Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Charge against property - lender no longer exists
1,883 views
Skip to first unread message
David WE Roberts
Jun 30, 2012, 4:30:02 AM6/30/12
to
We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
bit.
The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
with an outstanding charge against it.
The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the charge,
or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another firm?
If, of course, the loan has been paid off (as we were assured at the time)
but the charge has not been removed and therfore no company has bought the
loan how can we prove that the loan has been repaid?
The problem we have at the moment is that major mortgage lenders will not
lend unless they can have first charge on the property - and as there is a
charge which apparently cannot be removed or ammended they cannot have first
charge.
The loss of value of the house is a seperate issue which we hope not to have
to persue.
The cleanest way for us is to find a way to prove that there is no
outstanding interest allied to the charge, so the Land Registry can remove
the charge.
Any suggestions gratefully received.
We know from the Daily Mail that other loans were sold on:
"The only correspondence John and his wife received was to inform them of
the numerous name changes of the company. The loan was originally taken out
with Homestead Finance in October 1990.
The loan was sold on to Ocwen, an American company, which is serviced by
Watford-based company I Group under the current name of CMR. Igroup was
acquired by GE Consumer Finance in June 2001.
Despite the name changes, the Igroup is based in the same Watford building
originally used by Homestead.
Read more:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1592833/pound9000-bill-for-two-missed-payments.html#ixzz1zGLlfT21
"
We have little hope of getting any proof from the previous owners as the
sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a mass of
unpaid debts.
Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
So again, is there any way to prove there is no outstanding loan?
Lack of evidence that there is a loan is not enough.
We were surprised that anyone could own the benefit of a charge on a
property if the charge did not name them.
Cheers
Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
bit.
The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
with an outstanding charge against it.
The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the charge,
or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another firm?
If, of course, the loan has been paid off (as we were assured at the time)
but the charge has not been removed and therfore no company has bought the
loan how can we prove that the loan has been repaid?
The problem we have at the moment is that major mortgage lenders will not
lend unless they can have first charge on the property - and as there is a
charge which apparently cannot be removed or ammended they cannot have first
charge.
The loss of value of the house is a seperate issue which we hope not to have
to persue.
The cleanest way for us is to find a way to prove that there is no
outstanding interest allied to the charge, so the Land Registry can remove
the charge.
Any suggestions gratefully received.
We know from the Daily Mail that other loans were sold on:
"The only correspondence John and his wife received was to inform them of
the numerous name changes of the company. The loan was originally taken out
with Homestead Finance in October 1990.
The loan was sold on to Ocwen, an American company, which is serviced by
Watford-based company I Group under the current name of CMR. Igroup was
acquired by GE Consumer Finance in June 2001.
Despite the name changes, the Igroup is based in the same Watford building
originally used by Homestead.
Read more:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1592833/pound9000-bill-for-two-missed-payments.html#ixzz1zGLlfT21
"
We have little hope of getting any proof from the previous owners as the
sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a mass of
unpaid debts.
Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
So again, is there any way to prove there is no outstanding loan?
Lack of evidence that there is a loan is not enough.
We were surprised that anyone could own the benefit of a charge on a
property if the charge did not name them.
Cheers
Dave R
--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]
Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Nick Odell
Jun 30, 2012, 9:55:22 AM6/30/12
to
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:30:02 +0100, "David WE Roberts"
<nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
>bit.
<snip>
<nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
>bit.
>Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
>assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>
Lets be fair: most solicitors work hard for their clients and if you
>assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>
have used these people before then you have probably been satisfied in
the past. But mistakes happen: which is why Solicitors Professional
Liability Insurance (or whatever they call it) exists.
In my opinion dealing with this whole other can of worms should be
your starting point.
Nick
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2012, 10:25:02 AM6/30/12
to
In message <a57rfp...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:30:02 on Sat, 30 Jun
2012, David WE Roberts <nos...@btinternet.com> remarked:
repossession.
Sounds to me like the amount of this charge should have been specified
as a retention, until the matter was resolved once and for all.
>The problem we have at the moment is that major mortgage lenders will
>not lend unless they can have first charge on the property
Having bought it for cash, are you trying to re-sell, or are you trying
to raise a mortgage on it?
--
Roland Perry
2012, David WE Roberts <nos...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>We have little hope of getting any proof from the previous owners as
>the sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a
>mass of unpaid debts.
>Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust
>the assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be
>lifted.
>Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
Was it sold on behalf of the previous owners, or by a bank (etc) in
>the sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a
>mass of unpaid debts.
>Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust
>the assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be
>lifted.
>Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
repossession.
Sounds to me like the amount of this charge should have been specified
as a retention, until the matter was resolved once and for all.
>The problem we have at the moment is that major mortgage lenders will
>not lend unless they can have first charge on the property
to raise a mortgage on it?
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Jun 30, 2012, 10:50:03 AM6/30/12
to
>
>
> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
> news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
....
> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>
Relying on the vendor's solicitors' undertaking to release the charge is
> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>
normal procedure. If they have breached an undertaking, that makes it their
problem.
