Hi thanks for your question. My name isXXXXX can answer this for you.
The consent is needed by the borrower from his legal charge holder (i.e. the first one). This is needed as in his mortgage deed, it will say that consent is required from them to further charge the property. Therefore to avoid being in breach of the terms of his mortgage deed, he would need consent.
Consent would not be required from the other two, as they put their charges on without the consent it would seem of the property owner.
Your charge would rank behind the existing charges, so they would all need to get paid first, before you got any money under your charge. Also, some charges provide that further funds can be borrowed at a later stage, and you need to be aware of this, as potentially, if further borrowing were taken with the existing first charge lender, then you might see the equity being stripped before your charge takes effect to be repaid. This might be more an academic concern that a real one, but I thought I should mention it.
Is it anything to do with restrictions appearing on the land registry record?
Retsirctions and unilater notices are put there by people claiming to own the land or have some other interest in it.
It's a different thing.
Consent is needed from anybody with a legal charge that has registered that charge.
By the borrower, that is. You, as lender, would theoretically only need consent if they had a restriction preventing further charges without consent.
Ok. Sorry to labour the point but +ve,sure, 100%!!!!!!!!
Hang on 2 mins ...
I'm just trying to file the relevant legal authority for you ... to comfort you.
Okay, the closest I can find from the resources I have available at the moment is the right of lenders to alter the ranking of security between them without the borrower's consent, which is not the point you're looking for. In short though, unless there is anything on the register that prevents you charging (as lender) then you can charge with consent. The issue for the borrower is that by doing this, they might be in breach of their earlier mortgage and therefore find that being called in and the property sold.
Ah ... hold on.
Thanks for your help. I'll now rate you as excellent.
I was just going to refer to the Land Registratioj Act 2002, s.48, which gives some support to the point I made.
Sorry, I found this after you rated the answer, but hope this is useful.