Issued a Warrant

dvdrdl

Justice did not prevail in this case

I'm p'd off for sure and will never waste my money again.

Live and learn

pooch

dvdrdl wrote: »

Justice did not prevail in this case.

I'm p'd off for sure and will never waste my money again.

Live and learn

You said it wasn't about the money, but the principle.

At this time you have the ccj against the alleged debtor.

The lesson you should learn here is you can't get blood out of a stone, so you need to check carefully the position before throwing good money after bad.

More importantly than that, do carefully credit check anyone before extending credit to them. Otherwise its strictly cash up front.

dvdrdl

Yep, experience gained :-D

Feel sorry for the poor sods that get done for thousands, must be so frustrating.

AbbieCadabra

pooch wrote: »

If the EA was still trading, I would have thought a TPDO would have been the way to go. Not only would you probably get your money (if they have any) but it would cause them significant issues to continue trading whist the TPDO is active.

useful info Pooch, thanks for posting (i did know some of that, but it's been over 10 years since i've dealt with it so a useful reminder).

i know about charging orders but I've not come across TPDO before, in case it's useful for anyone else, Third Party Debt Order info here (& other enforcement action that can be taken).

if you know the EA is still trading, would it be an option in the case? possibly past the point of no return on this one, if they're operating from an empty office i doubt their bank account will be flush, just a thought it you did want to pursue further.

dvdrdl

A further update.

It seems the courts cocked up and had my case confused with another.

So after a lot of complaining to the right people the bailiff made another visit and seems to have don something as the defendant has decided to make contact, albeit a text trying to settle on the side. (I did not reply)

He seems spooked and my latest update from the bailiff is that the defendant is trying to set aside judgement claiming it was a transaction between him and me rather than with his company.

Surely it is far too late to bring a defense to the table after 5 months of blatant ignorance.

AbbieCadabra

he can't just request it without evidence to back it up, can you prove it wasn't a private transaction?

this is the basic set aside info, is he just going to say he didn't receive it i wonder?

patman99

If he succeeds in convincing the Courts that it was a transaction between him and you and not from his company to you, then you can take him to Court for the outstanding amount (including all the legal fees).

As it would be against HIM and not his company, a whole new raft of options opens up to you.

You could -
Apply for a High Court warrant (again) to be served against him at his home address.
Attachment of earnings.
Charge on property.

And maybe even more.
He can make a company insolvent and start again, but he can't do that to himself.

DandelionPatrol

patman99 wrote: »

If he succeeds in convincing the Courts that it was a transaction between him and you and not from his company to you, then you can take him to Court for the outstanding amount (including all the legal fees).

I agree with the above.

Rush of blood to my head, I was going to suggest that as soon as you get his papers which claim that the debt is with him rather than his company, to go and put a new claim in against him. But a moment's reflection suggests letting him run with it and winning that argument. Then go in with a new claim against him.

dvdrdl

Another plot twist.

Think the bailiff caught him out and he's now done a complete U turn offering to pay all debt plus fees providing i drop the judgement.

He must be in the poop so i shall prob settle on that, despite wanting to shaft him. :-D

Slinky

Keep going, sounds like you're nearly there.