One or other firm of solicitors is responsible, so make a complaint or
claim against them and give them an opportunity to sort it out at their own
expense.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Percy Picacity
Jun 30, 2012, 11:45:03 AM6/30/12
to
On 2012-06-30 14:50:03 +0000, Chris R said:
> >
>>
>> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
> ....
>> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
>> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>>
> Relying on the vendor's solicitors' undertaking to release the charge is
> normal procedure. If they have breached an undertaking, that makes it their
> problem.
>
> One or other firm of solicitors is responsible, so make a complaint or
> claim against them and give them an opportunity to sort it out at their own
> expense.
But is it within the gift of either solicitor to provide the OP with a
> >
>>
>> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
> ....
>> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
>> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>>
> Relying on the vendor's solicitors' undertaking to release the charge is
> normal procedure. If they have breached an undertaking, that makes it their
> problem.
>
> One or other firm of solicitors is responsible, so make a complaint or
> claim against them and give them an opportunity to sort it out at their own
> expense.
house he can sell or mortgage? Cash compensation seems unlikely to put
him where he wants to be.
--
Percy Picacity
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2012, 11:55:03 AM6/30/12
to
In message <5ojs4l....@news.alt.net>, at 16:45:03 on Sat, 30 Jun
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
would be a good start.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> remarked:
>But is it within the gift of either solicitor to provide the OP with a
>house he can sell or mortgage? Cash compensation seems unlikely to put
>him where he wants to be.
Although getting the full purchase price back (while keeping the house)
>house he can sell or mortgage? Cash compensation seems unlikely to put
>him where he wants to be.
would be a good start.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Jun 30, 2012, 1:30:03 PM6/30/12
to
>
>
> "Percy Picacity" wrote in message news:5ojs4l....@news.alt.net...
charge removed: they should be able to get the lender to remove it, or if
necessary to show the Land Registry that they had a redemption statement and
paid the money to the lender.
GB
Jun 30, 2012, 12:15:02 PM6/30/12
to
Just a question, as I am far from an expert, could the original loan now
be statute-barred? Would that be a route to getting the charge lifted?
be statute-barred? Would that be a route to getting the charge lifted?
GB
Jun 30, 2012, 12:20:02 PM6/30/12
to
http://www.legalmortgage.co.uk/#/limitation/4532753368
This is a website that deals with statute-barring that may be helpful.
This is a website that deals with statute-barring that may be helpful.
David WE Roberts
Jun 30, 2012, 1:50:02 PM6/30/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:TncNLa4xrw7PFAO$@perry.co.uk...
then this will also be a problem for all but cash buyers when we want to
sell.
Which will almost certainly reduce the value of the property (assuming we
can find a buyer).
As to the amount of the charge - the amount is zero (according to a sworn
statement from the vendor).
Just gone back through the paperwork again (I said it was convoluted) and as
a brief summary:
Loan company is bankrupt and was disolved in 1999.
We bought in 2005.
Because there is a sworn statement that the debt has been paid off the
Treasury Solicitor has no interest - had a debt still been outstanding then
some kind of interest could have passed to the Treaury Solicitor (IIUC) who
might then have been able to tell the Land Registry to clear the charge.
A sworn statement that the debt has been paid is not enough for the Land
Registry to clear the charge.
There appears to be no way to obtain any official paperwork relating to the
debt, and it payment/non payment, because the vendors do not have the
paperwork anymore and the company no longer exists.
So with regard to the charge, we look to be completely stymied.
The charge will have to remain against the property ad infinitum (or until a
change in the legislation).
So we have a defect in the title which prevents some mortgage lenders (due
to their internal policy) lending against the property.
This has two major impacts:
(1) We cannot obtain a loan at the most favourable current market rate - it
has yet to be established if we can obtain a loan from another lender.
(2) If we can't get a loan, a prospective purchaser will have exactly the
same problem, which in turn gives us problems when selling. Possibly we can
only sell to a cash buyer, possibly only through auction.
So we seem to have suffered a loss in value of our property due to the
vendor's solicitor being unable to make good the undertaking given to our
solicitor at the time of exchange.
Next problem is to quantify the loss of value so we can look to claim this
back.
Which is an interesting subject all of its own.
Cheeers
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2012, 2:40:02 PM6/30/12
to
In message <bbadnYWOG571q3LS...@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:30:03 on Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
18:30:03 on Sat, 30 Jun 2012, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>It may cost them time and money but the solicitors should be able to get the
>charge removed: they should be able to get the lender to remove it
But the OP says the lender no longer exists.
>charge removed: they should be able to get the lender to remove it
--
Roland Perry
David WE Roberts
Jun 30, 2012, 1:55:02 PM6/30/12
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bbadnYWOG571q3LS...@brightview.co.uk...
Oh, if it were only that simple!
David WE Roberts
Jun 30, 2012, 2:00:05 PM6/30/12
to
news:woGdnbL5trMqjXLS...@brightview.co.uk...
I am unfortunately constrained by the terms of the original settlement so I
can't say exactly what it was but we were assured that it would cover all
eventualities and it now appears that (if this is true) we have to be able
to put a value on our loss.
At the moment we are trying to see if there are any other avenues to
explore, but not doing very well.
>
>>
>>
>> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
> ....
>> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
>> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>>
> Relying on the vendor's solicitors' undertaking to release the charge is
> normal procedure. If they have breached an undertaking, that makes it
> their
> problem.
