Default Judgement Against Securitas Security Services (uk) Limited *** Counter Claim Struck Out ***

[unclebulgaria67]

Agree, you have no obligation to do anything. Do they have any chance of themselves applying to set aside the CCJ ?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I though the claimant was lawfully required to confirm in writing, when asked, that the claim has been settled so that the court can mark the judgement as settled??? I'm sure someone refused to do this recently an ended up paying costs?

It should be as simple as the claimant telling the court it's settled though? Cant see signing a consent order is the way to go though.

[silverfox1961]

Don't sign. This isn't a case of being able to mark this as settled. They are trying to get the whole judgement set aside so that it doesn't show on their credit files. They behaved very badly so now must pay the price of that foolishness.

 

You could write back and state that the claim is settled but no to the set aside.

[obiter dictum]

Considering the treatment and contempt shown,

 

Might he suggest that any set- aside application will not be subject to any objection if settlement terms can be concluded prior to the N244 application being submited.

 

As in compensation and twisting the knife?

 

Sucritas having a CCJ against it will be a commercial nightmare and the judge will probably throw out any application to set- aside anyway

Edited April 14, 2017 by obiter dictum

[letsmakeamark]

I though the claimant was lawfully required to confirm in writing, when asked, that the claim has been settled so that the court can mark the judgement as settled??? I'm sure someone refused to do this recently an ended up paying costs?

It should be as simple as the claimant telling the court it's settled though? Cant see signing a consent order is the way to go though.

 

The defendant can ask for proof of payment and ask for a certificate of satisfaction from the court. The judgement will be marked as satisfied and stay on. However if this is done within a month of the judgement then the judgement can be removed.

[citizenB]

I thought you were obliged to advise the court that a case had been settled prior to any hearing ?

[Vauban]

But the case hasn't been settled

- it's been won,

with a clear judgement.

 

 

Why would the OP agree to a formal set aside now?

Simply no need.

 

 

(Companies sometimes do this, I understand, since they have to declare in annual reports to shareholders instances where they've lost in court.

 

 

You got your judgement,

the HCEOs collected your money,

your job is done.

[letsmakeamark]

I thought you were obliged to advise the court that a case had been settled prior to any hearing ?

 

This is when there is a hearing due and the claimant notify the court of a settlement before a hearing.

[renegadeimp]

Report it to companies house and the relevant regulator?

[Ganymede]

You may recall i was helping a friend against securitas recently.

 

Now what has come to light is that Securitas Mobile Southeast are employing a Ops support who in February this year was disqualified as a director for 5 years

 

No there's not. You can't tell a private company who they can and can't employ.

[sangie5952]

I agree. If the company are aware of the history and choose to accept it, that is their decision. And whilst this may be a matter of public record, I fail to understand why it is any of your business. Helping people to get the money they are owed is one thing, but this feels more like a personal vendetta. How does attempting to get this person sacked help someone?

[citizenB]

This is when there is a hearing due and the claimant notify the court of a settlement before a hearing.

 

 

Sorry, I seem to have lost the plot - ignore me

[letsmakeamark]

I understand the private company etc. This is not a vendetta against anybody. Does the company not owe a care of duty to its customers ? According to the register. This person ran his own thing and ended up owing hm revenue and customs. Surely you would not want somebody like this poking around in your records and also responding to your alarms. I have just put this up for opinion. If nothing can be done then it cant be.

[BazzaS]

It isn't a matter for the public to decide : only for the public to ensure the person made the company aware & didn't conceal it from the employer.

 

Write (a factual letter, in neutral tone) to the HR dept. of the company.

If the employee declared the matter to them and they chose to employ him then it is no business of yours.

If the employee concealed relevant history then HR can investigate.

 

Tell them, not us.

[letsmakeamark]

Thanks bazza5. You have hit the nail on its head.

[Ganymede]

It isn't a matter for the public to decide : only for the public to ensure the person made the company aware & didn't conceal it from the employer.

 

Write (a factual letter, in neutral tone) to the HR dept. of the company.

If the employee declared the matter to them and they chose to employ him then it is no business of yours.

If the employee concealed relevant history then HR can investigate.

