Bay Park Management - Can I win in court?

unhappy_with_ecar

Firms like this are a nightmare. Couple of things that may help to make you feel better. If they continue to set up new companies but use similar trading names then unless they have got the necessary permission to use the name under the insolvency rules then the director's limited liability is removed and they become personally liable for any debts. Secondly, I note some of the posts mentioned their claim that they were not vat registered when in fact they were. If that's the case, ring up customs and excise and tell them - they'll get a visit from the VAT which won't get you any money back, but might make you feel a bit better!

DontPayThePPCs

Bumping this to clear BFG's tirade of posts.

Gordon861

usignuolo wrote: »

Also I am highly dubious that the PPC can hide behind legislation designed to protect legitimate firms from not having to reveal their address because of "threats", in order to avoid having to pay court fines and equally sceptical of why the baliffs should use this apparent protection as an excuse. More like can't be bothered. I agree with posters who say that the court can instruct address be revealed to the baliffs.

I have however also heard of PPCs claiming this exemption when they don't have it, but because they quote the legal wording applied to such protection, everyone assumes they have it. Might be worth checking if it has actually been granted in this case. After all it is equivalent to granting it to protection racketeers.

I spoke to the Post Office about this company earlier in the thread and they told me there was a legal block on giving out the address behind the PO Box. I tried a couple of times and hit the same wall.

usignuolo

Well I don't imagine the PO would give you the address, but they should release it to the courts/police where the recipient has a legal conviction against them. Also of course the firm are legally obliged - see my previous posting- under Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 912
The Companies (Particulars of Usual Residential Address) (Confidentiality Orders) Regulations 2002
to provide a UK address at which proceedings can be served and signed for, not just a PO box.

"A service address must be at a place at which service of documents may be effected by physical delivery other than a PO or a DX Box Number and where that delivery is capable of being recorded by the obtaining of an acknowledgement of delivery by any person".

Earlier you said it claims on their website

"Whilst our company's Registered Office address complies with Companies House requirements for a Registered Office, it is neither a trading address nor a usual place of business, for security purposes. If you wish to correspond with Bay Park Management, please do so via our correspondence address; PO Box 52668, London, N7 7WX.

The fact that they have a confidentiality gagging order (and I am sceptical about its actual existence) but if that they do does not mean it cannot be withdrawn if they fail to abide by the regulations covering it.

Does the address therefore also comply with the statutory instrument quoted above regarding address for delivery of documents? ie "capable of being recorded by the obtaining of an acknowledgement of delivery by any person".

If so then Companies House will have it, if not then Companies House can be contacted by the court to ask for it to be revealed in order to deliver the judgement to it.

tbutler12345

why is everything so complicated? Odds are stacked in the bad guys favour.

I cant afford to chuck anymore money at my case (already spent about £100 and a couple of days off work) - is there anyway I can get my money back without spending any more? I have the court order for the cash - but im pretty sure even if i turn up on James' doorstep i wont be any better off.
Anyone fancy paying him a visit? Would that help?

Coupon-mad

tbutler12345 wrote: »

why is everything so complicated? Odds are stacked in the bad guys favour.

I cant afford to chuck anymore money at my case (already spent about £100 and a couple of days off work) - is there anyway I can get my money back without spending any more? I have the court order for the cash - but im pretty sure even if i turn up on James' doorstep i wont be any better off.
Anyone fancy paying him a visit? Would that help?

If you haven't already, you could post about your current situation on pepipoo. They have a regular helpful Bailiff poster and others who can advise.

Good luck, I really hope you can get your money back.

tbutler12345

tbutler12345 wrote: »

OK thanks everyone - I have posted over at pepipoo http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=45224&st=0&p=405455&#entry405455

Yep i posted on pepipoo a while back here is the post.

Coblcris

Gordon861 wrote: »

I spoke to the Post Office about this company earlier in the thread and they told me there was a legal block on giving out the address behind the PO Box. I tried a couple of times and hit the same wall.

An Order of the Court will remove that block.

Coupon-mad

tbutler12345 wrote: »

Yep i posted on pepipoo a while back here is the post.

They gave you quite a bit of advice but it's up to you to keep your thread current with further queries if you want any more help on there. Just ask, say you are feeling like giving up & ask for words of support and in simple terms, advice on what they would do now if they were in your shoes.

If you don't understand what they are getting at with some of their shorthand replies, ask!

I quickly skim-read the thread over there and they gave you the home addy of the MD of the clamping company didn't they?

clambin

I know all about CNJ Contracts trading as Bay Park Management as I have obtained judgement against them on behalf of one of my colleagues (I used to be a lawyer but now do something both more interesting and profitable!). They were so slippery (filing a very verbose defence, and making a counterclaim) that I decided to spend some money on dealing with the litigation properly. Accordingly, I used a ritzy city firm to pursue them, with the help of a barrister who drafted a defence to their counterclaim.

After six months of screwing around the upshot is that CNJ contracts is in the process of being wound up. Obviously, this means that there is no possiblity of actually obtaining any the clamp fees or costs back for my colleague, or, unfortunatley, the original poster. There's a pretty clear pattern: set up a business trading as Bay Park, and phoenix one limited company after the other (which will trade as Bay Park). This obviously enables the owner of the phoenix company to avoid ever filing accounts or paying corporation tax. Furthermore, the phoenix company does not have to disclose the fact that it's above the VAT threshold, so should be registered for VAT.

Various enquiries (I'm not revealing my sources) indicate:

Bay Park turns over £5m+ per annum so should be registered for VAT (and should have paid some £700k or so in VAT to HMRC, but haven't paid a penny)
Bay Park is in breach of various Companies Act requirements
The MD has a string of "failed" businesses behind him
A criminal prosecution against the MD of CNJ is being actively being considered by a certain goverment agency. Basically a proper **** storm is heading towards the MD of CNJ.

So, forget the idea of getting any money from CNJ or Bay Park Management, but cheer up, because the MD has some very bad news coming his way.