Charging order query

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Charging order query

    Quick question - if a property has been repossessed but remains unsold by the bank - mortgagee-in-possession - can someone still get a charging order against the property?

    #2
    I cannot think of any reason why not. The property still belongs to the borrower.

    Comment


      #3
      What happens with negative equity?
      I read somewhere that if the property gets sold the 1st charge gets all the proceeds. If no money left what happens to the charging order (2nd charge) which can't be repaid? It reverts to an unsecured debt? Which can't be repaid?

      Comment


        #4
        Sounds like a FH question, in similar situation I saw, after repossession the guy who bought the LH from the bank was made liable for the outstanding charges of the bankrupt previous LH.

        All the while the bank was in possession they did not pay any of the service charges so next LH caught them too.

        Comment


          #5
          HP mum,

          If there is negative equity and the first chargee sells as chargee he takes does indeed take all the proceeds and all subsequent charges become unsecured and the buyer takes free of all the charges. However, the borrower will not be able to sell unless he pays off al the charges.

          Comment


            #6
            Thanks.
            I understand then that a borrower can't sell unless he pays off all charges. But in the case of repossession the borrower is not in control of the sale process. A receiver/ bank is. So if they decide to sell at a level that just about clears their security - or maybe doesn't clear it at all and leaves a shortfall - then what happens to the someone with a 2nd charge? The 2nd charge can't prevent the receiver/ bank selling can they?

            Comment


              #7
              A chargee selling owes a duty to the borrower and all those interested in the equity of redemption to sell at the best price reasonably obtainable.

              Comment


                #8
                Thanks Lawcruncher
                As i understand the situation then:
                1st chargee selling the repossessed property is obliged to do 'their' best to achieve best selling price. They won't be able to ride out the bad economy/ low prices or covid lockdowns just to try and get a better price in 1-2 years - as delaying any sale will increase amount owing by borrower.
                So 1st chargee sells - now - at best price reasonably obtainable.
                Then 2nd chargee and the original borrower get zero - and there is nothing they can do.
                And the amount owed to the 2nd chargee becomes unsecured again. Still owed.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yes, except that it is not that the first chargee must sell to avoid interest adding up, but that the first chargee has no obligation to wait for the market ti improve.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    The mortgagee in possession will normally sell as soon as possible because it can be held liable if it decides to hold the property and then values fall.
                    The first mortgagee will take the monies owed to it including its costs. If there are any monies remaining, the 2nd mortgagee will be paid and finally if there are still monies remaining, the borrower will receive the balance.
                    The borrower remains responsible for any shortfall owing to both mortgagees after the sale of the property.
                    When you say that the 2nd mortgagee and the borrower get zero and there is nothing they can do, that only applies if the 1st mortgagee has acted reasonably and the sale proceeds of the property are insufficient to repay the 1st mortgagee in full.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      For a very full discussion see here: https://26kl0k15gghr18bm1c30oj85-wpe...f-Property.pdf

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Who owns loft space when it is not stated in lease.
                        by vagabond
                        Hi, I own a top floor maisonette and share the freehold 50/50 with the ground floor maisonette. I would like to build a loft conversion and after checking my lease I'm unsure who the loft space belongs to. All I can see in my lease is "the right for the lessor/owner/occupier of lower maisonette...
                        21-01-2022, 14:45 PM
                      • Reply to Who owns loft space when it is not stated in lease.
                        by Babyspice
                        vagabond does ur lease state to whom has the roof been demised to? Who is responsible for insuring/repairing and rebuilding (in case of fire)?

                        i am currently progressing a loft conversion application with the FH, and even though my lease does not specifically mention the loft space, since...
                        28-01-2022, 18:27 PM
                      • Reply to Is there a limit to what constitutes a premium?
                        by Babyspice
                        Annoyingfreeholder good news for u. U have a qualified covenant (not absolute). This means that ur FH cannot unreasonably withhold consent. Now to check if a premium is payable or not to the FH, u need to check the extend of ur demise. Eg if ur demise includes internal and external walls and provided...
                        28-01-2022, 18:17 PM
                      • Is there a limit to what constitutes a premium?
                        by nomadiclord
                        Evening all,

                        I have a two bedroom garden flat and a second child on the way. So I am planning on an extension to give us more living space. Although the garden is demised to me, the lease clearly states that I cannot cut maim alter or injure any of the principal timbers or walls...
                        ...
                        15-05-2021, 19:06 PM
                      • 2 misconceived court claims and last minute back down by landlord
                        by Starlane
                        Over the last few years the current directors have made simple mistakes and brought court claim after court claim against me causing me stress, distress and lots of wasted time and energy. I have tried to be reasonable call meetings to discuss and collaborate and still they carry on and NO I cant remove...
                        27-01-2022, 18:30 PM
                      • Reply to 2 misconceived court claims and last minute back down by landlord
                        by Starlane
                        Thank you and in all this time they have never addressed any repair issues only repair issues to the directors flats so my flat has probably depreciated in costs and may be harder to sell with the damp issues. Yes they only way out now is to go to the FTT and have constant battles or sell.
                        28-01-2022, 16:49 PM
                      • Water Leaks Again and Again and Again...
                        by bigalxyz
                        Director of RMC - 11 flats in London
                        There seems to be a long standing problem with the plumbing in the bathroom of one of the flats. 4 water leaks in the last 18 months, causing damage to the flat below.

                        Is there anything the RMC can do to compel the leaseholder of the problem flat...
                        28-01-2022, 16:05 PM
                      • AGM cancelled.
                        by Grumio
                        Is this legal?

                        A bit of background, we currently have three directors, we are allowed to have up to a maximum of eight directors according to the articles of association. We are all leaseholders. Last summer the three directors decided to hire a managing agent who is now in charge of the...
                        26-01-2022, 00:46 AM
                      • Reply to AGM cancelled.
                        by Gordon999
                        Companies Act 2006 for small companies replaces the CA1985.

                        Any member of a small company with 5% interest can call a EGM meeting by giving 21 days notice.

                        The agenda for meeting can be ; electing new directors.

                        The meeting chairman can be the third director....
                        28-01-2022, 14:08 PM
                      • Reply to Leaseholders with no information on the residential association accounts.
                        by Gordon999
                        You need to vote in new directors and get them registered at Companies House first .

                        1. 5% members of a small company can call a meeting to vote in new directors but the organiser must give atleast 21 days notice before meeting day. ..


                        The meeting agenda ( purpose)...
                        28-01-2022, 13:32 PM
                      Working...
                      X