Restriction on land register

[WILLMAND17]

Hello i am new to this forum and would like some advice please. I managed to get myself in a mess owing money to a company called Tradepro, i signed up on the street for a sort of credit card that allowed me to buy stuff from builders merchants etc up tp £3000. Anyway i lost my job, my employer went bust and i got behind with payments. After much stress and hassle with this company and marstons bullies , the company put a charging order ( restriction ) in their name on my property. I have not heard from these people since june 2011 when they sent me an arrears statement. This year I was hoping to sell my house and need to have the restriction removed. I have read that Tradepro are no longer trading but have been taken over by MKDP? Does anyone know what i can do - i have never been told if the debt has been passed on? Should i contact this new company. I have asked the land registry and they couldnt help. Could anyone advise ? Thanks

[R0b]

Re: Restriction on land register

Hello i am new to this forum and would like some advice please. I managed to get myself in a mess owing money to a company called Tradepro, i signed up on the street for a sort of credit card that allowed me to buy stuff from builders merchants etc up tp £3000. Anyway i lost my job, my employer went bust and i got behind with payments. After much stress and hassle with this company and marstons bullies , the company put a charging order ( restriction ) in their name on my property. I have not heard from these people since june 2011 when they sent me an arrears statement. This year I was hoping to sell my house and need to have the restriction removed. I have read that Tradepro are no longer trading but have been taken over by MKDP? Does anyone know what i can do - i have never been told if the debt has been passed on? Should i contact this new company. I have asked the land registry and they couldnt help. Could anyone advise ? Thanks

As far as the charging order goes, when you sell the house the amount outstanding on the charging order would be given to the name specified on the Land Registry. What usually happens after that is the name of person or company signs the forms to remove the charging order from the Land Registry or alternatively, you can apply to court to have the charging order removed.

However if the company is dissolved this will fall into Bona Vacantia (means something like vacant goods) and it will then vest in the Crown. There's information here on how Bona Vacantia relates to dissolved companies https://www.gov.uk/government/public...companies-bvc1

In relation to MKDP taking over Tradepro, I'm not a great knowledge on the intricacies of charging orders, but I believe they would have needed to apply to court to vary the order and have the charging order in their name for it to be enforceable.

[charitynjw]

Re: Restriction on land register

Hello i am new to this forum and would like some advice please. I managed to get myself in a mess owing money to a company called Tradepro, i signed up on the street for a sort of credit card that allowed me to buy stuff from builders merchants etc up tp £3000. Anyway i lost my job, my employer went bust and i got behind with payments. After much stress and hassle with this company and marstons bullies , the company put a charging order ( restriction ) in their name on my property. I have not heard from these people since june 2011 when they sent me an arrears statement. This year I was hoping to sell my house and need to have the restriction removed. I have read that Tradepro are no longer trading but have been taken over by MKDP? Does anyone know what i can do - i have never been told if the debt has been passed on? Should i contact this new company. I have asked the land registry and they couldnt help. Could anyone advise ? Thanks

I seem to recall some anomalies re the validity of that Tradepro card, & if challenged, MKPD would quickly slither back under their rock.
I think there's still a ton of info re this on the net: it's worth a punt!

[WILLMAND17]

Re: Restriction on land register

The restriction was placed on myself and the property is in joint names will this make a difference?

[R0b]

Re: Restriction on land register

No it will not, the charging order will be there because you owe an outstanding amount to tradepro, which if MKDP cannot claim will need to be paid to the Crown.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Restriction on land register

Hello i am new to this forum and would like some advice please. I managed to get myself in a mess owing money to a company called Tradepro, i signed up on the street for a sort of credit card that allowed me to buy stuff from builders merchants etc up tp £3000. Anyway i lost my job, my employer went bust and i got behind with payments. After much stress and hassle with this company and marstons bullies , the company put a charging order ( restriction ) in their name on my property. I have not heard from these people since june 2011 when they sent me an arrears statement. This year I was hoping to sell my house and need to have the restriction removed. I have read that Tradepro are no longer trading but have been taken over by MKDP? Does anyone know what i can do - i have never been told if the debt has been passed on? Should i contact this new company. I have asked the land registry and they couldnt help. Could anyone advise ? Thanks