>
> One or other firm of solicitors is responsible, so make a complaint or
> claim against them and give them an opportunity to sort it out at their
> own
> expense.
This has already been round that particular loop once.
>>
>>
>> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
>> news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
> ....
>> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
>> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
>> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
>>
> Relying on the vendor's solicitors' undertaking to release the charge is
> normal procedure. If they have breached an undertaking, that makes it
> their
> problem.
>
> One or other firm of solicitors is responsible, so make a complaint or
> claim against them and give them an opportunity to sort it out at their
> own
> expense.
I am unfortunately constrained by the terms of the original settlement so I
can't say exactly what it was but we were assured that it would cover all
eventualities and it now appears that (if this is true) we have to be able
to put a value on our loss.
At the moment we are trying to see if there are any other avenues to
explore, but not doing very well.
Percy Picacity
Jun 30, 2012, 3:40:02 PM6/30/12
to
it is clearly more than their loss.
--
Percy Picacity
Chris R
Jun 30, 2012, 5:30:02 PM6/30/12
to
>
>
> "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
It sounds as if you need professional help, but it can't be the first time a
charge has remained registered after the chargeholder has disappeared. title
insurance may be a last resort.
David McNeish
Jun 30, 2012, 5:40:20 PM6/30/12
to
On Jun 30, 9:30 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
> bit.
>
> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
> with an outstanding charge against it.
> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the charge,
> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>
> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another firm?
The Land Registry may well have dealt with similar cases involving
> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
> bit.
>
> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
> with an outstanding charge against it.
> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the charge,
> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>
> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another firm?
this lender before, so might have the answer readily to hand.
Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia: http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
David WE Roberts
Jul 1, 2012, 5:55:02 AM7/1/12
to
"David McNeish" <davi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a8dfc1e4-c533-41e6...@a8g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 9:30 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
> bit.
>
> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
> with an outstanding charge against it.
> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the
> charge,
> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>
> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another
> firm?
$The Land Registry may well have dealt with similar cases involving
> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
> bit.
>
> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
> with an outstanding charge against it.
> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the
> charge,
> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>
> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another
> firm?
$this lender before, so might have the answer readily to hand.
$Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route has
already been tried, but failed.
Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no evidence of
loan repaid means no removal of charge.
Thanks for the thought, though.
Roland Perry
Jul 1, 2012, 6:45:02 AM7/1/12
to
In message <a5al08...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:55:02 on Sun, 1 Jul
vendor's solicitor could have produced some evidence), but neither can
you find anyone who has bought the debt.
Is it known what amount of money was borrowed and gave arise to the
charge?
--
Roland Perry
2012, David WE Roberts <nos...@btinternet.com> remarked:
>Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no
>evidence of loan repaid means no removal of charge.
Isn't your issue the fact it's probably not been repaid (otherwise the
>evidence of loan repaid means no removal of charge.
vendor's solicitor could have produced some evidence), but neither can
you find anyone who has bought the debt.
Is it known what amount of money was borrowed and gave arise to the
charge?
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Jul 1, 2012, 7:05:02 AM7/1/12
to
should have been dealt with prior to completion
David McNeish
Jul 1, 2012, 7:30:16 AM7/1/12
to
On Jul 1, 10:55 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route has
> already been tried, but failed.
> Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no evidence of
> loan repaid means no removal of charge.
> Thanks for the thought, though.
I presume there's a court remedy though. I can't believe that property
> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route has
> already been tried, but failed.
> Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no evidence of
> loan repaid means no removal of charge.
> Thanks for the thought, though.
can be encumbered with a charge indefinitely where the lender no
longer exists and nobody has evidence that anybody else has an
interest.
Nick Odell
Jul 1, 2012, 9:30:02 AM7/1/12
to
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:30:16 +0100, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
One or two turns of phrase in your replies further above hint that
this might not have been a plain vanilla house purchase/sale
transaction. Are there any factors in what actually took place that
may have a bearing on the situation?
Nick
wrote:
this might not have been a plain vanilla house purchase/sale
transaction. Are there any factors in what actually took place that
may have a bearing on the situation?
Nick
Pelican
Jul 1, 2012, 7:20:02 PM7/1/12
to
"David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a5al08...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "David McNeish" <davi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a8dfc1e4-c533-41e6...@a8g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 9:30 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
>> bit.
>>
>> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
>> with an outstanding charge against it.
>> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
>> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the
>> charge,
>> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>>
>> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another
>> firm?
>
> $The Land Registry may well have dealt with similar cases involving
> $this lender before, so might have the answer readily to hand.
>
> $Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
> http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
>
> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route has
> already been tried, but failed.
What was the route taken that failed? On the information given, there
> "David McNeish" <davi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a8dfc1e4-c533-41e6...@a8g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 9:30 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
>> bit.
>>
>> The purchase of our property (cash) was allowed through by our solicitor
>> with an outstanding charge against it.
>> The charge relates to Homestead Finance, who were disolved in 1999.
>> As the firm is no longer there, they cannot be contacted to lift the
>> charge,
>> or confirm that the loan has been repaid.
>>
>> Is there any way to trace if the loan has been re-assigned to another
>> firm?
