a legal way the question is asked IMO more than once, and they lied on the answers to these questions, They also after being contacted by the council and agreeing to pay decided not to and are now agreeing to pay when they have sold some property, believe me they are not short of funds the family at one time owned a vast amount of land and property and still do own valuable property, again going back to the 3rd page of this thread EW109 posted with some very good advice about the charge being unlawful and it is hopefully now looking like this is coming to fruition, its annoying if it goes this route as i save £10k but so do the scumbags who IMO have committed Fraud and a loophole has allowed them to get away with it.....
turbo9111 said:
i,m still using the solicitor in question and i have for years used the same solicitor to purchase various plots of land and never had the slightest hint of a problem, yes i do agree he should have pursued the charge being cleared 3 years ago and perhaps foolish of myself to believe that when i received conformation that the original sellers had agreed to clear the charge, i have agreed that my solicitor holds back £10k to clear the charge if the council hold out that it needs to be repaid to release the property free to complete, going back to the early days of this thread the original seller signed documents to say there were no financial ties or the equivalent to this property i have the original documents filed away and in a legal way the question is asked IMO more than once, and they lied on the answers to these questions, They also after being contacted by the council and agreeing to pay decided not to and are now agreeing to pay when they have sold some property, believe me they are not short of funds the family at one time owned a vast amount of land and property and still do own valuable property, again going back to the 3rd page of this thread EW109 posted with some very good advice about the charge being unlawful and it is hopefully now looking like this is coming to fruition, its annoying if it goes this route as i save £10k but so do the scumbags who IMO have committed Fraud and a loophole has allowed them to get away with it.....
I hope you get them to pay up tbh. good luck!Some suggestions -
1. Stop making assumptions of bad faith and yelling fraud, for now. If there has been any deliberate misconduct, that may become relevant , but for now you need to stop being emotional and need to find out what has actually happened.
2. Go back to the starting point: find out under which statutory scheme the grant was made in 2008. Note that most of the 1986 Act cited in the Council's document from 2017 was repealed in 2002. The relevant grant-making power appears most likely to be this one -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1860/arti...
3. Find out what repayment conditions were part of the grant. Note that only legislation could make the OP as a non party to the grant application liable for repayment. If the obligation to replay was contractual, the obligation could only lie on a party to the contract. If the obligation to repay arose from a statutory requirement, then the OP might be liable. The provision that I refer to above does not on its face appear to empower the Council to impose a liability on a person not party to the grant application, but, importantly, it does empower the Council to take a charge on a property.
4. To carry out this investigation, I recommend that you instruct a new solicitor, and preferably not one at a small High Street firm. I can recommend some solicitors by PM. I can also recommend direct access barristers who specialise in housing law and in public law.
5. The reasons for doing that are (1) amidst the confusion described by the OP, a fresh pair of eyes on the problem may be a good idea, and (2) it is possible, although by no means clear that the solicitor instructed up to now may have made one or more mistakes that might give rise to a negligence claim.
6. Most importantly, OP, please learn about capital letters, punctuation, and paragraphs. I feel dizzy after reading your Joycean stream of consciousness posts*.
IAAL, IANYL, have fun.
* This bit was put in to please Terminator.
1. Stop making assumptions of bad faith and yelling fraud, for now. If there has been any deliberate misconduct, that may become relevant , but for now you need to stop being emotional and need to find out what has actually happened.
2. Go back to the starting point: find out under which statutory scheme the grant was made in 2008. Note that most of the 1986 Act cited in the Council's document from 2017 was repealed in 2002. The relevant grant-making power appears most likely to be this one -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1860/arti...
3. Find out what repayment conditions were part of the grant. Note that only legislation could make the OP as a non party to the grant application liable for repayment. If the obligation to replay was contractual, the obligation could only lie on a party to the contract. If the obligation to repay arose from a statutory requirement, then the OP might be liable. The provision that I refer to above does not on its face appear to empower the Council to impose a liability on a person not party to the grant application, but, importantly, it does empower the Council to take a charge on a property.
