Removal of Charge on Title Deeds

[tedney]

Well my thought would be, assuming the Charge is backed up by a Court Order then it stays with the OC.

 

If, by voluntary you mean an Agreement only, not a Court Case, then not so sure.

 

OK, thanks, letter states

 

"We give you notice that the above named Assignee has acquired from the above named Assignor

all of the Assignor's rights in relation to your above detailed account

and any charging order / voluntary charge registered by the Assignor in respect of the debt due under that account.

 

This means that the creditor under your above account (and the beneficiiary of any charge registered against your property)

is now PHOENIX RECOVERIES (UK) LIMITED s.a.r.l. (my capitals) and

 

all amounts due under the account are due to Phoenix.

 

The balance currently owed is £incorrect (monies added, in any event was not as shown on charging document).

 

Under the terms of the assignment, Phoenix is now the data controller of your personal data

contained in the records of the account (as defined in the data protection act 1998.

 

Phoenix has the same rights and obligations as the Assignor to give information to CRA's. ..

 

... Phoenix will comply with any request for a copy of the presonal info.......

 

....please send £10 to us (solicitor).

 

Charge was unfortunately, (pre finding CAG), agreed voluntarily.

 

Looking at recent posts on other threads, there may be two issues (or more?)

 

1. The OC using a SD to force Voluntarily Charge and

2. Can charge be transferred to DCA?

 

Following receipt of that letter (nearly 2 years ago now)

I made an SAR to OC which made no mention of assignement, but was marked as "charged off"

 

I have been reading the issues surrounding Phoenix on some other threads, not sure of up to date thoughts on that though.

 

Apart from letter from solicitor who acted for OC and also for Phoenix

 

I have had nothing from OC in respect of the charge.

 

Any thoughts/help would be welcome.

Edited April 2, 2010 by tedney
removed emoticon put in by mistake!

[harrassed senior]

OK, you say that the original SAR contained no documentation referring to the VC. That to me is very interesting because how are they going to prove it existed should they want to act on it?

 

Personally I have not had dealings with Phoenix so would not be able to say if the letter you have received (mentioning VC) is actually just a standard template letter they send out.

 

I am presuming there have never been any CCJ's or Court Orders, so can you tell me what the debt was for, and how long ago so that we can decide the best course of action.

 

Hopefully you have not acknowledged anything to Phoenix either over the 'phone or in writing so that we have a clear playing field.

[izzitme101]

phoenix eh, i had a few friends have letters from them, all of which had no address on them, just a phone number.

Complaint to companies house sent them packing lol, just make sure they put their address on the top of the letters.

[PGH7447]

these fools are based in luxemburg so are they entilted to carry out this threat

[tedney]

Having read some other threads, and recently receiving some other information too. Does anyone have an up to date on Phoenix please?

Edited March 25, 2011 by tedney
typos

[tedney]

UPDATE

Just found this on the OFT web site. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/press_release_attachments/HFC-requirements.pdf

 

As my situation was before this ruling, but encompassed some of the items mentioned, large increase in sum owed, unreasonable behaviour (not responding to and denying receipt of "signed for" letters, etc. Can I use this to remove charge. Any Thoughts welcome. Thanks t

[tedney]

Hello everyone!

On looking through posts generally, and specifically reading Brigadier2JCS's post no. 14 on here

:http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fowthread.php?431146-Grandfather-had-died-but-has-debts-what-to-do

it prompted me to ask a question.

 

Facts: I have a charge in favour of a card provider on my house (debt incurred in my name, house in joint name with OH)

Charge was made before I found this site, and in response to SD and bankruptcy threats.

 

I was paying off regular amounts before charge, and after DN and have continued to pay monthly amounts, not missing any.

 

Payments are made directly to the card provider.

 

Since the charge, debt has been "assigned" twice,

but I only have a solicitors word for this, nothing from the OC.

The charge is showing on the Land Registry site as being in favour of the OC.

 

My question is:

As the debt has been "assigned",

in order for the charge to be effective,

shouldn't the Land Registry details reflect the alleged current owner of the debt?

 

Surely a third party cannot claim a charge in this way?

 

Any advice and/or help welcome.

 

Thanks. t

[dx100uk]

you cant have a CO on a joint home

its only a restriction 

 

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

 

You would be wise to check your credit ref. files to see who is registered as the owner of the debt.

 

 

The debt may have been "assigned" to a 3rd party for collection/management only.

[marmaris30]

These debt purchase companies, one of which claims to have been assigned the debt which is the subject of the Charging Order, can be a bit slow on the uptake.

 

However, their failure to update the Land Registry has no legal effect on the Order itself, even though it would be normal to request the Court to vary the judgement in favour of the new assignee, and then update the LR. If the previous assignee was paid accidentally then they would be obliged to pass the money to the new assignee.

 

It isn't quite correct to say that a CO cannot be made on jointly-owned property. It can, but it's unusual to request one because obtaining a Sale Order would be virtually impossible (the other joint owner has a right not to be disturbed).

 

If you jointly sell the property in the future then the CO will have to be satisfied from the OP's share of equity in the house, with the joint owner remaining unaffected. However, if the OP's equity is insufficient then the beneficiary of the CO could theoretically block the sale, so their permission should be sought beforehand.

