Seller kept money. Lost £0000's. Nothing I can do?

antrobus

Is this still going on?

GraceCourt wrote: »

...

If "JPMC" is indeed "J P Morgan Chase & Co", which of the eight companies listed at Companies House as being registered in the UK, with names commencing "J P Morgan Chase...", should legal process for "JPMC" be served on? Oh, and by the way... none of those eight is actually called "J P Morgan Chase & Co".

As I said, I thought it might be vaguely helpful to know that JPMC is indeed J P Morgan Chase & Co

GraceCourt wrote: »

....
So, despite the requirements of Regulations 6 and 7 of the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008, made under Sections 82 to 85 of the Companies Act 2006, a member of the public still wouldn't know where to serve a Notice of claim... do you?

Let's put it this way, it's only an entry on a bank statement. If you are in dispute with a company and wanted to take legal action against them, you'd do so on the basis of the contract that you signed. Only a complete twonk would go around scrutinising bank statement entries trying to fathom the precise banking agency arangements that said company had entered into.

GraceCourt wrote: »

...
The major problem with debating this subject with someone who has no understanding whatsoever of the legal issues is that they have no understanding whatsoever of the legal issues.

Oh, I know what you mean!

oscardog wrote: »

....

Keeping with the theme of remaining off subject, Paypal have offered to settle in full prior to the hearing. Good news - I get my money back, bad news - I don't get my day in court......

Congratulations on your success oscardog. Which just goes to prove that rather than tying yourself up in knots over the precise details of this or that statutory instrument, it's best just to get on with things.

arcon5

mildred1978 wrote: »

As you clearly aren't aware how banks operate, I hope you know how HMRC operate, and that you should have been registered as self employed and paying tax on those profits.................

Tax is based on gross profit, this is net profit - then used by op to re-invest in stock, subsequently making a significant loss. So what profit needs declaring?


How you getting on op?

Azari

pendulum wrote: »

You realise legal precedents are not set in Small Claims Court don't you?

It may not set a legal precedent but it will mean that the information that PP can lose a case is 'out there', so in that sense it sets a precedent.

I've already given reasons why they may not have bothered to defend this

You have, and they are pretty spurious.

As I already mentioned, the fees involved in having a case that has been improperly brought discontinued would be minimal and would, in all likelihood, be worth paying in order to demonstrate to others that they won't get anywhere.

As they have capitulated in this case that means that anyone doing a search is likely to see that they have done so and this may well embolden them to also proceed.

I'm afraid that much as you may like to believe that PP are above the law in this country that does not seem to be the case.

peachyprice

pendulum wrote: »

You realise legal precedents are not set in Small Claims Court don't you?

I've already given reasons why they may not have bothered to defend this, if it were a small sum involved, regardless of whether they could get it thrown out or not. The main reason being it could cost more in legal fees to get it thrown out or defend it than it would to just pay up.

Yes, sorry, to clairify, it would set a precedent, if not a legal one, that others could rely upon to also bring them to court.

At the moment you have people like GraceCourt making a big song and dance about how it's impossible. I'm sure Pay Pal are very happy with him/her for fighting their corner and I'm sure there are many many people who would not bother even trying to take them to court because 'they read on the internet that it's impossible'. Once this is dispoved it opens up the flood gates and PP will no longer have this myth to hide behind. Would you not consider that a good enough reason for them to settle out of court?

If PP were 100% sure that no case could be entered against them it would have been worth the minimal fees to prove this, to settle out of court makes absolutely no sense when proving a case impossible would save them £0000's in the long run.

John_Jizzle

mildred1978 wrote: »

As you clearly aren't aware how banks operate, I hope you know how HMRC operate, and that you should have been registered as self employed and paying tax on those profits.................

wow that is really helpful - what a complete tool.

maninthestreet

OP - if the watch 'seller' turns out to be a limited company, perhaps you could apply for a winding-up order???

antrobus

mildred1978 wrote: »

As you clearly aren't aware how banks operate, I hope you know how HMRC operate, and that you should have been registered as self employed and paying tax on those profits.................

John_Jizzle wrote: »

wow that is really helpful - what a complete tool.

Well to be fair, the OP did write about making a "thrifty profit upon sale", acquiring the "trading bug" and "steadily making varying profits on sales" which is the kinda thing that might lead HMRC to conclude there was some tax to pay.

It's all rather academic now, of course, as whatever profits that the OP did make have now been overwhelmed by the big fat loss on the attempted purchase of one Rolex Submariner watch.