4. To carry out this investigation, I recommend that you instruct a new solicitor, and preferably not one at a small High Street firm. I can recommend some solicitors by PM. I can also recommend direct access barristers who specialise in housing law and in public law.
5. The reasons for doing that are (1) amidst the confusion described by the OP, a fresh pair of eyes on the problem may be a good idea, and (2) it is possible, although by no means clear that the solicitor instructed up to now may have made one or more mistakes that might give rise to a negligence claim.
6. Most importantly, OP, please learn about capital letters, punctuation, and paragraphs. I feel dizzy after reading your Joycean stream of consciousness posts*.
IAAL, IANYL, have fun.
* This bit was put in to please Terminator.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 29th September 08:21
Breadvan72 said:
I did not say otherwise. Please read my post.
You saidBV said:
If the obligation to replay was contractual, the obligation could only lie on a party to the contract.
My point being that a contractual obligation in property is often backed up with a charge over the property. What I meant is that the charge will run with the land. A S106 obligation is similar, it runs with the land and binds or burdens whoever owns the land. As is the case with a S106, this is a contractual agreement that is often not registered as a charge but binds the owner and successors in title nevertheless.We are not really arguing at all, as both are saying the same thing, but a recurrent problem on PH is that if I try to summarise a legal thing and do not do so by delivering the Cambridge degree course with supporting footnotes and a full bibliography, someone equipped with the latest edition of the internet will always point out that I am wrong.
The best advice for any legal problem worth more than a few quid is to find a specialist lawyer to sort out the crock of poo. Conveyancing solicitors can be very good at what they do, but horses for courses.
The best advice for any legal problem worth more than a few quid is to find a specialist lawyer to sort out the crock of poo. Conveyancing solicitors can be very good at what they do, but horses for courses.
Breadvan72 said:
In your excitable eagerness to score internet points, you have quoted me selectively. I suggest that you read my post fully before waving your dangly parts around. A clue: look at point 3. All of it. HTH.
Not excitable at all, and can't be arsed with point scoring, so your imagination is getting the better of you - HTHI did read all of your post, it did not require a full quote as it was there for people to see. The point stands - contractual obligations in property are often secured via a charge that runs with the property. That does not need legislation, the recipient of the grant can enter into a contract with the authority that permits a charge. Thus the charge liability fall on successors in title becuase its a property charge even if they were not party to the agreement.
It seems clear that a charge has been put in place. The questions are surely: Is the charge valid under the agreement/grant rules? Has the payment been made but for some reason the charge has not been released (unbelievably common)? How can the Op deal with it in such as way as to enable him to complete on schedule and minimise his exposure to a loss of £10k.
For the last question which is potentially the most pressing, I suggested a retention solution earlier in the thread. That would give him time to unravel the issues around the charge
Edited by blueg33 on Tuesday 29th September 11:58
blueg33 said:
...
I did read all of your post, it did not require a full quote as it was there for people to see.
...
Yeah right, that's why you posted up a selective quotation, omitting what I wrote about the charge. I did read all of your post, it did not require a full quote as it was there for people to see.
...
You might also benefit from reading the OP's posts in full - he explained some way above that he's (sensibly) arranged a retention already.
bad company said:
Op, listen to BV. He invited you to pm him to recommend a specialist lawyer. That’s excellent advice.
It is always the best advice for anything beyond a very simple question. If I find a lump on my left b
k, I won't be coming to PH for advice on what to do next as I'd likely end up with an MX5 and stage 4 cancer.I have been on PH too long, as I now have a yard full of MX5s and political views well to the right of Hitler, but also several advanced diseases, lots of unpaid speeding tickets, a collection of failed businesses, several angry ex wives, and a stupidly large mortgage on a really terrible house in Surrey.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff