Hi Tom, I agree with Calvi, the letter quire clearly implies that it was the Ltd Company and thatvthey vare vliable in the landlord opinion. However it also states that "you" signed the lease trading as Blue Box Technology and this is where I think this is why the council are putting the liablibility down to you. It also states that "you " paid the rent by bank transfer, if this was from your private bank account then again they have grounds for their calim against you. If the company was unable to pay the rent and you paid it out on their behalf, the payments should have been written into the company account as a Directors Loan and a formal agreement to this effect should have been signed by the company and yourself. You should really aquire a copy of the lease for the tribunal hearing, as again I can only reiterate that if you failed to disclose the Limited status of the company then you bare vpersonally liable for an debts that it incurs. Unfortunately Calvi's point about signing "on behalf" of the company is only relevant if full disclosure was made and normally as per my previous post an agreement should be signed "for and on behalf of".

Your right it is confusing, one thing says yes and the other so No. Interesting???????

Hi thats great, let them issue proceedings for the money then and then try and get theri interest. The basic idea of course is for them to make the amount as large as possible in order to frighten people into paying before it gets any bigger. My personal feelings on an item like this would be to send them a letter stating that no payment at all was being made and that they should proceed with the issue of County Court Proceedings for the money they are claiming. Once and if they do this, put a defence in and on the Allocation Questionnaire request that the Court Order them to produce the docs. If they don't then you can apply to have their claim struck out on the grounds that they have behaved unreasonably. If this were to happen they would not then be able to re-issue proceedings. Just another point for all to consider, if the debt has not been adjudged due by a Court then you can file a complaint under section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act (criminal) that states that it is a criminal offence to Intimidate, Harass or Embarrass anybody either by the manner in which a demand for payment is made or by the frequency of such demands. You also have similar rights under the Freedom from harassment Bill. It works.

Hi Jeff Its the original contract with Barclay card. If Cabot haven't got it or a copy of it they can't apply any of the conditions that may be included in it as they will not be aware of what they can and can't do. If the orignal contract has a clause that allows for the charging of interest but does not state that it is transferrable under the Act then they can only seek to recover the actual amount of the debt that was purchased. Cabot or anybody else would have a very difficult time proving their right to charge interest as there is "no causal relationship" between the debtor and Cabot, only the purchase of the debt.

Try reading the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This I think this is the relevant piece of legislation that will enable Cabot to continue to charge interest. You should check your original agreement and see if it is included in the contract and if there is a right to transfer the conditions of the contract to a third party or not, if it is not included then they can't charge you additional interest.

Hi Tom, good news about the tribunal. However it seems to me that you are between a rock & a hard place. You might wish to look at isuing a Witness Summons against the Landlord and the other Directors of the company, but I am not sure whether there is sufficient grounds for this to be applicable at a Tribunal, suggest you check it out. If you can them serve them all with one, they will have to turn and give evidence. With respect to Calvi's post, I am afriad he is totally wrong, it is quite normal and acceptable for a limited company to use another name for its trading name and as there is no register anymore for trading names there is little aruement reagarding the use of such. The critical point as I stated before is whether you disclosed the limited status of the company to the Landlord, do you have any witnesses when you signed the lease. If you did then the council have got it wrong, they can bill who they like but the onus is on them to get it right before they take any action. As to his poiint about you leaving the company that is totally irrelevant as it is the day you signed the leaase that counts. Also his point about the share capital is incorrect, the share liability is only relevant for the shares issued and this would only apply to when a company went into Liquidation. Another point to look at, has the company been Liquidated or is it still trading if it is still trading,what about the Directors attending again to support your claims, if it is not then as a shareholder of the original company the accountant should be able to supply you with proof that the comany was paying the bills especially the "rent" did the Lnadlord send this out in the name of the limited compant if he did then again it showws that somewhere an error has been made, You seem to have lots of evidence for your benefit get hold of any bills that were made out in the name of the company and use them as well, and I mean anything iot will all help, and I believe that the whole arguements will be based on the information supplied to the council by the landlord. As an aside if the council chnage tack and say that part of the agreement includes a personal gaurantee, there is recent case law from the Court of Appeal that states that unless the personal gaurantee is specicially and deliberately explained to "The Director" then it doesn't stand.

