Limitations act and restrictions on property

A question about : Limitations act and restrictions on property

A friend has a house with a small mortgage on it. He wishes to move but seven or eight years ago got into finacial difficulties (loss of job etc) and ran up debts with his bank. The bank offered him a credit card and again he ran that up to it's maximum. The two debts were Ј4000 each, but the bank kept adding charges that with the interest took it up to Ј16000 in two years! As he was unable to pay they obtained a CCJ and he arranged to pay small amounts on each until cleared. On one he stopped paying (the Ј16000 one) and tried to get back on track. After a couple of months the bank stopped writing to him, then he got a letetr from their solicitors stating they were seeking to place a charge against the property. Despite his offer to restart payments and a letter to the solicitors they refused to stop the action and a restriction not a charge was registered. The second debt, although being paid was also treated the same and another CCj and restriction was obtained.
It has now been over 6 years since he has had any contact with the bank, and he realises that the Limitations Act means that the bank cannot recover the Ј16000 debt. He would like to remove the restrictions from his Land Registry entry, but to do that he needs a court order. Does anyone have any experience in these matters?

Best answers:

• The six year rule does not generally apply if there is a CCJ.
• That is true, but as a court would be reluctant to allow further enforcement, would they allow an order to remove the entry from the registry as that is an enduring form of enforcement?
• Hi Steve811, thank you for your query regarding the Limitation Act.
  Disputing charging orders is a complex area of law and I would suggest you seek advice from a specialist debt adviser on this issue. Your friend can find their local Citizens Advice Bureau at www.citizensadvice.org.uk.
  Hope this is of assistance
• If there is a charge order on the propery it will need paying, the limitations act will not apply. Not only that there is interest on the 16k going back 8 years.
  https://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index...tation-periods
• Thanks to all, however there is a very real point here, and that is that the order is not a charging order it is a restriction. This only means the seller has to inform the chargee of the intention to sell, and does not have to pay them anything. Every legal refernce and case I have seen relates to charges raised against the property by way of loans or martgages, not restrictions.
• my understanding is that the limitations act for non enfoceable does not apply because they acted within the 6 years by getting a charge/restriction, call it what you like it sounds like a charging order,
  If you still beleive it is not enforcable then you will have to pull apart the limiations act and find the point of law.
  Id go for a time order if you want it redressed and prove the unhealthy relationship between lender and creditor.
• The circumstances haven't changed so getting the restriction lifted will be difficult. Even if it is just a restriction the court will still recognise the debt hasn't been paid and will not lift it. The limitations act does not alter this fact even although the creditors might not be able to chase the debt.
  They are two seperate issues, the debt still exists, it doesn't just get written off because 6 years have passed.
  I still don't understand how the bank don't have a charge on the property, a restriction is usually put in place to protect the charge.
• CAB specialist workers will explain a time order, it is to complex to write in a couple of paragraphs but a very common tack to reduce debt/intrest with a time to do so.
• As a follow up to this we wrote to the Land Registry and submitted a request to remove the restriction, quoting the Limitations Act. They gave the restrictor 21 days to respond and the Land Registry have recived an objection to the removal. Their solicitor is going to write to us to explain the situation, but I feel it will need a court order to remove the restriction.