Help please. Company in liquidation have repaid for goods purchased with no authority

franchesca

Premium bonds are a great idea. I am going to ring Duet and see if they can give me any more info-guy dealing with it is out till tuesday-then will break the bad news to my son that he'd best not spend it!
Thank you all. If I get any relevant info I will post back.

bod1467

Probably best to tell him NOW that he'd best not spend it.

arcon5

Since the purchase of the item has he had a change of address or anything?

Flyboy152

WestonDave wrote: »

I "think" I get it! My first question is over the date - could it actually be longer ago? Reverb Retail went bust in April 2010.

Assuming its them, the likely scenario is son buys amp on finance from Reverb shortly before it goes under. What should have happened is that Reverb bills Duet for the amp, Duet pays over the cost, and sets up a loan for son to repay. In the kerfuffle, this never happens so its just repayments going into an non account. At some point this gets picked up on audit and the money refunded because at this stage Duet can't get in contact with Reverb and would probably get into trouble if they are collecting repayments without having actually outlayed the cost of the amp.

They are right to warn that Reverb may not have paid their supplier for the amp and that therefore it might technically still belong to the supplier (reservation of title clause etc), however in practical terms the supplier will have gone into Reverb 2 years ago, collected up anything that was there and taken it to resell - they were never going to start going through Reverb's customer records to track down amps sold and get them back from musicians!

However technically the money (the full cost of the amp less deposit) should be paid to the liquidators David Rubin and Partners, but if they haven't come looking for it by now, I suspect they haven't got the records or resources to track it down. The right thing to do is to call them up and explain and see what they say - however if you just put the money in an account and wait until the liquidation is finished (you can check easily enough when its disolved on the companies house website) then the chances are you'll not hear anything more.

arcon5 wrote: »

Well will or will not happen isn't necessarily inline with what the law permits. Technically there is now a debt and the company could ask him to pay them for the goods - well in this case it would be the administrators. This would be statutory barred after 6 years.
However if Reverb went under in 2010 (as per other member) and the administrators have done their job and moved on then what's likely to happen is... well.. nothing...

Has anybody actually contacted you about this other than regarding the reimbursement?

I concur with this advice, but would add that Franchesca's son should continue to feed the account with the normal payments, until the end of the expected term of the loan. This will have one of two outcomes:

1) He will have built up the correct amount of money in capital to pay the full amount on demand, if the need ever arises.

2) He will have built up a nice little nest egg, to help pay off his student debts; buy a car; put down a deposit on a home; or even get himself started, once he has finished his studies. Showing him the huge advantages of what savings can do.

ThumbRemote

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I concur with this advice, but would add that Franchesca's son should continue to feed the account with the normal payments, until the end of the expected term of the loan. This will have one of two outcomes:

The loan is paid off - see post 6

franchesca

arcon5 wrote: »

Since the purchase of the item has he had a change of address or anything?

He has had a change of address but used his home address when he took out the loan as he was a student-actually I was surprised they even gave him a loan when he was a student as he wasn't working at the time and only had his student loan. They didn't even ask for a guarantor but he did manage to pay it-assume by living on noodles!

franchesca

bod1467 wrote: »

Probably best to tell him NOW that he'd best not spend it.

Haha, yes you're right and I have done just that.