>
> $The Land Registry may well have dealt with similar cases involving
> $this lender before, so might have the answer readily to hand.
>
> $Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
> http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
>
> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route has
> already been tried, but failed.
appears to be an asset that is bona vacantia, which the Treasury Solicitor
has not disclaimed. It also appears to be practically valueless. Why can't
you arrange to buy the asset for a peppercorn from the Treasury Solicitor,
and get rid of the charge that way? It would be much faster and cheaper
than any application to the court, or fiddling around with the solicitors
involved.
Chris R
Jul 2, 2012, 6:20:02 AM7/2/12
to
> > $Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
> > http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
> >
> > Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route
> > has already been tried, but failed.
>
> What was the route taken that failed? On the information given, there
> appears to be an asset that is bona vacantia, which the Treasury Solicitor
> has not disclaimed. It also appears to be practically valueless. Why
> can't you arrange to buy the asset for a peppercorn from the Treasury
> Solicitor, and get rid of the charge that way? It would be much faster
> and cheaper than any application to the court, or fiddling around with the
> solicitors involved.
>
someone else, or whether there was no debt in which case there is no asset
to be bona vacantia.
David WE Roberts
Jul 2, 2012, 4:50:02 AM7/2/12
to
"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message
news:jsqlql$dd2$1...@dont-email.me...
to the Treasury Solicitor as bona vacantia and in turn we could have
arranged the discharge of both the loan and the charge.
We have a copy of a letter from the Treasury Solicitor making it clear that
the TS does not assume all rights and responsibilities of a defunct company
and therefore cannot remove this charge if there is no outstanding loan.
There is no evidence of an outstanding loan.
There is instead a sworn statement from the vendor that there is no
outstanding loan.
So the same sworn statement takes the TS out of the loop but is not enough
evidence for the Land Registry.
When I started this thread I was thrashing about looking for a magic
solution for an apparent Catch22 situation.
Reflection plus the useful input here is strongly suggesting there is no
magic solution.
Cheers
Dave R
David WE Roberts
Jul 2, 2012, 5:10:02 AM7/2/12
to
"Nick Odell" <gurzhfvp...@ntlworld.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:s9j0v7lhm1trc5bdf...@4ax.com...
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:30:16 +0100, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Jul 1, 10:55 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route
>> has
>> already been tried, but failed.
>> Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no evidence
>> of
>> loan repaid means no removal of charge.
>> Thanks for the thought, though.
>
>I presume there's a court remedy though. I can't believe that property
>can be encumbered with a charge indefinitely where the lender no
>longer exists and nobody has evidence that anybody else has an
>interest.
$One or two turns of phrase in your replies further above hint that
wrote:
>On Jul 1, 10:55 am, "David WE Roberts" <nos...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route
>> has
>> already been tried, but failed.
>> Up thread you will see that the Land Registry claim Catch22 - no evidence
>> of
>> loan repaid means no removal of charge.
>> Thanks for the thought, though.
>
>I presume there's a court remedy though. I can't believe that property
>can be encumbered with a charge indefinitely where the lender no
>longer exists and nobody has evidence that anybody else has an
>interest.
$this might not have been a plain vanilla house purchase/sale
$transaction. Are there any factors in what actually took place that
$may have a bearing on the situation?
It was quite messy.
We were buying a house which was about to be repossesed by the mortgage
lender due to the financial mess the vendors were in.
We found out just before completion that after exchange and before
completion the property had been repossesed, the vendors evicted, and the
locks changed.
However the mortgage company very sensibly allowed the sale to go through -
presumably because this was the quickest and best result for them.
There was an outstanding charge on the property and our solicitor relied
upon the assurances of the vendor's solicitors that the charge would be
lifted.
Up thread, there is a post suggesting that this is both reasonable and
common practice.
It now turns out that due to various circumstances already explained, that
the charge can apparently not be lifted - ever.
Which in turn means that in the longer term we have recourse through our
solicitors to the vendors solicitors.
However in the immediate future we are struggling to find a mortgage company
which will lend against the property when they cannot have first charge.
We are raising a buy-to-let mortgage to pay off the domestic mortgage on our
current home which we used to buy the property in question and renovate it
and to free off some equity.
We did live in the property for four years during and after the renovation
but were reluctant/unable to sell at the time of the financial crash in 2009
because the housing market was in such a mess.
So we have been letting the house, with a view to selling at some future
time when it suited us and the house market has improved.
We didn't initially look for a mortgage on the problem property because we
wanted to borrow more than the purchase price to fund the renovation and it
seemed much less complicated to take out a mortgage on our then home and buy
with cash.
Of course, if we had taken out a mortgage then presumably this whole sorry
mess would have held up completion and then potentially scuppered our
mortgage.
Or would it?
Would the mortgage lender have relied on the assurances of the vendor's
solicitors?
And if so, would this have changed anything?
Whatever, with the best of intentions and not apparently doing anything that
is not normal in the great scheme of house purchasing and conveyancing, we
are left with an issue which limits our financial flexibilty.
Cheers
Dave R
Chris R
Jul 2, 2012, 8:15:02 AM7/2/12
to
> We were buying a house which was about to be repossesed by the mortgage
> lender due to the financial mess the vendors were in.
