New member and in a state of shock

[2011sparkyno1]

Firstly may i say hi i am a newbie on here so i hope i have posted in the correct forum.

 

I arrived home today and received a letter from The Legal Services Commision(land charges dept)

stating they were currently reveiwing there files and it had come to there attention that i no longer lived at the above named property

 

however the liability that the statutory charge was protecting still remains outstanding which is £6,139.33

 

We would like to register a contratural charge against your currrent address to protect the outstanding liability that is owed to protect the public fund.

 

I was shocked to see this and could not understand were this debt had come from and racked my brains and researched on the web.

 

Finally the penny dropped and i realised it looks like and outstanding legal aid bill.

 

What i could not understand this goes back to 6/2/1999 more than 12 years ago.

 

I understand and vaugely remember legal aid put a charge on my house but never took this bill/charge off when i sold the property back in 1999.

 

After speaking to a freind tonight who is fairly legally versed seems to think that The Land registry/Solicitor and legal aid should have noticed this on the title deeds so they are at fault.

They should have collected their monies at this time.

 

I cannot believe after all this time legal aid have not contacted me once about this debt within the 12 years time limit.

 

I have also received a registered letter currently waiting at the post office which i presume is relevant to this

do i collect this? or is it best not to.

 

Your help would be much appreciated and do i seek advice before admiting any liability.

[2011sparkyno1]

sorry posted in haste as i was sooo worried , i think this should have been in secured loans section????

how can it be moved to correct box please???

[citizenB]

No worry, will relocate you..

 

Ok, you have been moved to the correct forum. You dont have to do anything and will still find your thread ok

[Surfer01]

Your friend is correct as the transaction to sell the house should not have been completed and you paid out until the debt had been paid. If any one is at fault it would be the solicitors. Debt may be statued barred as it was not chased, but not sure.

[Airwolf]

This is a thread with a very similar situation. If you read it, when that OP challenged it, they were successful

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?177910-Being-chased-by-Legal-Services-Commision-for-unknown-old-debt

[2011sparkyno1]

Thank you for your kind help Airwolf anyone else with similar problems ?? I understand this can be unfair harrassment can anyone please quote me a law ref: please.

[Lea_HTH]

It's not unfair harassment. They had a charge on your property, which they, for whatever reason, did not claim when the property was sold. Your solicitor should have ensured they were paid, and the buyers solicitor should have ensured all charges on the property were discharged before completion. Contact the solicitor who acted for you in relation to the sale of the property - find out why it was not paid - if push comes to shove, the solicitor may have been negligent and their indemnity insurance should cover any claim made against them (or you).

[2011sparkyno1]

It's not unfair harassment. They had a charge on your property, which they, for whatever reason, did not claim when the property was sold. Your solicitor should have ensured they were paid, and the buyers solicitor should have ensured all charges on the property were discharged before completion. Contact the solicitor who acted for you in relation to the sale of the property - find out why it was not paid - if push comes to shove, the solicitor may have been negligent and their indemnity insurance should cover any claim made against them (or you).

Thank you lea, i mentioned about harrassment as a legal helpline solicitor advised me to do so,i feel that 12years is a long,long time not to chase a debt then have the cheek to pile on intrest on top of this.THIS BREACHES THE LIMITATION ACT 1980. which is 6 or 12 years as i have had two conflicting dates on this.In ADDITION to this ;the worrying thing about this solicitor acted on the sale for me and the buyer.(i thought that a solicitor could not act act on both i.e THE BUYER AND SELLERAmongst other things i was unhappy about.I mentioned this to the solicitor and he re-marked that this could be actioned as although they were in the same building ,it was in two different offices,Which seemed a joke!

Edited December 11, 2011 by 2011sparkyno1

[Lea_HTH]

Thank you lea, i mentioned about harrassment as a legal helpline solicitor advised me to do so,i feel that 12years is a long,long time not to chase a debt then have the cheek to pile on intrest on top of this.THIS BREACHES THE LIMITATION ACT 1980. which is 6 or 12 years as i have had two conflicting dates on this.In ADDITION to this ;the worrying thing about this solicitor acted on the sale for me and the buyer.(i thought that a solicitor could not act act on both i.e THE BUYER AND SELLERAmongst other things i was unhappy about.I mentioned this to the solicitor and he re-marked that this could be actioned as although they were in the same building ,it was in two different offices,Which seemed a joke!

