Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Did you take screenshots or anything of the descriptions that you gave? Do you have any evidence to support you say? In any event, you paid for the insurance, you declared the parts having given the descriptions and they accepted it all on that basis. You have begun the claim procedure yet so I suggest that you do so. We'll see what happens. In any event, it could be said that the various sections are contradictory. Parts relating to vehicles are containing three separate sections and it is relatively difficult to discern which section a particular part should come into. Section 69 of the consumer rights act relates to ambiguities and basically says that an ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer.  
    • I have booked a Hotel/Flights Package with the above paying a 10% deposit with the balance due a month before travel next August.   On looking at Cancellation Charges they virtually say 100% 84 days out plus.   According to the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements regulations 2018 - termination fees have to be "Reasonable and Justifiable"   I find it hard to comprehend how last minutes charges could fall into the above description.   For example the hotel is available on Booking.com for our dates with no pre-payment and free cancellation up to the day before arrival.   I'm not sure of their arrangement with BA but the tickets we reserved have doubled in price in the last week and could easily be resold.   I can't find any anecdotal evidence or Court Cases relating to them trying to collect Cancellation Charges from people who have not already paid the full balance and cancel. If I were to cancel 8 months out is it likely they would pursue me for the remaining balance.    
    • Hi   Something else I think you need to ask the Insurer for Clarification on is.   That you require full clarification on which clauses within the Terms & Condition of the Policy they are using to refuse payment under the Policy.     I would also consider sending the Insurer a Subject Access Request simply asking for 'ALL DATA' this covers whatever format they hold it in whether it be email/telephone recording/written format etc. (note: if they require you to use their own subject access request form always put 'ALL DATA' on their form)    
    • matters not what they come up with it's statute barred      
    • Revised defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. I dont believe they have provided this yet correctly   2. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. still stands   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
  • Our picks

hallowitch

can a company close down and restart the following day to avoid being taken to court

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 961 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

If you are self-employed and you are owed money from a company (construction) for an unpaid invoice and you start court proceeding's can they close the company down before it gets to the court date and if they can is their any way of stopping them doing this

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are self-employed and you are owed money from a company (construction) for an unpaid invoice and you start court proceeding's can they close the company down before it gets to the court date and if they can is their any way of stopping them doing this

 

 

Thanks

 

Think Companies house have a process for this, where they stop the company being closed down in this way to avoid debts.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have started a legal action then you can inform CH that the company is liquidating to avoid its respionsibilities and that the assest the comapny have shoudl be ringfenced to protect the rights of existing creditors and other interested parties such as yourself. If this is agreed then the director of the company become individually liable so their personal assets may be considereddf to settle any debts.

However, it is bloody difficult to enforce the debt is they do a runner and put everything n the mother's name. You have to be very presistent and these people know all the wrangles so will stretch the matter out and make it too expensive to pursue.

3 decades ago commercial debt was collected in a rather different way that involved cars full of large people and as this is not an acceptable option these days the chancers will continue their games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the reply's its not for me I belong to a FB page for construction workers and it would appear this company is starting to get well known for not paying there are 4/5 on this site alone that are owed money one person being owed 11k

 

 

I have pointed them to this site as they seem to think its going cost about 5k to take him to court (using a solicitor) and they think their is no point because they will just shut down and start again hopefully they will take my advice and Join here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not very good at research but I've been having a google and I don't think this company has any assets because another firm seems to own all their assets (floating charge )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens everyday.

Open a ltd company, pile up thousand of pounds in debt, then close the company down and reopen next day with a different name.

To prevent closure of a ltd company, the creditor should know that they're closing down and check with companies house, but usually when they get around to do it, the 90 days have passed and the company is defunct.

There are directors who have been doing this for 20/30 years and still get away with it.

Used car dealers are the most prolific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before these lads throw good money after bad would anyone be able to read and explain this floating charge to me I have the charge no registered at company's house

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
before these lads throw good money after bad would anyone be able to read and explain this floating charge to me I have the charge no registered at company's house

 

Thanks

 

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/0-107-5773?__lrTS=20170419145345838&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

 

Seems to be a legal way of avoiding assets being taken.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read something like that on another site and that's what I thought but you would think there would be something in the agreement that they must keep their company sound and debt free I did read the agreement but didn't understand it

 

they were know for trying/not paying subbies occasionally before this floating agreement but it looks like in last 2 yrs they just don't give one word is getting around and I believe they are finding it hard to get subbies to do the work but that doesn't help the 5 blokes(the ones that I know of) they shafted or the blokes that don't know its a toss up if they pay you or not

 

Its not as if its a few ££££ 1 bloke owed 11k and another owed 8k so taking a bit hit for these blokes I cant believe they can legally get away with this its shocked me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is shocking.

As a rule of thumb, I only deal with tradesmen without a ltd company and before handing money over I check on the land registry that they are homeowners (£3 cost).

This doesn't give me a cast iron guarantee that they will not run away, but at least if they do I could put a charge on their property via the courts.

With a ltd company you are literally giving money to a ghost entity that can disappear next day and nobody would be responsible for debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it is shocking.

As a rule of thumb, I only deal with tradesmen without a ltd company and before handing money over I check on the land registry that they are homeowners (£3 cost).

This doesn't give me a cast iron guarantee that they will not run away, but at least if they do I could put a charge on their property via the courts.

With a ltd company you are literally giving money to a ghost entity that can disappear next day and nobody would be responsible for debts.

 

I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.

 

All well and good, but the contractors still didn't get their money because these directors are very careful to have no assets in their name.

Who cares that they are convicted?

They still have the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that Trading Standards had brought a few cases to court, where companies were using various ways of avoiding debts in this way ? That there had been some criminal convictions, where directors had basically committed fraud, as they had no intention of paying contractors or supplying services to customers. If you set out to deliberately cause a financial loss to another party and gain as a result, then that surely is fraud.

 

Perhaps the legal bods on CAG might be aware of evidence needed For Trading Standards/Police to at least be interested in investigating.

 

when another bloke posted last night saying that they owe a bloke working beside him 8k I wondered if it was fraud as their seems to be a pattern forming here they all seem to be owing about 8k (one claiming 11k)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...