My debt or my limited company's debt?

[Still_surviving]

If the money was loaned to you and you then introduced the money into the company I would say (as an accountant) that the loan was a private transaction, not a company one. It was your choice to then put the money into the company via your directors loan account.

 

If you have any paperwork to the contrary proving they lent the money to the company, then that would negate my argument, otherwise you would have to prove to a judge that the claimant knew exactly where the money was going and why. Even then, I think you are on a sticky wicket if you dont have paperwork with the company's name on it.

[Still_surviving]

This person lending me the money knew EXACTLY where the money was going and for what purpose.

 

My point is/was - can you prove this with an agreement bearing the company's name? If you cant ie no paperwork, or paperwork in your name, it will be down to the judge lottery if it gets to court, and I still think the odds would be against you.

[Still_surviving]

Unfortunately not. Surely if this person has stated in their opening gambit on the court forms that they knew it was for a business purpose, surely this is good enough? They have admitted already they knew of the purpose.?

 

If they have said this on their claim form, then the waters are getting a little murkier. However, 'business purposes' is not a definite knowledge that they intended to lend to a limited company, and its the 'limited' bit that is so important. I would suggest trying to find a legal brain on this site who could perhaps look at their claim form, or failing that, see a solicitor.

 

At the moment, I stand by my original post, but thats as an accountant, not a solicitor.

[Still_surviving]

The problem you have is this....

 

He/she could say "Mr.Gomzales told me he was going into business and I thought it was a good prospect so agreed to lend him £3000. I then found he put the money into a limited company and is trying to avoid repayment as the company has gone bust".

 

I think on that scenario, you would lose, in the absence of any paperwork showing intent to lend to the company direct....however as I said - find a better legal brain than mine

[Still_surviving]

marmaris

 

With respect, a loan made for 'business purposes' does not show it was intended to go into the company. The guy could have thought he was self-employed

[Still_surviving]

The lender had access and copies of the certificate of incorporation of the limited company so knew full well that it was for a limited companys useage and not that of someone merely self employed. No misleading of the lender was carried out, however, I feel the lender is just miffed now that they cannot get their money back through the normal channels now the company has ceased trading.

 

Okay...but prove it.

 

"Follow the money" is often a phrase used in times of litigation. From what you have said the money went to you first, so that imho could be your undoing.

 

I dont want to get your hopes up, so perhaps Im being pessimistic - but if the claimant has a half decent legal brain/solicitor they will go down the lines I have stated.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Still_surviving

[Still_surviving]

You say they "have admitted it in their opening gambit to the court office"

 

Saying they knew the loan was for business purposes is not the same as admitting it was their intent to lend to a limited company. However the wording of the claim form is important imho.

 

Might i suggest you flag a moderator, and get this thread moved to the 'legal issues' section where perhaps you will get some more finite advice if you upload the form N1

[Still_surviving]

Erm...good question.

 

Ive reported your last post (using the triangular icon) together with a comment, so hopefully a mod will sort this if they think its appropriate