 

One solicitor should not act for both parties - there would be a conflict of interest. It is debatable whether one firm, using separate solicitors could act for a vendor and buyer. You need to contact the firm and find out, in writing preferably, what precisely transpired.

 

The LA1980 for ordinary debt is 6 years, for mortgage debt it's 12 years. The issue here is that the Legal Services Commission (they administer legal aid) may not have been informed, or found out, that you no longer owned that property at the time and have only found out recently - if that is the case, the limitation period may not apply. But all this is guesswork - you will need to contact the solicitor to find out precisely WHY the charge wasn't paid at the time the house was sold. If there was negligence involved you will have to use the firm's internal complaints system and then escalate to the Law Society if you're not satisfied with the response.

 

Legal helplines are usually staffed by lay people with access to standard information, so are you sure you actually spoke to a qualified solicitor? I can't imagine a decent solicitor indicating that chasing a debt is harassment; even if the debt is statute barred, it remains owing - the barring just means they can no longer use the legal process to force you to pay, but they can continue to chase you for it and indeed sell the debt on to other companies ad infinitum.

 

I do wonder, given that it's the public purse the money is owed to, whether the limitation periods apply - I shall try to find out more tomorrow.

[2011sparkyno1]

One solicitor should not act for both parties - there would be a conflict of interest. It is debatable whether one firm, using separate solicitors could act for a vendor and buyer. You need to contact the firm and find out, in writing preferably, what precisely transpired.

 

The LA1980 for ordinary debt is 6 years, for mortgage debt it's 12 years. The issue here is that the Legal Services Commission (they administer legal aid) may not have been informed, or found out, that you no longer owned that property at the time and have only found out recently - if that is the case, the limitation period may not apply. But all this is guesswork - you will need to contact the solicitor to find out precisely WHY the charge wasn't paid at the time the house was sold. If there was negligence involved you will have to use the firm's internal complaints system and then escalate to the Law Society if you're not satisfied with the response.

 

Legal helplines are usually staffed by lay people with access to standard information, so are you sure you actually spoke to a qualified solicitor? I can't imagine a decent solicitor indicating that chasing a debt is harassment; even if the debt is statute barred, it remains owing - the barring just means they can no longer use the legal process to force you to pay, but they can continue to chase you for it and indeed sell the debt on to other companies ad infinitum.

 

I do wonder, given that it's the public purse the money is owed to, whether the limitation periods apply - I shall try to find out more tomorrow.

Thank you Lea, while i see your veiw about the public purse,please see the other side of the coin on the so called proffessionals advice who are very highly paid to sought these matters out for you. The solicitors & land registry must have had very dark sunlgasses on not to see a charge on the deeds.Also the fact of intrest building up within the 12years.Trying to prove negligence with solicitors is very difficult as i beleive i did bring the matter of vendor and buyer with another solicitor without much success as they all seem to close ranks and joe public is the one that suffers.I know its not your fault but this now seems like along and drawn out affair causing me a lot of stress. I am looking forward to see if you find out any further information tommorow. Thank you again.

[Lea_HTH]

Thank you Lea, while i see your veiw about the public purse,please see the other side of the coin on the so called proffessionals advice who are very highly paid to sought these matters out for you. The solicitors & land registry must have had very dark sunlgasses on not to see a charge on the deeds.Also the fact of intrest building up within the 12years.Trying to prove negligence with solicitors is very difficult as i beleive i did bring the matter of vendor and buyer with another solicitor without much success as they all seem to close ranks and joe public is the one that suffers.I know its not your fault but this now seems like along and drawn out affair causing me a lot of stress. I am looking forward to see if you find out any further information tommorow. Thank you again.