> We found out just before completion that after exchange and before
> completion the property had been repossesed, the vendors evicted, and the
> locks changed.
> However the mortgage company very sensibly allowed the sale to go
> through - presumably because this was the quickest and best result for
> them.
>
> There was an outstanding charge on the property and our solicitor relied
> upon the assurances of the vendor's solicitors that the charge would be
> lifted.
> Up thread, there is a post suggesting that this is both reasonable and
> common practice.
>
> It now turns out that due to various circumstances already explained, that
> the charge can apparently not be lifted - ever.
>
> Which in turn means that in the longer term we have recourse through our
> solicitors to the vendors solicitors.
>
should be sorting this out, but if what you are saying is that the first
charge holder (whom you are calling "the mortgage company") sold the
property under the power of sale in its first charge, with a second charge
still showing on the register in favour of another lender, the sale by the
first charge holder should take effect free of the second charge, which is
"overreached". See for instance
http://www.mablaw.com/2010/05/will-it-be-overreached/
David WE Roberts
Jul 2, 2012, 9:35:02 AM7/2/12
to
news:QqCdnc01-LphEmzS...@brightview.co.uk...
Thanks - very interesting reading.
Are you/the web site saying that if a property is sold by the first charge
holder and the second charge holder cannot be contacted/does not come
forward then the second charge (and any others) should be automatically
removed on completion?
i.e that all charges on a property should not survive the sale of the
property.
If so, how do I convince the Land Registry that they should have removed the
charge?
Are you/the web site saying that if a property is sold by the first charge
holder and the second charge holder cannot be contacted/does not come
forward then the second charge (and any others) should be automatically
removed on completion?
i.e that all charges on a property should not survive the sale of the
property.
If so, how do I convince the Land Registry that they should have removed the
charge?
Pelican
Jul 2, 2012, 9:45:03 AM7/2/12
to
news:a5d5d0...@mid.individual.net...
I'm not suggesting buying an argument with the Treasury Solicitor. The
Treasury Solicitor is unwilling to provide a document to clear the charge,
which is what I had assumed. I'm suggesting a variation of the theme.
There is evidence of an outstanding loan, which is the registered charge.
It vests in the Treasury Solicitor as bona vacantia. The vendor might say
that there is no outstanding loan, but that does not resolve the matter.
I'm suggesting that you offer to buy the outstanding loan, valueless though
it might be in reality, for a very nominal amount. It should be no skin off
the nose of the Treasury Solicitor to sell it to you, with minor paperwork
and a minimum of fuss. You then have the ability to clear the charge
yourself.
> So the same sworn statement takes the TS out of the loop but is not enough
> evidence for the Land Registry.
I believe that is the correct approach. The concept of a land registry
entails registration of relevant documents in the statutory form.
> When I started this thread I was thrashing about looking for a magic
> solution for an apparent Catch22 situation.
> Reflection plus the useful input here is strongly suggesting there is no
> magic solution.
There is an "in principle solution", but it involves an application to the
court, meaning some effort, time and expense. You really need some
co-operation from people prepared to do what is reasonable, if a bit
creative. All within the law, of course.
Treasury Solicitor is unwilling to provide a document to clear the charge,
which is what I had assumed. I'm suggesting a variation of the theme.
There is evidence of an outstanding loan, which is the registered charge.
It vests in the Treasury Solicitor as bona vacantia. The vendor might say
that there is no outstanding loan, but that does not resolve the matter.
I'm suggesting that you offer to buy the outstanding loan, valueless though
it might be in reality, for a very nominal amount. It should be no skin off
the nose of the Treasury Solicitor to sell it to you, with minor paperwork
and a minimum of fuss. You then have the ability to clear the charge
yourself.
> So the same sworn statement takes the TS out of the loop but is not enough
> evidence for the Land Registry.
entails registration of relevant documents in the statutory form.
> When I started this thread I was thrashing about looking for a magic
> solution for an apparent Catch22 situation.
> Reflection plus the useful input here is strongly suggesting there is no
> magic solution.
court, meaning some effort, time and expense. You really need some
co-operation from people prepared to do what is reasonable, if a bit
creative. All within the law, of course.
Pelican
Jul 2, 2012, 9:50:02 AM7/2/12
to
news:oOqdnTYqTeO46GzS...@brightview.co.uk...
registration. The charge vests as bona vacantia in the Treasury Solicitor,
whatever its value. I can see no compelling reason why, as a matter of law,
the charge cannot be sold by the Treasury Solicitor with minimal formality
to the OP, regardless of whether the debt can be proved to exist or not.
Essentially, it's just a documentation issue.
>
>
>> > $Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
>> > http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
>> >
>> > Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route
>> > has already been tried, but failed.
>>
>> What was the route taken that failed? On the information given, there
>> appears to be an asset that is bona vacantia, which the Treasury
>> Solicitor
>> has not disclaimed. It also appears to be practically valueless. Why
>> can't you arrange to buy the asset for a peppercorn from the Treasury
>> Solicitor, and get rid of the charge that way? It would be much faster
>> and cheaper than any application to the court, or fiddling around with
>> the
>> solicitors involved.
