Absolutely, this is what I've found from others who are selling with a restriction, but one or two have been lucky enough to find solicitors that understand it and have been able to sell with no problems.

Thanks eggboxy1, this is what I was trying to get to, the difference between a charging order and a restriction against a single debtor/joint owner... so in fact with a restriction when the property is sold, the restriction drops off and an unsecured CCJ remains.

I've just seen this on another forum regarding someone who successfully sold his house with a restriction on it and after informing the creditor the restriction disappeared. This was part of the information he received from the Land Registry:

"As such providing your solicitor provides a certificate confirming this then the terms of the restriction are complied with.

The restriction(s) would then be removed when the transfer (sale) is registered which overreaches the interest protected by the restriction. "

I can understand it with a full charge, but with a restriction too?

Can someone just clear something up please. Surely the debt ''belongs'' to the original debtor or are you saying that if a person buys a house with a charge on it (which is the seller's debt), that buyer now becomes liable for the debt?

Depends on the claimant .....strength of the claim...strength of the defence...just on another thread we have halved it from 8K to 4K.

Andy could you link to the thread please as this is something I may look at in the future with a possible future AK claim?

Tks

What is TOLATA?

BF

And all of sudden I get a letter from someone called AKTIV KAPTAL of Norway who claim they have purchased my 'debt' from the 'original company' Varde.

 

Oddly, although they are a Norwegian company, and apparently have UK offices in Kent, their return address is a PO box in Chester.

Me too.....

BF

I'd avoid it as you'll be accused of acknowledging the debt and get the Judge in to all sorts of moral arguments that you ideally want to avoid.

 

It's up to the individual, though, although you'll just have to be very clear that you've paid the debt because it was owed, not because you legally acknowledge it's enforceability. (Although I can't see the difference in those statements, so the Judge might not neither )

Thats exactly as I thought, and I havent paid them anything for a long while now, but I seem to remember in one case mentioned on this forum that the judge said that he couldnt understand why the debtor wasnt paying anything (think it might have been the Harrison case). I'm asking this as Varde have an MBNA account of mine and its only a matter of time before I'm in court with it like smoothound I suppose.

BF

Car2043, in your experience does it go down better in court if you are paying something every month, even if you believe the agreement is unenforceable, or does this give them the opportunity to say that ''you're paying, so you must accept the agreement''?

BF

Does the fact that Varde is an Irish company and under Irish law mean that they can't take you to court to recover a debt in the UK?

BF

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/showthread.php?120057-Cabot-Test-Case! Some info on Varde

 

Andy

Is it likely that Varde would have the same problems as Cabot and would be forced to discontinue any court actions?

BF

The first thing the new owner will have done is demanded the full sum. And how can he issue a DN when if you complied he would not be licensed to provide the credit facility for which you have an agreement?

This is exactly the part that confuses me. The new owners (experto) cannot give me a credit facility, so how does the agreement remain live?

BF

They do seem to handle a number of Experto accounts,

their approach is to phone and doorstep and seem to

avoid correspondence in writing.

Google them and have a look, iv'e seen them off a

few times.

 

Brig.

Cheers Brig!

yes. they are a trading name of experto. reg'd office, windrush house, 24 portman road, reading, rg30 1ea

Thought they might be. Thanks

BF

Credit management Consultants of Reading, specialise

in doorstep collections can be very persistent.

Brig.

They are phoning pretty much every day, I'm presuming they work for Experto?

BF

Anyone heard of CMC?

BF

Whether they have the cojones to do this is another matter, of course, Basil. Knowing Amex, they’ll probably get it wrong again, and the publicity would not be good.

 

That para is why I say Brandon is not, and cannot be, about rescission, and why rescission by way of (non) termination on the back of a bad DN is a dead duck.

 

But a bad DN is a bar to enforcement, and that is a powerful, if limited, tool.

Thanks Donkey, so i suppose the best I can do is let them try take me to court on the back of a faulty DN (not enough time), they lose, serve a correct DN (the new owners) and we go to court again.

Brandon doesn't make a huge lot of difference, just extends the time and makes them work a bit harder for the money.

BF

So all Amex have to do now is to re-issue a correct DN and they will claim their money?

BF

In short - an agreement cannot be terminated on the back of a faulty DN.

 

A creditor cannot enforce on the back of a faulty DN.

 

You cannot claim unlawful recission because of a faulty DN as the account is still live.

What if the original creditor has served a faulty DN, then sold the account to another company (before the 14 days)? Is the account still live,

or is it terminated by their actions?

BF

The one thing that I'm very confused about is, when do I know that the account has been terminated? What actually denotes ''termination''?

BF

I think all this judgment is really about is that judges cannot so easily override statute. Statute is there for for a reason!

 

The judges here made it clear, I think, that an incorrect DN could certainly prejudice the defendant, but only in terms of this summary judgment. As the last para states, it is up to Amex if they want to go back to the start and go through the motions of s87, or attempt enforcement relying upon their s 98 termination. These are different issues, but clearly the judges believe Amex have every right to still do this (though the s 98 route is, AFAIK, untested after a failed s 87 attempt – anyone know if failure of one precludes the other?).

 

The judges’ comments led me to believe they did not seem happy with Amex using s 98 AFTER they had invoked s 87 to attempt to terminate and enforce. Amex relied on s 87 in their summary judgment hearing, then tried to claim that even if they got the DN wrong, they could rely on s 98. The judges said they could not change horses mid-stream.

 

Whatever, Brandon may still have a case to answer. The debt has not gone away – only the summary judgment has.

 

Anyway, this is only my interpretation of the judgment. We need someone like pt2537 to interpret this for us, but alas he has changed horses...

I thought I hadn't seen him for a while. When you say he's changed horses, you don't mean he has changed his views on defending these cases do you?

BF

I'm now officially more confused today than I was yesterday!

BF

You should be laughin' all the way to the bank then.........or rather, at the bank for the mistake on their behalf!

Thats what I was thinking. Thanks

BF

Did you receive a DN?

Yes, with not enough days when postage was taken into account

BF