Just a thought, if you let me know your postcode and area, I will forward the details of a Process Server that will do the job for you, shouldn't cost more than £45.00

Hi Tom, Again was the name on the lease in the name of the company or yourself, thats the important thing tp prove and the Intent. However if you did sign as Director that does help your case and you should appeal in writing against the Personal Liability on that ground and deny any laibility. The fact that the council have you down for the rates etc implies that you are personally named on the lease and that they have used this information. I do not think the valuation Tribunal is the correct method of you fighting this either as they will only make a decision on the rateable charge for the premises not on who is liable, you need to Appeal against the Liability itself, that way you can produce all your evidence to show that it was in fact the Limited Company. An Affidavit from the Landlord stating that he was fully aware that the tenant was a Limited Company would also be beneficial and most certainly show that the Council have got it wrong if indeed they have. There is also another point to look at, has the landlord re-let the property, if he has who is paying the business rates??? and are the council trying to obtain two lots of money for the same time period, secondly if you or the company vacated the company premises to move to smaller place, I do not think that you are liable for the rates if the property is not occupied. Unfortunately again I do not think that the Valuation Tribunal will help you at all unless you can get them to formally agree that you were not the legal tenant, bu this doesn't really fall within their remit. Take the council on, presumably they haven't issued a Liablity Order against you yet, if they do and send the Bailiff's around to you, do not let the Bailiff's into your home under any circumstances and file an appeal at the local Magistartes Court against the Order. With respect to the Companies Act you can purchase it from HMSO or any Law Stationer's, but it does not have anything to do with the lease but gives the legal requirements that a company and its officers must comply with. Unfortunately I have been unable to read the lease as it doesn't come out very well, try and OCR it with a scanner and I will have a look. Furthermore reading your previous posts regarding the signing of the lease, you have been ill advised in that you cannot trade with the same name as the Limited Company. Under the Trademarks Act the only person that can stop you is the Limited Company itself and only then if you are trading within 35 miles of them if it was a seperate entity. There is absolutely no reason why your Limited Company could not trade as Blue Box Technology, as you can claim that it was a "Trading Name" of the Company as thousands of other companies do. However this brings me back to my earlier point about whether you disclosed the Limited status fo the Comapny or not.

Take a friend with you and when they open the door just hand the papers to them and walk away.

If you issued the claim in your own name the Court should try to serve them but they are not very efficient, especially as they knock off at 4.00 p.m. If they fail to serve them ask for the papers yourself and then wait at the address in the evening. Once you have given the papers to them file an EX550 Affidavit which the Court will supply to you to say that you have served them. if they don't turn up the Judge will issue an N39 which you will need to serve again and this time they will have a Warrant issued for their arrest of they fail to obey. It certainly frightens them when tis happens, but the 3rd Party Debt Order is a good one to start with. Fingers crossed

Great, you can download the form from the Court Services website. Just remember that the Judgment needs to be in both names for it to work on a joint account. Also if you believe that they have other banmk accounts then I would suggest going for the Order to Attend as well.

If you have a final return from the County Court Bailiff don't be too disheartened it doesn't neccessarily mean that they aren't there, more likely that the Bailiff just hasn't been able to contact them. Do a Land Registry Search for the house and if it is owned by them file an Application for a Charging Order at the Court (cost £55.00) once it has been filed with the Court you will receive An Interim Charging Order which you can file with the Land Registry against the property. You will then be given a Hearing for the Charging Order to be made Final and once this is granted you can have on the property. If the Property is solely owned by the debtor you can havr a full Charge registered, but if it is jointly owned and the Judgment is not in both names you will be given a Restriction. This will not neccessarily get you payment but will stop them getting any loans or being able to sell the house. In the meantime issue further Enforcement Proceedings like a 3 rd Party Debt Order against the Bank. This will in effect freeze the bank account except for any monies over and above what is owed to you. The problem is that if the account is in joint names then you will not be able to use this unless the Judgment is also in joint names, also if there is insufficent money to cover your debt it won't work. You can also put a trace on them to confirm their location and once you have found them place the debtor on an "Order to Attend for Questioning". This is a nice little tool, as once they have been served with the documents, if they fail to attend they can be sent to prison for contempt of court, (certainly wakes people up) cost £45.00. All these Enforcement Costs will be added to the Judgment debt by the Court