"In relation to MKDP taking over Tradepro, I'm not a great knowledge on the intricacies of charging orders, but I believe they would have needed to apply to court to vary the order and have the charging order in their name for it to be enforceable. "

I believe the charge applies to the chargee only. To get a Charge the person/ company must apply to the court, for registered land, under the Charging Order Act 1979. The first stage is an interim hearing for an interim charge (formality hearing, debtor cannot attend) then unless debtor challenges it on receiving notice it becomes a final charge, which is registered on the land register as 'restriction,' meaning the land ie home cannot be sold. Remedy: Contact the land registrar and see if the 'restriction' can be removed as Tradepro has ceased operating, alternatively apply to the court for the charge's discharge under said Act.

MKDP must go through the same to get a charging order in their own right. You will get the chance to object to it at the Interim stage but most people think they have no rights and let it become finalised. A charging order is not a proprietary right (ie they do not have a right to a claim in the property, they only have a right to secure the debt which the charge is based), ie it can be removed even when finalised but difficult to do so. At the interim stage it's much easier to have it removed before it's been finalised. If you just show up at the county court it shows you're interested - you could argue it's not the original creditor whom has likely purchased the debt for pence in the pound, whereas this is your home. If you have a co-ownership arrangement, it may be possible to argue the property was previous protected by a joint tenancy before Tradepro's charge ended it. Joint tenancy means the property is owned between the owners but it must be legally severed before any owner has a share in the property to realise a portion of it for a charge.

[wales01man]

Re: Restriction on land register

The Solicitor dealing with the house sale should know if this is still payable its they who will pay it from the sale proceeds

[R0b]

Re: Restriction on land register

Because it is a joint tenancy, the charging order will go against the beneficial interest of the debtor and usually contain some form of restriction notice on the Title to say something like 'no disposition for a sale shall be registered unless by order of the court - so you would need to check the wording carefully before you sell the house.
[MENTION=77627]Openlaw15[/MENTION], see my previous post on what happens when a company is dissolved and has outstanding assets or cash - You can't just simply remove the restriction. S.1012 CA 2006 says the following:

When a company is dissolved, all property and rights whatsoever vested in or held on trust for the company immediately before its dissolution (including leasehold property, but not including property held by the company on trust for another person) are deemed to be bona vacantia

where a debt has been assigned to another, by way of takeover or an assignment, one could presume that the rights in the charging order would also assign. I am not able to find any case law to support this however I certainly disagree that MKDP would need to go through the same process of a charging order as did Tradepro. If they can prove the debt was purchased or assigned then its likely that the court would vary the charging order to the benefit of MKDP.

If assuming it was a final charging order, the standard wording of Form N87 implies that the sum is owed under a 'judgment', and not 'creditor of the judgment'. So it could also be argued that the benefit of the charging order passes with the assignment.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Restriction on land register

Because it is a joint tenancy, the charging order will go against the beneficial interest of the debtor and usually contain some form of restriction notice on the Title to say something like 'no disposition for a sale shall be registered unless by order of the court - so you would need to check the wording carefully before you sell the house.

No, the joint tenancy will have ended (hence I used the past tense) when it's a bankruptcy or the charge is registered on the property by a restriction, as it appears with another restriction type with the words: 'trust corporation' under the Proprietor section.

@Openlaw15, see my previous post on what happens when a company is dissolved and has outstanding assets or cash - You can't just simply remove the restriction. S.1012 CA 2006 says the following:

Yep, this is more than feasible what you're saying; am not au fait with company's charges under the 2006 Act.

"where a debt has been assigned to another, by way of takeover or an assignment, one could presume that the rights in the charging order would also assign. I am not able to find any case law to support this however I certainly disagree that MKDP would need to go through the same process of a charging order as did Tradepro. If they can prove the debt was purchased or assigned then its likely that the court would vary the charging order to the benefit of MKDP.

No, property law requires separate registration of charges for each chargee, a charge cannot be assigned as it affects land which is protected, and there are also priority charges, ie legal charges by banks (mortgagees) etc

If assuming it was a final charging order, the standard wording of Form N87 implies that the sum is owed under a 'judgment', and not 'creditor of the judgment'. So it could also be argued that the benefit of the charging order passes with the assignment.

