Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

You often get Tenants in Common when a property is bought by siblings or friends. It's not unusual at the moment for four people to join together to purchase a property in order to qualify for a bigger mortgage which their own income wouldn't sustain as individuals. It then becomes a business deal and the % interest (not ownership because they all own that collectively) is identified at the start, and sensibly an exist strategy is established too - such as if one wants to sell up they have to offer their share to the others first and not sell it to another party.

Goodness knows what a DJ would make of that if asked for a CO on a property owned by six unconnected people where only one hasn't paid their MBNA bill

This is the sort of information I'm trying to find out. If six people were tenants in common and one had ccj's what would happen with the charging order?

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

Well Yes and No. We've had quite a bit of debate on the site about whether that is true or not The law is clear but solicitors aren't willing to co-operate in practice seems to be the verdict

Perhaps I'll start a seperate thread on the subject so as not to confuse the Tenants In Common issue on this thread

Do you need a solicitor to sell a house? I mean, is it a legal requirement? Genuine question as Ive never sold a house, only bought one many years ago.

S

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

This is the sort of information I'm trying to find out. If six people were tenants in common and one had ccj's what would happen with the charging order?

The charge would affect the persons equity whom had the restriction. Not the other 5.

Yes you can sell a house with a restriction but you need a good solicitor as its playing the system and not straight forward.

planB - A charging order IS the restriction. That's what a CO is - a restriction to sell till the charge is satisfied but there are ways around it.

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

Do you need a solicitor to sell a house? I mean, is it a legal requirement? Genuine question as Ive never sold a house, only bought one many years ago.

S

No you don't need a solicitor to sell a house but you do need a buyer and most purchasers will have a solicitor to protect their interests, so the deal can collapse unless both sides of the transaction are happy with the paperwork. I doubt a solicitor would advise their client to complete on the purchase of a property unless there was an undertaking from the sellor's solicitor that it was free of all charges on completion never mind whether you find yourself a solicitor who is willing to act all gung ho for you.

If the buyer is relying on a mortgage to purchase the property then one of the terms & conditions of the mortgage will usually say the same: the property must be free of all charges on completion before the funds will be released by the lender. The purchaser's solicitor is also acting for the lender. Since the credit crunch when massive mortgage frauds were revealed, lenders are now frequently instructing their own solicitors to look after their own interests so it's even harder to make a private deal with the other side's solicitor.

You can carry out your own conveyancing using this DIY book from Lawpack costing £12.99 . Just make sure you've got full personal liability insurance because mistakes in housing transactions can run into thousands of pounds in damages if your purchaser decides to sue you further down the line for any errors you make

http://www.lawpack.co.uk/landlord-an...product740.asp

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

No you don't need a solicitor to sell a house but you do need a buyer and most purchasers will have a solicitor to protect their interests, so the deal can collapse unless both sides of the transaction are happy with the paperwork. I doubt a solicitor would advise their client to complete on the purchase of a property unless there was an undertaking from the sellor's solicitor that it was free of all charges on completion never mind whether you find yourself a solicitor who is willing to act all gung ho for you.

If the buyer is relying on a mortgage to purchase the property then one of the terms & conditions of the mortgage will usually say the same: the property must be free of all charges on completion before the funds will be released by the lender. The purchaser's solicitor is also acting for the lender. Since the credit crunch when massive mortgage frauds were revealed, lenders are now frequently instructing their own solicitors to look after their own interests so it's even harder to make a private deal with the other side's solicitor.

You can carry out your own conveyancing using this DIY book from Lawpack costing £12.99 . Just make sure you've got full personal liability insurance because mistakes in housing transactions can run into thousands of pounds in damages if your purchaser decides to sue you further down the line for any errors you make

http://www.lawpack.co.uk/landlord-an...product740.asp

You say that the other side's solicitors and the mortgage company will want it to be free of any charges, but this is what happens with a restriction, isn't it? With a restriction all charges drop off on completion, so thats the position that they want isn't it?

S

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

planB - A charging order IS the restriction. That's what a CO is - a restriction to sell till the charge is satisfied but there are ways around it.

That's what I've always believed too. But there seems to be a general view that there is a separate entity called a *Restriction*

We argued this in another thread in the Legal Claim Against You section

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...?t=3843&page=2

All I can add is 'don't shoot me I'm only the messenger'. I've already told Vint that I would eat my hat if he could produce one sucess story of anyone not paying the creditor with a *Restriction* when they sold their property and a solicitor willing to play along so we can all instruct the firm in future

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

You say that the other side's solicitors and the mortgage company will want it to be free of any charges, but this is what happens with a restriction, isn't it? With a restriction all charges drop off on completion, so thats the position that they want isn't it?

S

P9 and P11 may give you the answer to that question because COs (Restrictions) don't drop off they have to be removed by the creditor who makes an application to the Land Registry when they have been satisfied/paid or you can make an application only if you can prove the same.

http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/publi...blic-guide-23a

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

That's what I've always believed too. But there seems to be a general view that there is a separate entity called a *Restriction*

We argued this in another thread in the Legal Claim Against You section

http://forums.all-about-debt.co.uk/s...?t=3843&page=2

All I can add is 'don't shoot me I'm only the messenger'. I've already told Vint that I would eat my hat if he could produce one sucess story of anyone not paying the creditor with a *Restriction* when they sold their property and a solicitor willing to play along so we can all instruct the firm in future

I read that and Vint said you better start eating your hat because he's seen plenty of successes!

S

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

Beaumont Legal do it. I know they do it as I know several conveyancers.

Now where's that hat......

I explained this before, was it in that thread you linked to?

A restriction is in itself only that; by the wording content within the restriction. A CO uses the same restrictive wording - lets not forget that

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

I read that and Vint said you better start eating your hat because he's seen plenty of successes!

S

I look forward to seeing them posted on here

I'm only too happy to eat humble pie as well as my hat if Forum members are able to be put in touch with a solicitor willing to do this for them Who knows, I may need one myself one day

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

There are successes on the Moneysavingsexpert forum, there is a very long thread on the subject, but sadly nothing about tenancy in common (still scouring the internet for that one)

S

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

It's not only about the vendor's solicitor it's about the buyer's solicitor and the buyer's mortgage lender too because a sale of a property has two parties involved in the transaction

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

planB - agreed. The way around this is YOU offer to pay their legal costs and use the same firm/different conveyancer.

Obviously a £1k legal bill is better than say a £10k CO

Or you offer the buyer cash upon completion to appoint a solicitor you nominate - a bribe if you will

[Seamus]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

planB - agreed. The way around this is YOU offer to pay their legal costs and use the same firm/different conveyancer.

Obviously a £1k legal bill is better than say a £10k CO

Or you offer the buyer cash upon completion to appoint a solicitor you nominate - a bribe if you will

I like that....crackin' idea!

S

[PlanB]

Re: Charging Orders & Tenants in Common

planB - agreed. The way around this is YOU offer to pay their legal costs and use the same firm/different conveyancer.

Obviously a £1k legal bill is better than say a £10k CO

Or you offer the buyer cash upon completion to appoint a solicitor you nominate - a bribe if you will

That makes much more sense. I call that being proactive not bribery