Civil Procedure Rules, Part 36. This is what the Court uses to assess and judge compliance with the legality of a claim and whether or not "reasonable" time has been given

Great so far, I ahve just got £15,599.00 out of Lloyds. They tried to defend the action by saying that the charges weren't damages, which meant we had a hearing this Tuesday, but they have paid today. just remeber that if it is over £5,000 then you have to give them 21 days. Its a technical point but they could argue on the basis that you didn't give them sufficient time. I don't expect that they will as they are paying up at the last moment on all the claims, but just be warned in case they do. If they don't pay up and you want additional help let me know. Best of luck

Hi, Sorry for the delay, but I have just read your case. There seems to be quite a lot of advice going on here that is not quite correct. Unfortunately you will have to look at how you signed the lease and in what capacity. If you were signing on behalf of the company you should have signed as: Director, For and On behalf of (the name of the company) furthermore the name on the lease should have been the company name including the word Limited and the Registration Number. There is legislation under section 351 of the Companies Act, that quite clearly states that if an Director or Officer of a Limited Company enters into an agreement for the supply or purchase of goods or services without disclosing the Limited status of the company then he is personally liable for any debts that are incurred by the company that they fail to pay. It really is a matter of whether you signed the agreement correctly, as it would appear that the lease was made out as if you were running a business not a company in which case you will find it difficult to get out of it as you should have noticed it and had it changed.

How much has the Court awarded you? it makes a difference. Court Bailiffs are not normally very effective. There are far better ways of getting your money, you just need to know how and what to do. If you get stuck drop me an email and I will try and help. Basil010

How much has the Court awarded you? it makes a difference. Court Bailiffs are not normally very effective. There are far better ways of getting your money, you just need to know how and what to do. If you get stuck drop me an email and I will try and help. Basil010

Further to what has been stated above, the reference to "being invited in" is totally incorrect. A Bailiff is only required to "gain peaceful entry" and does not require an invitation. He can enter property through an open window or unlocked door quite legally, the law states that he "may lift a latch or draw a bolt to gain gain entry". The peaceful entry is the critical bit. On the attendance of a Bailiff the occupier of a Domestic Property is entitled to refuse entry and must state so i.e. "I am refusing you peaceful entry into my property". Invariably they will then call the Police who in ignorance of the Law of Distress will presume that the Bailiff actually is telling the truth about his powers of entry. However a Police Officer has no rights with regard to entry into private property for a civil matter without a Warrant of Entry being granted, (normally from a magistrate or District Judge). What normally happens is that the Bailiff calls the Police and because a Police Officer is at the door the occupier opens the door and the Bailiff walks in (gaining Peaceful Entry). You have to state as above to the Police Officer that he has no right of entry and neither does the Bailiff and that you are legally entitled to refuse entry to the Bailiff and are doing so. You should also as a matter of caution inform the Police Officer that if he persists in assisting the bailiff in an unlawful act then you will hold him personal liable for any loss incurred due to his actions. It is always recommended that you suggest to the Police Officer that he obtains suitably qualified advise from his forces legal department. But you do not have to open the door or let them in.

Further to what has been stated above, the reference to "being invited in" is totally incorrect. A Bailiff is only required to "gain peaceful entry" and does not require an invitation. He can enter property through an open window or unlocked door quite legally, the law states that he "may lift a latch or draw a bolt to gain entry". The peaceful entry is the critical bit, if you get the "foot in the door" bit you have the right to remove the foot using "reasonable force only" as this will then constitute "non-peaceable entry". On the attendance of a Bailiff the occupier of a Domestic Property is entitled to refuse entry and must state so i.e. "I am refusing you peaceful entry into my property". Invariably they will then call the Police, (or better still you call them) unfortunately they will in ignorance of the Law of Distress presume that the Bailiff actually is telling the truth about his powers of entry. However a Police Officer has no rights with regard to entry into private property for a civil matter without a Warrant of Entry being granted, (normally from a magistrate or District Judge). What normally happens is that the Bailiff calls the Police and because a Police Officer is at the door the occupier opens the door and the Bailiff walks in (gaining Peaceful Entry). You have to state as above to the Police Officer that he has no right of entry and neither does the Bailiff and that you are legally entitled to refuse entry to the Bailiff and are doing so. You should also as a matter of caution inform the Police Officer that if he persists in assisting the bailiff in an unlawful act then you will hold him personal liable for any loss incurred due to his actions. It is always recommended that you suggest to the Police Officer that he obtains suitably qualified advice from his force's legal department. But you do not have to open the door or let them in.

