I Won My Tribunal But They Won't Pay

[rightsforme]

Many thanks, rightsforme! Very interesting stuff. Can you give me more details regarding how you went about getting this information:

 

"I also made enquiries with the authorities and additionally found that tax and n/i had not been paid by the company and they had no records at all of the company names he was trading under and I reported him"

 

Also, I took Pusillanimous advice and found (a little) out about the opposition's appeal - left a message with them and they've just come back to me this morning. The specifics they wouldn't tell me over the phone but they did confirm that 3rd February is all go. They said they have sent correspondence to my lawyer, so I will attempt to prize more info from him. With any luck February will be the end of the matter on that particular score, but I'm not counting my chickens.

 

Carrying out the admin for the company i was awaare of the companies various different trading names which i was led to believe were different companies. The director had changed the name of the part of the company i worked for for legal registry documents just before i was constructively dismissed. I was employed under the original company. I looked up the company and noticed that he had filed for dissolvement so additionally i checked out the other company name which was trading. It was then i realised what the other companies really were and i checked on companies house and found that this was a pattern they used they would trade under a company then disolve it and operate under a different name. I spoke with someone from companies house about this and he informed me that i would need to write in a letter objecting to the strike off enclosing evidence of the legal proceedings. I then also wrote a letter of complaint for there practises and gave them as much information as i knew for them to investigate. I wrote to companies house vetting section, companies house will be able to give you there address. the following is the introduction of that later minus personal details.

 

I emailed companies house with the following to both object to dissolution, which has now been suspended until xxxx and to also ask for investigation of the director and his various companies. I have been given your details with regard to my suspicions of corporate abuse, which I believe from what I have discovered involve serious misconduct, fraud and the running of phoenix companies, below is a copy of the mail sent. I also attach a copy of judgement against the company, Letter of refusal to pay and a further request for settlement, which should help in your investigation, and shows the corporate abuse involved. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

 

I also rang the contacted the tax office and NI and they had no record of the company or the payement of any tax during my employment despite me having wage slips. The tax office were able to send me confirmation that they had no tax records paid for me during the time of my employment even though my wage slips state otherwise. My representative did try to bring this up at a prehearing to reinstate my claim prior to the main ET hearing but the judge wasnt interested in that but my claim was reinstated. The ET had incorrectly thrown out my case which I only found out had happened after chasing up my ET hearing date as I had heard nothing and I had not responded to a request sent to me that i not recieved and the respondent had asked for the claim to be thrown out. The ET had made an administrative error and posted it to the wrong address so we had to have a hearing to reinstate my claim.

 

I additionally selected to recieve an email alert on the companies registered and still live so that any changes would be alerted to me immediately.

 

Hope that helps

[Hair Bear]

In relation to rightsforme's post: It certainly does help - many thanks!

 

In relation to the February EAT the opposition has mentioned - this is EAT's head office email reply, although they once again don't go into the specifics:

 

This appeal has been rejected under Rule 3(7) as showing no point of law so as to give the EAT jurisdiction to consider it. The Appellant challenged that, asking for a hearing under Rule 3(10) and that hearing is listed for 3 February 2014. That is a hearing at which only the Appellant need attend.

 

I know this subject has been touched on, but if anyone with any knowledge of this type of thing wants to add something, great, because it seems to me that their 'challenge' must have had considerable merit to be given a hearing?

[steampowered]

Basically, the EAT has what is called a sifting process. Someone has a look and decides if the appeal notice actually identified any grounds of appeal or if it is absolutely hopeless. They get a lot of pointless appeals because so many litigants in person do not understand the concept that you can only appeal on a point of law, you cannot appeal just because you think the Tribunal made the wrong decision.

 

 

Appeals which actually identify a reason for appealing advance to a hearing or preliminary hearing straight away. Appeals which are utterly hopeless do not, however there is a right to request an oral hearing within 28 days to request an oral hearing. At that oral hearing the judge will decide whether or not the appeal will be allowed to proceed through the system or whether it should drop dead right from the outset.

 

 

The fact that he has been granted a hearing does not mean it has any merit whatsoever. As above, it is an automatic right. The fact that the appeal was rejected at the sift stage suggests that it is hopeless. It also suggests that he is not legally represented; an appeal made by a lawyer or by someone who understands the system should at least be passing the sift.

 

 

I am still mystified as to how this has all taken so long, given the strict timelines for appealing. I am also mystified as to what the previous hearing was about.

[Hair Bear]

Thanks, steampowered. To reply...

 

"The fact that the appeal was rejected at the sift stage suggests that it is hopeless"

That's made my day

 

"I am also mystified as to what the previous hearing was about"

If you mean the point of law to which they are now hoping to orally gain merit (?), I'm as mystified myself and don't seem to be able to find out an answer.

[steampowered]

Yes, I mean the point of law they are hoping to be allowed to proceed with.

 

He said in his response to you that he was appealing on the basis you were self-employed. This is a question of fact not a question of law, and thus cannot be appealled, he can't just appeal on the basis he thinks the Tribunal made the wrong decision ... although these things can often be spun into an error of law e.g. if the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant evidence presented to them.

[Hair Bear]

Ah, right. Knowing them, then, I'm guessing they will have found a point of law to contend and woven their spin around it. Just three months to find out though hopefully I will get some feedback from Companies House in the interim.

[Hair Bear]

Have got this back from Companies House. All thoughts on the subject welcome...

