Charging order on Shared ownership

[crystaltips]

Hi
Looking for some advice. I have been on a DMP for several years. I am 63 and finding my job increasingly difficult, my health is deteriorating and it is unlikely I will be able to continue in work for much longer. I still owe approx £9000, the major debt to a DCA for approx £6000.
If I have to leave work and look for something easier how likely is it that the DCA will seek a CCJ and then a charging order. I have a shared ownership property how would this affect it if they did seek a CO?
I would like to think I can get some part time work but in the meantime I would only be able to pay token payments.
Thank you

[Kati]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

tagging [MENTION=48934]Debt Camel[/MENTION] for you ... she should be able to help xx

[Debt Camel]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

Who is your DMP with?

Do you have a mortgage? If so will you be able to afford this if you aren't working?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

Hi
Looking for some advice. I have been on a DMP for several years. I am 63 and finding my job increasingly difficult, my health is deteriorating and it is unlikely I will be able to continue in work for much longer. I still owe approx £9000, the major debt to a DCA for approx £6000.
If I have to leave work and look for something easier how likely is it that the DCA will seek a CCJ and then a charging order. I have a shared ownership property how would this affect it if they did seek a CO?
I would like to think I can get some part time work but in the meantime I would only be able to pay token payments.
Thank you

As long as you keep your payments up, there is no need for the debt company to put a charge (security only, not an interest in the property) against your property. You may have a defence as it's likely you have a joint tenancy (beneficial). A charging order will break this protection if the court gives one, but it just means if you die you'll need a will to pass the property on. Normally, a joint ownership of this type applies to the survivor rules, ie if either of the owners die the property passes to the other owner (the survivor). It also means the charge is only security against the debt so although it will gather interest it's very unlikely the court will Order a sale to evict your family.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

As long as you keep your payments up, there is no need for the debt company to put a charge (security only, not an interest in the property) against your property.

This is unhelpful nonsense. First any creditor in a DMP can go for a CCJ and then a charge. Second the poster is talking about dropping his payments to a token amount.

You may have a defence as it's likely you have a joint tenancy (beneficial).

what makes you think there is any form of joint tenancy?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

This is unhelpful nonsense. First any creditor in a DMP can go for a CCJ and then a charge. Second the poster is talking about dropping his payments to a token amount.


what makes you think there is any form of joint tenancy?


[/COLOR]

The question asked about a charging order - the question never asked a question about a mortgage, if it were a mortgage matter it would already be a charge on the land, wherein the lender's remedy would be a court order for possession (normally), and not a post charge on the property. A charge is an equitable interest against a debt and not a mortgagee secure creditor. So, it's clearly an issue of sale. The second inference is that the Op is 63 years of age so there is a natural presumption the mortgage would have been paid off by now. So if any information is nonsense, it's your information about the mortgage.

A man of 63 years of age presumes a marriage or domestic partner, not a business joint ownership unless stated otherwise. if it were a commercial ownership the Op would like have stated this. It's therefore likely a legal joint tenancy, and a beneficial joint tenancy held together for a husband and his spouse/ partner. The beneficial aspect is presumed at equity unless express words state the contrary. If the property register (where registered) under absolute ownership has a 'restriction' it's presumed to be a tenancy in common, so in its absence it's a beneficial joint tenancy.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

Well let's hope [MENTION=45673]crystaltips[/MENTION] answers my questions and ignores this pile of legal verbiage.

[Anthony72]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

. The second inference is that the Op is 63 years of age so there is a natural presumption the mortgage would have been paid off by now. So if any information is nonsense, it's your information about the mortgage.

A man of 63 years of age presumes a marriage or domestic partner, not a business joint ownership unless stated otherwise. if it were a commercial ownership the Op would like have stated this. It's therefore likely a legal joint tenancy, and a beneficial joint tenancy held together for a husband and his spouse/ partner. The beneficial aspect is presumed at equity unless express words state the contrary. If the property register (where registered) under absolute ownership has a 'restriction' it's presumed to be a tenancy in common, so in its absence it's a beneficial joint tenancy.

I am sorry but I find the above quite annoying. Firstly are you aware about the changing demographics in this country, there are sizeable numbers of people who are single or in a relationship without actually living together. Why should a mortgage be paid off at 63, my father paid his mortgage until 67 and that was 15 years ago. People move in middle age for a variety of reasons, upsizing, separation, debt, and may need a new mortgage.

Crystaltips does not mention joint ownership but owned on a shared ownership basis, unless otherwise stated I am assuming this is the form of affordable housing where the OP owns a % of the house and maybe pays a mortgage on it and also pays rent on the other %. The actual details will depend on the contract.

Finally from what little I do know about charging orders, if a ccj is obtained for £1000 or more , a charging order can be automatically obtained with no defence. Of course an order for sale is a very different thing, all the charging order does is secure the debt.

Crystaltips, the debt you are paying through a DMP , is there a chance it is an old debt that is maybe unenforceable , in all likelihood it would need to be 10 years old or more

[Openlaw15]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

I am sorry but I find the above quite annoying. Firstly are you aware about the changing demographics in this country, there are sizeable numbers of people who are single or in a relationship without actually living together. Why should a mortgage be paid off at 63, my father paid his mortgage until 67 and that was 15 years ago. People move in middle age for a variety of reasons, upsizing, separation, debt, and may need a new mortgage.

Crystaltips does not mention joint ownership but owned on a shared ownership basis, unless otherwise stated I am assuming this is the form of affordable housing where the OP owns a % of the house and maybe pays a mortgage on it and also pays rent on the other %. The actual details will depend on the contract.

