2 x old charging option CCJ - Nationwide BS & LloysTSB Bank plc - issue with sale.

[leicesterman]

ULA I would be keen to see if there was anybody on the forum who could put me in touch with a Solicitor who has specialist knowledge of 'Equitable Charges' if there is such a thing......happy to pay for this service......as I need final confirmation (for my own peace of mind more than anything) that I have to pay these.

I am not sure if this is anything you could advise on or I should start a separate post ( I know you are not keen on that)

[atticus]

I think you are going to have to pay in full. Sorry.

[atticus]

ULA I would be keen to see if there was anybody on the forum who could put me in touch with a Solicitor who has specialist knowledge of 'Equitable Charges' if there is such a thing......happy to pay for this service......as I need final confirmation (for my own peace of mind more than anything) that I have to pay these.

I am not sure if this is anything you could advise on or I should start a separate post ( I know you are not keen on that)

How much would another solicitor charge? What do you think would be the chances of saving more than that? Ask yourself the cost/benefit question.

[leicesterman]

atticus - Just one point - is this because the property is in single names and not joint names? Had I kept it in joint names in 2007 would this have had an impact?

[leicesterman]

Also, atticus - I had this from another Solicitor who wrote a blog on Charging Options which I responded to - just thought I would post for comment;

I refer to your email below and apologise for the delay in responding.

"This firm is unable to act on residential conveyancing matters but, in short, the treatment of charging orders on sale of a property depends on the wording of the restriction against title. Ordinarily, the standard restriction for charging orders provides only that notice of the sale is provided to the holders of those charging orders and it is up to them to get in touch and seek payment (or an undertaking for payment to discharge their debt) before the sale proceeds to completion. If they fail to do so, the property purchase can complete and the restrictions can be removed based upon the appropriate notice having been provided. However, once the sale completes the relevant creditors become unsecured and have no claim to the sale proceeds. Whether or not the relevant creditor should be paid from the proceeds will therefore depend upon whether they act quickly to seek an assurance of payment before the property sale completes"

Any thoughts?

[atticus]

atticus - Just one point - is this because the property is in single names and not joint names? Had I kept it in joint names in 2007 would this have had an impact?

Yes to both questions.