Charging Order? The myth

eggbox

Oh yes, of course, the dreaded Insolvency Practitioner! They're also about as useful as most conveyancing solicitors and also work along the same lines as "ME FIRST!" Its also my, personal opinion, that many IP firms are corrupt in being complicit in helping bankrupt businesses start up again, as another company, in allowing them to purchase machinery and stock from their previous, now insolvent, company, for very little and at the expense of the company creditors they are supposed to be working to help recoup losses.

I had a very interesting run in with IP company just before covid hit in trying to buy some machinery from a rival company that had gone bust. Didn't matter how or what I tried to offer for the items I wanted to purchase; everything was only ever going to be sold off as one job lot as the IP "hadn't got the time to mess about with a Dutch auction". 

I, subsequently, discovered everything had been bought by the director of the previous company, that the new company then failed to honour the repayments for the goods sold by the IP (they repaid half) and that the IP then "wrote off" the rest of the debt as being too much trouble to collect! This is all documented at Companies House.

Thankfully, after a discreet whisper in the shell like of a creditor, a complaint was made and the Court removed the IP from the insolvency dealings (which apparently is very rare?) But the damage was done and the new company still trades today after his old company folded with over £130k still outstanding to creditors.


 

Stesar

In my experience, the IPs final invoice is always slightly less then the cash they collect. Hence, I have no issue with being as uncooperative as possible, plus they'll be looking for a quick win so hopefully I can use that to my advantage.

eggbox

Yes, definitely, iffy and I would imagine they were quite taken aback at how easy it was to avoid payment to them 

Stesar

I really hope so, given the tone and ferocity of their letters and the fact they've engaged with a private investigator it looks like they are.

eggbox

Yes they are probably outraged as there is a good chance its never happened to them previously? Let's hope so as the few I've dealt with, like solicitors, tend to think they're untouchable because they're Officers of the Court. They certainly don't like having their opinion or actions question that's for sure (which makes for more fun when you punch holes through what they're saying)

I would also ask your solicitor on their opinion of the comments they made to your wife about being a decent person which, considering she's not responsible for the debt, could possibly be seen as libelous? Just a thought?

Stesar

Thanks, yes I will be doing that. As I think I mentioned originally I think there's also grounds for a GDPR breach on the basis that they've shared all of their correspondence to me with her, over and above the CO stuff. 

eggbox

Yes, you're correct, as marriage confers not extra privilages of a spouses information as far as data protection is concerned. I'd get on to the Information Commissioners Office as soon as possible and ask them to give a ruling whether the IP's actions have breached the data protection rules (be warned they won't say yes or no, they will say it is "likely" or "unlikely") However, "likely" gives you the green light for legal action. But do send NOW as they take ages to reply (usually 3-4 weeks)

Stesar

Looks like I have to write to the creditor first before I can take it to the ICO unfortunately. I'll do that and wait a while before I respond to the statutory demand, but within the timescales obviously.

Stesar

eggbox said:

Hi Stesar thanks for the update (but not sure what an IP is as I thought that was Internet Protocol??  )
Its a tricky one because of the current climate? As long as the buyers conveyancer notified the creditor then they have complied with the restriction. However, whether or not, they have commited fraud would be determined by when they they informed the Land Registry of that compliance? Granting the title 5 weeks after the sale, I suspect, means they told the Land Registry after they confrmed to the creditor? But, I suspect, only the Land Registry would be able to verify this as I know there are delays in processing due to covid restrictions and staff working from home? (perhaps Land Registry Rep can investigate  )

Hi Eggbox.

 As a further update re the certification, I have a copy of a letter from the buyers conveyancer, to the creditor stating that "the disposition of the above property took place on x/xx/xx" and then quotes the sale date, which is 5 weeks prior to the date on the letter. (I'm purposely withholding exact dates). The letter is dated the day before the title absolute change of ownership at the LR. 

eggbox

It certainly looks iffy from the point of view of the buyers conveyancer? But only the LR will know if they gave a false certificate? Perhaps Land Registry Rep can explain how serious that action is?