 

"Following our investigations it may be clear that a breach of non-notification may have happened however, a breach of the Companies Act is not the only factor we will take into account before considering whether or not to pass this case to the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills for a prosecution to be considered. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills must comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The Code requires prosecuting authorities to take account of various matters when deciding whether to prosecute. When considering is it in the public interest to prosecute, we have to consider the detriment of the non-notification of the creditors, especially in terms of their legal position to pursue any debt. Having read through the correspondence in this case, although you say you were not notified of the application for voluntary strike off, your solicitors became aware shortly afterwards and registered an objection to the dissolution. It was open to you and your representatives to maintain that objection in order for the debt to be pursued. Unfortunately as we received no further objections the company was subsequently dissolved.

 

Should you want to pursue your Claim you would need to restore the company to the register. Companies House cannot do this on your behalf. Details about restoring a company can be found on the treasury solicitors website at tsol.gov.uk.

 

Finally, Should it prove necessary, I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you would be agreeable for your identity, as the complainant, to be disclosed to the directors of the company."

[steampowered]

Hmm, unfortunate but to be honest I don't think its surprising. The authorities generally do not like to prosecute where the case mainly involves a single private dispute.

 

If your solicitors found out about the application and had time to register an objection, then you have not suffered any loss or damage due to his failure to give notice. I am not entirely sure of the objection process - I think you would need to ask your solicitors what happened and why the objection was not followed through.

[Pusillanimous]

Hair Bear it sounds like your lawyers have not communicated effectively with you. They did not tell you of the EAT appeal or of the need to lodge an objection to dissolution of the company concerned. Ask if you can pop around to their office to see exactly what is on your files with them.

 

Are you able to get this company restored, as suggested?

[MrHat]

Not sure whether it is cool to say this but I don't rate your solicitors very highly.

 

They should have been on top of this one and this thread should not exist.

 

There I said it

[Hair Bear]

Thanks for your continued interested everyone (it means a lot to me). Mr Hat - don't worry, you're cool. Pusillanimous - I recall my lawyer saying the baddies had put in for an objection of some sort but as the weeks and months went by, I just assumed this hadn't got off the ground. Obviously I was wrong. My lawyer has yesterday sent me a copy of what he had on the matter, and it doesn't go into what their complaint is. He also sent me some interesting letters regarding the strike off and Companies house.

 

NEW FACTS

New facts are now coming to light. Apparently, the reason my lawyer didn't make a second objection to the strike off going through is because, just prior to the cut off time, the director of the other side informed him that the strike off had been refused. Hence, my lawyer took him at his word and didn't make the objection. A couple of weeks later he noticed the company had been dissolved, and so he wrote to Companies House to complain. They failed to respond, so he wrote again. This time they instructed him that the company had been struck off and that was that. It's not clear whether or not they had grasped the full story, meaning the other side's shenanigans, but I have just this minute been on the phone to the Companies House dissolution officer in charge of this case. I told him I now had copies of three of my lawyer's letters that showed the other side's involvement in deceitfully steering my lawyer away from making that second all-important objection. The officer said this opened up a whole new can of worms, and asked me to email him the copies. Although not particularly confident, I am now hopeful that this will sway The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to act. If they do, then the company will be restored without my having to lift a finger. Wahay! Er, is that right?

[steampowered]

Looking at the Companies Act 2006 I'm not sure Companies House has any power to order a restoration without a court order. I could be wrong so see where this leads.

 

I struggle to see why your solicitor just took the director's word for it.

[Hair Bear]

I couldn't agree more about my lawyer, sadly. Regarding the court action - I'm assuming you mean from The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I meant I hope this leads to the DBIS taking them to court over this, with the end result that they end up having their strike off quashed.

[smokejumper]

Are you winning yet?

[Hair Bear]

Not winning yet, no

 

I'm still waiting for Companies House to get back to me in regards to whether they can take the matter further. From what I'm gathering, the answer to that is going to be: no, they can't. The reason for this is because my solicitor accepted an untruth from the other side on the phone - so has no proof of it beyond his word. They should be getting back to me this week, so will upgrade the thread.

 

Thanks for your continued interest!

[smokejumper]

So I guess your solicitor will be paying you then?

[Hair Bear]

So I guess your solicitor will be paying you then?

 

My sentiments too!

[smokejumper]

I expect we might see him on here, looking for advice ;-)

 

 

My sentiments too!

[Hair Bear]

Haha. I wish I could claim from him. What brief in their right mind would accept the word of someone who they have already established as being as dodgy as they come? And for something so important!

[smokejumper]

All the hard work, you did your self.

 

Is it really impossible to hold him liable, or are you calling it a day.

 

I really thought you were on to something.

 

I've had 2 bad experiences with barristers , luckily the latest case (criminal) has been adjourned before she could do any more damage.

[Hair Bear]

Not calling it a day, no. Just waiting for Companies House to get back. If they can get the bad guy back on the register for free, great. I'm guessing they won't, in which case I will have to go it alone. This would mean my having to spend money I don't have, so would have to raise that first. Also, the bad guys have been allowed a hearing next month - technical issue they're trying to raise about the decision, though can't find out what - which will also affect when I go into action.

 

Unsure whether I can hold my brief to account, someone with more knowledge of the law than I would have to try answer that, unfortunately.

 

PS "before she could do any more damage" - I know it's serious, but the way you put it across was funny. You should go into comedy writing!

[MrHat]

Two words. Professional Indemnity

[Hair Bear]

Two words. Professional Indemnity

 

I'm assuming this means my brief is untouchable?

[honeybee13]

I'm assuming this means my brief is untouchable?

 

I think Mr Hat might be meaning PI insurance, which is supposed to cover professionals against the results of bad advice, for example. AFAIK, lawyers are meant to have this. It's worth looking into, maybe the Law Society website?

 

HB

[Hair Bear]

Can you tell I'm a layman? Hehe. Will definitely look into, and many thanks.

 

PS Anyone else with thoughts on this matter, please do post. All help is graciously received.