Finally from what little I do know about charging orders, if a ccj is obtained for £1000 or more , a charging order can be automatically obtained with no defence. Of course an order for sale is a very different thing, all the charging order does is secure the debt.

Crystaltips, the debt you are paying through a DMP , is there a chance it is an old debt that is maybe unenforceable , in all likelihood it would need to be 10 years old or more

Camel was, well 'mouthing off' as it were...disregarding my posts. If people treat me in a derogatory or derisory manner, i'll simply do likewise. Shared ownership normally means co-ownership aka joint ownership, unless a third party to a housing association, who holds the legal interest, applies. Co-ownership is another term for beneficial joint ownership: the persons essentially own the property together but own nothing individually unless there has been a severance. If it were shared ownership of the Housing association type it's unlikely to be a charge matter. So by deductive reasoning the situation alludes a joint ownership, which beneficial aspects can be held as 'tenancy in common' or 'joint tenancy' (beneficial). If it's a tenancy in common the owners can hold actual shares whereas with beneficial joint tenancy this is not possible.

[Debt Camel]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

Well why don't we wait for [MENTION=45673]crystaltips[/MENTION] to come back and explain the situation shall we?

[Anthony72]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

I dont think debtcamel was being particularly rude, a little curt maybe but under the circumstances she had some important points.

Any creditor of someone in a dmp can go for a CCJ and then if over 1K a charging order.

Shared ownership , I believe usually means ownership in the affordable housing market

http://www.midlandheart.org.uk/my-home/leasehold/

https://www.helptobuymidlands.co.uk/...ared-ownership

It may have different technical or legal meanings but I think the OP was fairly clear when they said 'I have a shared ownership property' . If they owned a share of a property with someone else be that a spouse sibling or business partner I suspect the terminology used would have been different e.g. 'I own 50% of the property where I live' or ' I share ownership of the place where I live with my partner'

Debt is a very complex thing of which I only have limited knowledge but debtcamel is a CAB advisor who I suspect knows a great deal more than either of us on the practicalities of the issue

[Diana M]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

I am 63 and finding my job increasingly difficult, my health is deteriorating and it is unlikely I will be able to continue in work for much longer. I still owe approx £9000, the major debt to a DCA for approx £6000.
If I have to leave work and look for something easier how likely is it that the DCA will seek a CCJ and then a charging order. I have a shared ownership property how would this affect it if they did seek a CO?
I would like to think I can get some part time work but in the meantime I would only be able to pay token payments.

If your property is a typical "Shared Ownership" (i.e. with a Housing Association or a Local Authority) you will be charged rent on the 'share' which you don't own.

If you cannot work or have an income drop then you may be entitled to Housing Benefit to cover that rent element. This could remove one worry for you

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

The second inference is that the Op is 63 years of age so there is a natural presumption the mortgage would have been paid off by now.

A man of 63 years of age presumes a marriage or domestic partner.

I seem to be the exception to your rule (of thumb).

My mortgages expire when I'm 75 years old. One of them is when I'm 80 years old.

The Mortgage Works (the BTL arm of the Nationwide) will lend until 105 yrs old. I definitely want one of those

I used to assume that I would still be married at 63 years old, but my husband had other ideas. C'est la vie.

Di

[BrownBear]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

By shared ownership i assume the OP was talking about a property jointly owned by a housing association, on which she pays a portion of rent to the housing association, and a payment towards a mortgage company for her purchased share.

This being the case - would it be possible fro the claimant to gain a charging order?
If they was able to gain a charging order, would they be able to force a sale?

[Diana M]

Re: Charging order on Shared ownership

By shared ownership i assume the OP was talking about a property jointly owned by a housing association, on which she pays a portion of rent to the housing association, and a payment towards a mortgage company for her purchased share.

This being the case - would it be possible fro the claimant to gain a charging order?
If they was able to gain a charging order, would they be able to force a sale?

Shared ownership typically means you have a lease and a % share of the freehold. This should mean that a CO on the property would only be a Restriction making you inform the creditor when/if the property is sold. They can only claim what they're owed from your share of the equity at that point (the sale).

If the Shared Ownership is in joint names it makes life even harder for them.

Ditto if the mortgage lender decides to go for possession of the property they could only repossess what you own and what they have as security for that loan.

The leases are complicated but they mostly give the Housing Association (etc.) first right of refusal to buy back your % and a timescale for doing it.

There is often a clause which says any money you pay to the HA as rent will be diverted to the lender in the event of mortgage arrears. That would mean that you would have rent arrears not mortgage arrears (so less likelihood of repossession).

All this makes the property very unattractive to a would-be purchaser which the lender will be aware of, so repossession would not be an ideal way of recovering the arrears if there's an alternative.

Housing Associations don't want to reduce their housing stock because they're supposed to be providing subsidized/affordable housing not acting like capitalist property moguls. If the HA can find a way to prevent a repossession, or even more unlikely an Order for Sale following a CO, they will probably give it a go.

One thing they can (and do) do is 'staircase' down meaning they can buy back some or even all of the share you've bought (if you want) so that you can pay off a debt or any mortgage arrears and (hopefully) remain in the property paying rent and even claim Housing Benefit to cover it.

If the HA buys back the 'share' and you decide to move off to rent elsewhere, then its policy is usually to only sell it to someone on their own waiting list in order to continue to provide affordable housing.

At least that's the general idea anyway

Di