To remove a restriction from the land register I think this is the right form: RX4, but it requires permission from the charge holder, which is difficult if the company no longer exists. https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...490347/RX4.pdf

[R0b]

Re: Restriction on land register

No, property law requires separate registration of charges for each chargee, a charge cannot be assigned as it affects land which is protected, and there are also priority charges, ie legal charges by banks (mortgagees) etc

For my knowledge could you explain where it says in law or case law that a charging order cannot be assigned? There is text authority which suggests otherwise and a charging order can be assigned.

No, the joint tenancy will have ended (hence I used the past tense) when it's a bankruptcy or the charge is registered on the property by a restriction, as it appears with another restriction type with the words: 'trust corporation' under the Proprietor section.

Yes you are correct, so are now tenants in common.


My previous point still stands, the charging order if not assigned to MKDP will vest in the Crown and the crown will want its share. So best practice would be to contact the Bona Vacantia department at the government and confirm whether or not they have an interest before deciding to proceed with the sale.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Restriction on land register

For my knowledge could you explain where it says in law or case law that a charging order cannot be assigned? There is text authority which suggests otherwise and a charging order can be assigned."

Well the Charging Order Act 1979 for registered land, the Land Charges Act 1972 for unregistered land, the Law of Property Act for legal charges (ie mortgagee/ agents), and business' charges on land, ie fixed/ floating charges, as you allude, probably Company Acts. So putting a charge on land requires a statute anyway, it would seem. Think of how harsh it would be on a debtor if a charge could be assigned to another creditor. It would be so difficult to keep track of the persons with the registered charges. This is why the Land Registration Act came about, to show every person what rights X has/ had in Y property. A charge is only equitable (ie discretionary) unless it's a legal mortgage/ equitable mortgage (with deeds: s.52, Law of Property Act 1925). Charge under the 1979 Act merely gives the chargee a right to ask for a court order. A legal mortgagee however can take possession with sale.

Yes you are correct, so are now tenants in common.

I was at one point saying legal and equitable tenants, and tenancy in common.. but now am just using joint tenancy and other ownership, as it gets confusing for the ops.

My previous point still stands, the charging order if not assigned to MKDP will vest in the Crown and the crown will want its share. So best practice would be to contact the Bona Vacantia department at the government and confirm whether or not they have an interest before deciding to proceed with the sale.

The charge is just security against the land - it's not a right per se to a claim in the land. The Crown in any event owns all land if we're being technical, despite the fact we think we own homes. So, until the land charge realises a value for the debt, the whomever has nothing. So, it may be said since the company has been liquidated that the right to recover the debt remains outstanding. However the company debt including the charges should have been cleared at the point of bankruptcy, which would mean the company owns no charge as the charge would have disappeared at the point of liquidation, assuming it was a company by incorporation (ie LTD company). If the person was operating as a sole trader the debts and asset would still exist. As technically a person can operated a limited company (legal personality) with company assets including debtors, and as an individual running as sole trader with his own assets. Hmm, If I were the OP I would try have that restriction removed as the land registrar will automatically inform the chargee of the removal attempt. Using Form RX4 is difficult as it requires the charge's permission so this is not feasible.

[charitynjw]

Re: Restriction on land register

I don't know whether it is of significance in this case, but a dickybird told me that, when the debt portfolio was sold (assigned), all the relevant paperwork was shredded.

On one occasion, when requested to supply a copy of the Default Notice, MKPD came up with the attachment below.

(It must be the God's honest truth, 'cos I found it here -
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...R31-14-request ) post #13 :tinysmile_twink_t2: )

Instructions on how it should have been presented
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1561/schedule/2/made

No proper DN = lender can't legally terminate agreement?
But they did, & you can't unshoot the duck!

Unlawful recission of contract?

Rescission
Where the contract is set aside and the parties are put back into the position in which they were before the contract was made. It is one of the remedies available for misrepresentation. Rescission is an equitable remedy and will not be available if one of the bars to rescission is present (such as affirmation of the contract* or lapse of time).
http://uk.practicallaw.com/7-107-7151

*Not sure about this as it is a contract governed by the Consumer Credit Act s87

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39

87 Need for default notice.

(1)

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) t

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b)

(b)

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

(c)

(c)

(c) to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d)

(d)

(d) to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e)

(e)

(e) to enforce any security.