>>
> We don't know whether there was a debt which could have been assigned to
> someone else, or whether there was no debt in which case there is no asset
> to be bona vacantia.
That may be so. But there is obviously evidence of a charge, based on its
>
>> > $Otherwise it sounds like bona vacantia:
>> > http://www.bonavacantia.gov.uk/output/companies.aspx
>> >
>> > Previous reference to the Treasury Solicitor indicates that this route
>> > has already been tried, but failed.
>>
>> What was the route taken that failed? On the information given, there
>> appears to be an asset that is bona vacantia, which the Treasury
>> Solicitor
>> has not disclaimed. It also appears to be practically valueless. Why
>> can't you arrange to buy the asset for a peppercorn from the Treasury
>> Solicitor, and get rid of the charge that way? It would be much faster
>> and cheaper than any application to the court, or fiddling around with
>> the
>> solicitors involved.
>>
> We don't know whether there was a debt which could have been assigned to
> someone else, or whether there was no debt in which case there is no asset
> to be bona vacantia.
registration. The charge vests as bona vacantia in the Treasury Solicitor,
whatever its value. I can see no compelling reason why, as a matter of law,
the charge cannot be sold by the Treasury Solicitor with minimal formality
to the OP, regardless of whether the debt can be proved to exist or not.
Essentially, it's just a documentation issue.
David WE Roberts
Jul 2, 2012, 11:25:02 AM7/2/12
to
news:QqCdnc01-LphEmzS...@brightview.co.uk...
Just worked out why this doesn't apply (I think).
Although the vendors were chucked out of the property a couple of weeks
before completion the sale from the vendors to us was allowed to proceed
instead of the mortgage company taking formal possesion and then having to
go round the loop of finding a purchaser.
How did they evict the vendors without actually taking full posession?
I don't know.
All I do know is that they were evicted, the locks changed, services turned
off etc.
However we still dealt with the original set of solicitors (with the
original contract), who AFAIK were still acting for the vendor and not the
mortgage holder.
So the "overreach" provision in repossession doesn't seem to apply because
it never got that far.
I think.
Although the vendors were chucked out of the property a couple of weeks
before completion the sale from the vendors to us was allowed to proceed
instead of the mortgage company taking formal possesion and then having to
go round the loop of finding a purchaser.
How did they evict the vendors without actually taking full posession?
I don't know.
All I do know is that they were evicted, the locks changed, services turned
off etc.
However we still dealt with the original set of solicitors (with the
original contract), who AFAIK were still acting for the vendor and not the
mortgage holder.
So the "overreach" provision in repossession doesn't seem to apply because
it never got that far.
I think.
Chris R
Jul 3, 2012, 4:10:03 AM7/3/12
to
>
> > "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
> > news:a5dsoi...@mid.individual.net... "Chris R"
> > "David WE Roberts" wrote in message
and between them (or their insurers' solicitors) they should be sorting this
out for you. I'm not a conveyancer but I would not have expected the
seller's solicitor to have given an undertaking to discharge the second
charge in favour of an untraced lender who had not confirmed the amount
required to discharge it and without making sure he was in possession of the
discharge form. If no such undertaking was given, it's a question of why
your own solicitor allowed the sale to complete with the second charge
outstanding.
Chris R
Jul 3, 2012, 4:45:10 AM7/3/12
to
>
>
> "Pelican" wrote in message news:jss8s0$soq$1...@dont-email.me...
don't think a charge that secures nothing is a form of property that could
vest in the Treasury Solicitor. the Treasury Solicitor will probably be
reluctant to engage in speculative transactions and will want his costs of
investigation covering, as well as some real money to make all this
worthwhile. And no-one knows whether the benefit of any debt does vest in
the Treasury Solicitor, as it could have been assigned to someone else. The
Treasury Solicitor would have to get himself registered at the Land Registry
as the holder of the charge, and he probably can't do that without evidence.
The Todal
Jul 3, 2012, 6:50:02 AM7/3/12
to
On 2/7/12 09:50, David WE Roberts wrote:
>
> When I started this thread I was thrashing about looking for a magic
> solution for an apparent Catch22 situation.
> Reflection plus the useful input here is strongly suggesting there is no
> magic solution.
I suppose it is quite likely that most conveyancing solicitors are
>
> When I started this thread I was thrashing about looking for a magic
> solution for an apparent Catch22 situation.
> Reflection plus the useful input here is strongly suggesting there is no
> magic solution.
mediocre lawyers and don't know how to deal with unusual situations.
They know how to participate in the "ritual dance" (as described by
Michael Joseph) of the conveyancing procedure, but any real problems are
for specialist land law practitioners.
You need a good lawyer. Your conveyancer might be able to find a good
barrister specialising in land law, or you might need to find another
firm and consider whether to sue your vendor or your own solicitors.
What ought to be possible is to (a) write to the liquidator or
administrator of Homestead Finance to find out whether he is empowered
to sign the necessary form certifying that the loan has been repaid, and
whether the assets of Homestead Finance have been purchased by or
transferred to another organisation with whom you can correspond, and
(b) to ask the Land Registry whether it has any records showing who now
owns the assets of Homestead Finance, and (c) to apply to the court,
probably the Chancery Division, for a declaration that the loan has been
repaid and that the charge must be removed. But any such application
would only succeed if prepared carefully, with the right supporting
evidence. A litigant in person couldn't do it, in my opinion.