As stated before there is no rule of English Law that allows for settlement of a debt at a lower value than that claimed when that value as been oferred in F & F settlement if it has not been agreed in advance. This is an American rule not English Law. Should you want the bibliography it is Stour Valley Builders (a firm) v Stuart and Another. Lord Justice Lloyd stated that Day v McLea (1889) 22 QB 610 was binding authority against the application of such a rule. The Court held that the keeping of the cheque was not a matter of Law conclusive and it was a question of fact as to on what terms the cheque was kept.

Daz, If the car is worth £5000.00 and the debt only £110.00 I would suggest that the Distraint upon the car is an excessive. However the only time that you can take any action regarding this is after the car has been removed and sold. Move it out of harms way and let the Bailiff try and find it then prove he seized it. However I would warn all those involved. If a Bailiff genuinely seizes a vehicle or any other goods and issues a Notice of Seizure (as opposed to a Walking Possession Agreement) and you then remove the car or goods you can be charged with Pound Breach (Theft from the Crown). Despite what you have been told, the goods do not belong to the Bailiff, they belong to either Prince Charles or the Queen once they are seized and pound breach although a very old remedy would carry a nasty prison sentence if it were taken up and proved in Court. There does seem to be some confusion as what documents should be issued when goods are seized. The correct form for "Seizure" is a form 7 and not a Walking Possession Agreement as explained before. If the Bailiff has not issued a "Notice of Seizure" listing the items seized then he cannot claim to have seized them and remove them. If he has and has placed that through the letterbox, he has seized the goods but should remove them at the time. However thet fact that he has seized the goods means that he can remove them at any future time without giving you notice.

No he cannot, There is no right of forced enrty by a Bailff unless he has previousl;y gained entry and is being deliberately refused re-entry. If he does call the Police and make a formal complaint of Burglary and theft.

As previously stated the Walking Possession Agreement is a request from the debtor to the bailiff for him not to remove goods tht have been seized and it requires you to sign it. If you haven't requested it or signed it, it is not lawful. The correct procedure is for the Bailiff to remove goods if he cannot get a WPA signed. Posting it through the door is not acceptable. The Bailiff is obviously more interested in getting further attendance fee's charged to you rather than executing the Warrant and removing the car as this would take up a lot of his time and he would not be able to visit other people and put WPA's through their letterboxes and make even more charges. If he has seized the car, then it is the subject of the Distraint and he is entitled to remove for sale. As far as claiming the WPA fees back this is a bit silly as they are of minimal costing. However you are entitled to complain about the WPA and the fact that the Bailiff has carried out "An Irregular Distraint " by merely posting the WPA through the letterbox. If this complaint was upheld he would be liable for double damages. The other thing yo must consider is how much the car is worth and whether it can be reasonably expected to satisfy the debt. if the car is worth sunstantailly more than the debt the Bailiff is again in the wrong by issuing an "Excessive Levy" an example would be a car that is worth say £3000.00 and the debt was only £400.00. If the Bailiff removed and sold the car (although you should get the remaining surplus back (if you are lucky)) this could be considered excessive and again you could have a cause of action against him.

In essence if they cash the cheque they have acepted the extra amount in settlement of the balance as you have stated that it is a disputed amount. They will argue the toss but I do not know of a Court that would uphold any action after acceptance of the money on these terms. As I stated before about 3rd party cheques if you send the payment from a 3rd party as well, they are in even more difficulties.

Sorry again, but even if you are running a small business from home which needs parcels being sent, you can always have them collected by the P.O. or Parcel Force, seizure of the car does not stop you running a business.