 

Tell them, not us.

 

 

I still don't think it's any of their business and should not be trying to get someone sacked out of spite.

 

People are allowed jobs and a life after being bankrupt. They've been "punished" and served their time and it doesn't sit right with me writing to HR. It's non of our business.

[unclebulgaria67]

And if it is seen as a campaign of harassment, no doubt the company can then report to Police as such.

 

Enjoy the win and don't let it turn into a campaign of trolling this company. They have been damaged by the CCJ.

[Ganymede]

And if it is seen as a campaign of harassment, no doubt the company can then report to Police as such.

 

Indeed.

[sangie5952]

It isn't a matter for the public to decide : only for the public to ensure the person made the company aware & didn't conceal it from the employer.

 

Write (a factual letter, in neutral tone) to the HR dept. of the company.

If the employee declared the matter to them and they chose to employ him then it is no business of yours.

If the employee concealed relevant history then HR can investigate.

 

Tell them, not us.

 

Given the OP knows the company knows, I rather suspect that they have already done so, and posted this here because the company ignored them.

 

OP- this is not your decision. And yes, it's a vendetta. Why would you paste full details, including putting the persons name in enlarged font and color just to ask an opinion that could have been asked without ANY personal deals being posted? I really don't think this is appropriate and the site isn't about "naming and shaming".

[BazzaS]

I still don't think it's any of their business and should not be trying to get someone sacked out of spite.

 

People are allowed jobs and a life after being bankrupt. They've been "punished" and served their time and it doesn't sit right with me writing to HR. It's non of our business.

 

IF written to ensure the person had been honest, then it isn't to punish them for being bankrupt.

It is if the person has been open and honest with their employer about a relevant fact.

 

However, I suspect (as others seem to) that the OP is on a vendetta / 'mission', even if they claim to be acting 'for the good of the company's customers'

 

However, if the employee has been open and honest then such a letter won't cause them any harm : HR already know, and will file any such letter (or, even 'circular file' it).

 

If the employee is in a 'regulated' post with access to financial information, then the employer will have credit checked them (+/- a DBS or eDBS). If this is the case then the company will certainly already know, and the OP can't claim to be acting other than spite, when they shouldn't write:

a) as it wouldn't add anything,

b) as it'd be just plain wrong to do so.

[Ganymede]

IF written to ensure the person had been honest, then it isn't to punish them for being bankrupt.

It is if the person has been open and honest with their employer about a relevant fact.

 

However, I suspect (as others seem to) that the OP is on a vendetta / 'mission', even if they claim to be acting 'for the good of the company's customers'

 

However, if the employee has been open and honest then such a letter won't cause them any harm : HR already know, and will file any such letter (or, even 'circular file' it).

 

If the employee is in a 'regulated' post with access to financial information, then the employer will have credit checked them (+/- a DBS or eDBS). If this is the case then the company will certainly already know, and the OP can't claim to be acting other than spite, when they shouldn't write:

a) as it wouldn't add anything,

b) as it'd be just plain wrong to do so.

 

Still non of the OP's business in my opinion.

[steampowered]

All of this information is on the public record.

 

The employer can quite easily find out if an employee was made bankrupt or disqualified as a director as part of the employment checks which any large employer would do on new employees.

 

I don't think pointing it out adds anything. Either the employer didn't check, or they checked and are comfortable with it. Either way the employer probably doesn't care.

[letsmakeamark]

Back to topic. I will update once this set aside business is sorted out.

[ericsbrother]

wont matter unless they are barred from being a director by CH

All of this information is on the public record.

 

The employer can quite easily find out if an employee was made bankrupt or disqualified as a director as part of the employment checks which any large employer would do on new employees.

 

I don't think pointing it out adds anything. Either the employer didn't check, or they checked and are comfortable with it. Either way the employer probably doesn't care.

[ericsbrother]

it looks like they are asking you to agree to a set aside so they can save a few hundred quid in applying for one. Dont agree to it. There wont be any grounds for reversing the decision so any application will be about saving face.

Dun and Bradstreet used to be the go to for checking the credit worthiness of companies. See if there is a bad mark they want removing if you can without subscribing