David WE Roberts
Jul 3, 2012, 4:15:03 AM7/3/12
to
"Pelican" <water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote in message
news:jss8s0$soq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
However, if the debt
(1) Does exist
(2) Has been sold to another company which has not pursued it as yet
then presumably it does not fall within bona vacantia and the TS cannot
sell, even for a nominal fee, that which is still legitimately owned by a
trading company.
The TS has already stated in writing that if there is no loan outstanding
(and there is a sworn statement to this effect) then the TS has no
involvement so in the TS's opinion an outstanding charge of no monetary
value does not fall under bona vacantia. So they do not agree with your
contention that "The charge vests as bona vacantia in the Treasury
Solicitor, whatever its value".
As I see it the only way the TS is involved is if the debt still exists and
has not been sold/assigned to another company.
There is already evidence supplied by the vendors stating that this is not
the case.
How would one go about proving this was the case?
One final thing - if another company owns the debt (and presumably the
charge) then shouldn't they have registered some kind of interest?
Or can you hold debts from a defunct company for decades with no outside
visible evidence?
Cheers
Dave R
Chris R
Jul 3, 2012, 8:35:02 AM7/3/12
to
>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:a5g0qk...@mid.individual.net...
the OP should be sorting this out at their own expense. Unless there is a
lot more more we don't know (I'm still concerned about the OP's reference to
a settlement) I would pursue this by filing a complaint/claim against the
solicitors and letting them deal with it, making sure they have notified
their insurers; the insurers might appoint another firm to deal with it.
I also think there must be established Land Registry practice to clear off
old, dead charges where the chargeholder has disappeared or no longer
responds. It might involve insurance, and/or a 12-year wait.
The Todal
Jul 3, 2012, 10:05:02 AM7/3/12
to
solicitors undertook to clear the charge and failed to do so, that means
that those solicitors are in breach of an undertaking. Possibly they
could be sued, possibly they could be reported to the SRA. But the OP's
own solicitors may not have made any errors and if they are to engage in
further work to enforce the undertaking I suppose they will be entitled
to payment for that work.
Chris R
Jul 3, 2012, 11:35:02 AM7/3/12
to
>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:a5gcci...@mid.individual.net...
this was a second charge and the chargeholder had already disappeared at the
time of the transaction - no solicitor would give an undertaking in those
circumstances. And how did the buyer's solicitors manage to get the OP
registered as proprietor with an outstanding charge? Normally they would
have chased the seller's solicitors for the discharge before applying of
registration. The solicitors have not finished the job until they have
registered the OP's title free of the charges. If his own solicitors are
indeed innocent, their costs should be recoverable from the other firm at
fault.
Of course there is another possibility, which is that the OP was in fact
advised not to go ahead but decided to proceed anyway.
David WE Roberts
Jul 3, 2012, 11:30:03 AM7/3/12
to
news:BpCdnXGFrvdMeG_S...@brightview.co.uk...
According to one lady on the phone at the Land Registry they have charges
like this dating back to the 1960s.
Given that the company was liquidated in 1999 there is certainly no
automatic clear off after 12 years.
Again, the main issue it to prove that the debt has not been passed on to
another company.
like this dating back to the 1960s.
Given that the company was liquidated in 1999 there is certainly no
automatic clear off after 12 years.
Again, the main issue it to prove that the debt has not been passed on to
another company.
R. Mark Clayton
Jul 3, 2012, 11:55:02 AM7/3/12
to
news:a57rfp...@mid.individual.net...
> The loan was sold on to Ocwen, an American company, which is serviced by
> Watford-based company I Group under the current name of CMR. Igroup was
> acquired by GE Consumer Finance in June 2001.
Then GE capital are the successors as nortgagee.
>
> Despite the name changes, the Igroup is based in the same Watford building
> originally used by Homestead.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1592833/pound9000-bill-for-two-missed-payments.html#ixzz1zGLlfT21
> "
>
> We have little hope of getting any proof from the previous owners as the
> sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a mass of
> unpaid debts.
proceeds were insufficient to discharge the mortgage and the was still money
owing (which may have increased). The vendors' may have paid the sellers
before the mortgage, although this is unlikely (and the lawyers would be
liable).
OTOH if all this happened over 12 years ago, you should be able to claim
adverse possession and get the title cleaned up that way. You need a lawyer
though, because GE may claim that you took over the debt as well as the
property.
>
> So again, is there any way to prove there is no outstanding loan?
> Lack of evidence that there is a loan is not enough.
> We were surprised that anyone could own the benefit of a charge on a
> property if the charge did not name them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave R
> We have a fairly complex tangle, so I will start by asking about just one
> bit.
>
SNIP
> bit.
>
> The loan was sold on to Ocwen, an American company, which is serviced by
> Watford-based company I Group under the current name of CMR. Igroup was
> acquired by GE Consumer Finance in June 2001.
Then GE capital are the successors as nortgagee.
>
> Despite the name changes, the Igroup is based in the same Watford building
> originally used by Homestead.