 

If the debt is repaid before any sale then the CO should be removed and the LR record updated to its previous, unrestricted state.

[dx100uk]

how old is the debt the CO concerns

 

 

ever looked at PPI/PENALTY charges reclaiming to reduce whats owed?

 

 

dx

[tedney]

 

Debt not showing on files anymore, as over the time limit.

 

Last statement received was from 2nd assignee, though statement shows all payments which are being made to OC,

who the charge is registered to.

 

I have had letters from same solicitors,

who have acted for OC as well as allegedly 1st and 2nd assignees saying words to the effect that "

all benefits/conditions of debt now passed on to assignees, who now own the debt"

 

I could look up exact wording if you think that relevant.

 

Indeed at one stage this one debt was being reported to the CRA's as three by the various parties!

 

Last "assignment" was made some considerable time ago, more than 1 year anyway.

 

Incidentally, the debt was shown as "satisfied" by the OC, when it was being reported to the CRA's.

 

Thanks for this, when it comes to sale, I will have to find an efficient solicitor/conveyancer. Thanks again

 

Debt dates from 2007. No PPI, tried for charges but refused, have not pursued this yet.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

 

Sight of these assignment may be very informative!

[tedney]

 

Thanks, what would be the best way to obtain please? From the OC or their solicitor (who also acts for the assignees)?

 

Would I need to see both 1st and 2nd assignments?

 

I seem to remember reading on other threads on here that OC's (and presumably their agents/solicitors) refuse to provide or are very reluctant to provide actual copies of assignments to debtors.

[goodatresearch]

This is slightly incorrect. A CO cannot be placed on a jointly owned property. It would be a Restriction and permission would not be needed to sell. Also, although most people would satisfy the CO from the debtors share of the equity, not doing so would not prevent the sale if done properly and you have a good conveyancer who knows the law in this area. The creditor just needs to be notified, it's all about timing.

 

There's plenty of info on this on CAG if you read around this issue. Plenty of people have sold property without paying the restriction.

[dx100uk]

thanks for confirming my thought

 

tedney

 

what was the original credit and who with

 

who got the CO against you

and did they get an CCJ first.

 

name names tell us dates

 

dx

[tedney]

 

Thanks for this. However, the phrase on the Land Register is: "Charge dated ** *** 2007 in favour of HFC Bank Limited"

Would this still be described as a "restriction" please? Thx t

 

Hello dx

The OC is Marbles, their solicitor, Weightmans, pushed for charging order by consent, which was granted in 2007 without a CCJ. Debt was over £9K. Wish I had known about CAG then. t

[dx100uk]

oh god not hfc/weightmans.

 

you got done over there for sure.

 

did you ever send HFC an SAR

to get all the statements

 

I bet 50%+ of that debt was PPI and unlawful PENALTY charges

[goodatresearch]

Since 2003, when the law changed, only a restriction can be registered for a sole debt when property is jointly owned. Post exactly what the land registry entry says in full

[tedney]

Here is the exact entry: Charges Register This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

6. (15.06.2007) Charge dated 19 April 2007 in favour of HFC Bank Limited.

 

3 of first 5 entries pertain to matters concerning access rights over the property, and 2 concerning the original mortgage and the change of name of bank for the mortgage, not connected with entry number 6 stated above.

 

Thanks t

 

 

Hello dx

You are not wrong with your first statement.

 

W. did not respond to signed for letters,

denied receipt of signed for letters,

changed deadlines arbitrarily,

even though I had complied with initial deadline.

 

Tried to add in excess of £1500 to the debt.

All this was BC = (before CAG)!

 

Yes, I had statements anyway,

but I did SAR HFC

 

interestingly they were showing payments I made on the account even after the alleged "first assignment"

 

No PPI, some charges which they refused to reimburse

 

got their "we think they are lawful" response"

 

That was a few years ago now,

 

I have not pursued. t

[goodatresearch]

A restriction would start by saying "No disposition of the registered estate......."

 

Did your partner sign anything agreeing to a CO?

[tedney]

 

Yes, debt was in my name.

[goodatresearch]

Oh dear,

 

then you've been had.

 

Bet they didn't explain the difference between CO and Restrictions.

 

They've made this into a joint debt, very devious of them.

 

I'd try and have it removed if possible.

 

Have you still got a copy of what you both signed.

 

Wat did it say?

 

[tedney]

 

Hello Good

Yes, no explanations or even a mention of a Restriction. Wonder if we can have charged removed after all this time?

 

We signed a Land Registry Form CH1.

 

In the panel number 5

"Borrower for entry on the Register,

 

W. typed in both mine and my partners name

(silly, but only just realised this!),

but credit card debt only in my name.

 

In panel 6:

The borrower with full title guarantee charges the property by way of legal mortgage as security for the payment of the sums detailed in panel 8

 

Panel 7 was blank, no crosses.

 

Additional Provisions panel 8 states:

To secure the sum of £9xxx.xx only such sum to be repaid by a schedule of repayments

as may be agreed by the parties from time to time.

 

Both parties signed at the end of the form.

[tedney]

Another thought/question:

 

As I am making payments against this sum,

 

what would be the process if the charge cannot be removed,

 

and obviously a lesser sum to clear the charge would then be applicable in the event of the property being sold.

 

How would this be handled at the time of the sale?

 

Thanks t