Charging order on property - beneficial interest

[ADAM-SETH]

The deeds of my property are in joint names (joint tenancy) with my daughter. A credit card company has obtained a charging order for the sum of 12000 on what they refer to as her ''beneficial interest'' in the property. They are seeking to receive this sum on the sale of the property;

My intention - if i am able to, legally - is to arrest them from achieving their objective; ideally I wish to ensure that they receive as little as possible of this sum - preferable nil;

i would be extremely grateful for your technical and, if applicable, legal expertise with this objective and answers to the following questions;

(1) Can she be removed from the deeds (in order to ensure that she has no beneficial interest in the property) whilst there is a charging order on the deeds in respect of her ''beneficial interest'' and (2) can her interest be removed WITHOUT the credit card company being informed of the event?

(3) If it is a legal requirement to inform the credit card company of the event, WHO is required by law to provide such information?

(4) If and When the crefit card company are informed of this intention (to remove her name from the property deeds) can they BLOCK her removal from the deeds?

Ideally, I would prefer to construct the deeds of the property such that they retain her and I as joint tenants in order that she can inherit the property upon my death without paying inheritance tax AND to ensure that if the property has to be sold before my death, that the ratio of ownership/''beneficial interest'' of the property can be split 1:99 respectively so that her beneficial interest is at the very minimum of 1% henceforth the credit card company would only be able to receive 1% of the proceeds, thus they would a sum in the region of �2000 instead of �12000 !

Thanking you enormously in anticipation for your generous and kind assistance

Kind

[dzug]

It can't be done.

The Land Registry will not allow any transfer of the property unless the charge is removed.

And not being picky, but it's not 'your' property. It is you and your daughter's joint property. She has as much right to it as you have. That's what having 'names on deeds' means.

[dzug]

you can remove her if you repay the debt.

AND she consents - you can't do it unilaterally.

[craft1948]

Why should your daughter be able to dodge her debts. I was a "debt collector" for 5 years and could count the number of property charges I applied for on one hand as this is action is only taken as a last resort

[factor-fiction]

Are you challenging the validity of the debt? I wondered because of your comment: " I wish to ensure that they receive as little as possible of this sum - preferable nil".
Is there any significance to this comment?
If so, challenging the validity of the debt may be a more productive route than the route you are considering.

[bednobs]

surely they would have had to have proved the validity before they got a charging order? Or at least given the daughter the chance to dispute validity?
This must have been to court, so i guess there would have been plenty of time to change the deeds. However, now the charging order is in place, no hope.

[eggboxy]

The only way you are going to "get around" repayment on this one is to sell the property to a third party for value. Since the LRA 2002 came into force in October 2003, Charging Orders on "Beneficial Interest" can only be protected by a Form K Restriction as they are no longer allowed to attach to the legal estate. To comply with the Restriction, all that is required is that the new purchaser of the property (or their conveyancer) provides a "Certificate" to the Land Registry that they have notified the Restriction holder that the property has been sold. As there is no time limit attached to the Restriction, it is therefore possible to have sold the property before notifying the Restriction holder. Once the Land Registry has been notified by the new purchaser it is obliged the register the change of ownership and the Restriction has to be cancelled as it has become "over reached". What happens, thereafter, to the sale proceeds is not a matter for the Land Registry. There will be difficulty in doing this, though, as conveyancers are still treating these Restrictions as though the were a CO attached like a an "equitable charge"which they are not. But anyone with he full facts of the above can easily achieve this with the "right" help. That is as the Law now stands.