>
> Read more:
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-1592833/pound9000-bill-for-two-missed-payments.html#ixzz1zGLlfT21
> "
>
> We have little hope of getting any proof from the previous owners as the
> sale was the result of a business failure, marriage breakup, and a mass of
> unpaid debts.
> Basically screwed by our solicitors who were foolish enough to trust the
> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
There are various possibilities here, but the most likely is that the
> assurances of the vendors solicitors that the charge would be lifted.
> Addressing this is a whole other can of nasty worms.
proceeds were insufficient to discharge the mortgage and the was still money
owing (which may have increased). The vendors' may have paid the sellers
before the mortgage, although this is unlikely (and the lawyers would be
liable).
OTOH if all this happened over 12 years ago, you should be able to claim
adverse possession and get the title cleaned up that way. You need a lawyer
though, because GE may claim that you took over the debt as well as the
property.
>
> So again, is there any way to prove there is no outstanding loan?
> Lack of evidence that there is a loan is not enough.
> We were surprised that anyone could own the benefit of a charge on a
> property if the charge did not name them.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave R
David WE Roberts
Jul 3, 2012, 12:15:02 PM7/3/12
to
news:eqadnQeLgoOQNW_S...@brightview.co.uk...
Extract from email from our solicitor:
"David
The seller's solicitor now tells me that he can give me the professional
assurances I require to ensure that your purchase will be free of the second
charge. I have checked at the Land Registry, and as of now the seller is
still in a position to sell and I am told by the solicitor that we will have
a day or two, but only a day or two to exchange before the property is
formally taken over by the mortgagee.
"
Hope this clarifies.
"David
The seller's solicitor now tells me that he can give me the professional
assurances I require to ensure that your purchase will be free of the second
charge. I have checked at the Land Registry, and as of now the seller is
still in a position to sell and I am told by the solicitor that we will have
a day or two, but only a day or two to exchange before the property is
formally taken over by the mortgagee.
"
Hope this clarifies.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Jul 3, 2012, 8:20:03 PM7/3/12
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> I agree with most of that, but i still think the solicitors who
> acted for the OP should be sorting this out at their own
> expense. Unless there is a lot more more we don't know (I'm
> still concerned about the OP's reference to a settlement) I
> would pursue this by filing a complaint/claim against the
> solicitors and letting them deal with it, making sure they have
> notified their insurers; the insurers might appoint another firm
> to deal with it.
If the solicitors recommended action based on insufficient
> I agree with most of that, but i still think the solicitors who
> acted for the OP should be sorting this out at their own
> expense. Unless there is a lot more more we don't know (I'm
> still concerned about the OP's reference to a settlement) I
> would pursue this by filing a complaint/claim against the
> solicitors and letting them deal with it, making sure they have
> notified their insurers; the insurers might appoint another firm
> to deal with it.
assurances, then I agree with you. If the assurances were
sufficient, then the lender's solicitors should sort things out.
> I also think there must be established Land Registry practice to
> clear off old, dead charges where the chargeholder has
> disappeared or no longer responds. It might involve insurance,
> and/or a 12-year wait.
actually contest it.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Chris R
Jul 4, 2012, 7:20:02 AM7/4/12
to
>
>
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
> news:XnsA085AF7A2B977s...@130.133.4.11...
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of that, but i still think the solicitors who
> > acted for the OP should be sorting this out at their own
> > expense. Unless there is a lot more more we don't know (I'm
> > still concerned about the OP's reference to a settlement) I
> > would pursue this by filing a complaint/claim against the
> > solicitors and letting them deal with it, making sure they have
> > notified their insurers; the insurers might appoint another firm
> > to deal with it.
>
> If the solicitors recommended action based on insufficient
> assurances, then I agree with you. If the assurances were
> sufficient, then the lender's solicitors should sort things out.
Seller's solicitors perhaps? The facts are unclear, but if the seller's
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I agree with most of that, but i still think the solicitors who
> > acted for the OP should be sorting this out at their own
> > expense. Unless there is a lot more more we don't know (I'm
> > still concerned about the OP's reference to a settlement) I
> > would pursue this by filing a complaint/claim against the
> > solicitors and letting them deal with it, making sure they have
> > notified their insurers; the insurers might appoint another firm
> > to deal with it.
>
> If the solicitors recommended action based on insufficient
> assurances, then I agree with you. If the assurances were
> sufficient, then the lender's solicitors should sort things out.
solicitors gave an undertaking, that's correct. though I don't understand
how the buyer's solicitors finished their work without providing a clean
title to their client - they should have been chasing the discharge.
>
> > I also think there must be established Land Registry practice to
> > clear off old, dead charges where the chargeholder has
> > disappeared or no longer responds. It might involve insurance,
> > and/or a 12-year wait.
>
> Would a quiet title action be reasonable? I doubt that anyone would
> actually contest it.
>
No such thing in England as far as i know.
> > I also think there must be established Land Registry practice to
> > clear off old, dead charges where the chargeholder has
> > disappeared or no longer responds. It might involve insurance,
> > and/or a 12-year wait.
>
> Would a quiet title action be reasonable? I doubt that anyone would
> actually contest it.
>
0 new messages