 

Actually, I considered both aspects before making reference to the public purse. I see more and more people unable to produce proper defences and counterclaims because legal aid has been refused, not because they don't have a case, but because funding has been so drastically cut that there are very few solicitors who will now take these types of cases on. So, I see the backlash of the LSC being unable to recover money they have paid out to assist others. You say these solicitors are well paid, but legal aid generally pays very basic fees and legal aid work is not touched by a great many solicitors because of that. Irrespective of what they are paid, however, they still ought to do their jobs properly and the solicitor(s) acting for you and the purchaser appear to have failed to do that as the charge absolutely should have been repaid at the sale of the property.

 

Whilst I appreciate your frustration that this has reared its head again so far down the line, it was your debt, which you clearly acknowledged, and as indicated, up to your solicitor and the purchaser's solicitor to ensure the charge was cleared at sale. Whether you end up paying it now is debatable - but that is for you to discover by discussing it further with the solicitor who acted for you so that you can ascertain what precisely occurred to cause this to go unnoticed/ignored.

 

I haven't yet got any further information on the LSC, but will post when I do.

[2011sparkyno1]

i have been to solicitors who sold the house,they have destroyed virtually all of the records although they confirm the house was sold on the 3rd of June,1999 which was more than 12 years ago now.It amazed me how unhelpful they were,they semed adamant that there was no charge to the house which they inform me was the responibility of legal aid.In an almost flippant remark saying not to upset the LC Office and not to mention the Limitation act of 1980 as this may aggravate matters.Funny that complete contrast to other solicitors i have spoken to who have said to contest it.It is all very well of people to get on their moral high ground. to pay it. but not a word of ",are you in full time employment" or "can you afford to pay it". No mention of legal aids negligence not to have put the charge on in the first place!!! NO mention of the legal commision's duty to inform all homeowners back in 2000 to inform any homeowners of outstanding debts( a project team was set up specifcally for this) NO MENTION of The LSC not ever sending any correspondence in the 12 years. I did mention about when they sold my house they acted on behalf of the seller and buyer.(seperate issue)The conveyancer remarked this could be carried out if they were regular clientel and both agreed of which i did not.To much of a stress to deal with both issues but i no never to wholeheartedly trust a solicitor again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and NOT TO MENTION you have incurred 12 years of intrest because we did not carry out our job properly and inform you within those 12 years

Edited December 15, 2011 by 2011sparkyno1

[Lea_HTH]

i have been to solicitors who sold the house,they have destroyed virtually all of the records although they confirm the house was sold on the 3rd of June,1999 which was more than 12 years ago now.It amazed me how unhelpful they were,they semed adamant that there was no charge to the house which they inform me was the responibility of legal aid.In an almost flippant remark saying not to upset the LC Office and not to mention the Limitation act of 1980 as this may aggravate matters.Funny that complete contrast to other solicitors i have spoken to who have said to contest it.It is all very well of people to get on their moral high ground. to pay it. but not a word of ",are you in full time employment" or "can you afford to pay it". No mention of legal aids negligence not to have put the charge on in the first place!!! NO mention of the legal commision's duty to inform all homeowners back in 2000 to inform any homeowners of outstanding debts( a project team was set up specifcally for this) NO MENTION of The LSC not ever sending any correspondence in the 12 years. I did mention about when they sold my house they acted on behalf of the seller and buyer.(seperate issue)The conveyancer remarked this could be carried out if they were regular clientel and both agreed of which i did not.To much of a stress to deal with both issues but i no never to wholeheartedly trust a solicitor again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and NOT TO MENTION you have incurred 12 years of intrest because we did not carry out our job properly and inform you within those 12 years

 

You might not like what I said, but it is not a 'moral high ground', it's a legal ground being referred to here and that legal ground pertains to the public purse - we should ALL be concerned about that, since every taxpayer puts into it. The lack of collecting funds leads to others being left without representation when they need it - I think that's bad enough, but when people want to start shouting outrage at being asked to repay what they had, then in my view they've got no business referring to 'morals'.

 

If you owe the money, and if the charge was placed on the previous property and not discharged when the property sold, then it is the fault of the solicitors who acted for vendor and buyer. If the LSC have only just discovered that you are no longer living in that property then they have a good prospect of getting a fresh charge on your current property.

 

You'll just have to sit back and wait for the LSC to make their next move.

 

Good luck.