Scammed for £4000 but the detective work continues...

sheramber

Does he have any personal assets? Most likely not.

Either things will belong to a partner, wife etc or are leased or on hire purchase.House will be rented.

hollydays

agrinnall wrote: »

Why on earth would anyone pay £3800 as a deposit? A dealer asking for that much should ring very loud alarm bells.

Op probably was offered it cheap ..

unholyangel

If he never held himself out as a ltd company then you may be able to convince a judge to award against him personally, but you're looking at over £500 in fee's just to find out if your can hold him personally responsible or not.

As others have pointed out, even if you do manage to get awarded against him personally, it still doesn't guarantee the money will be returned if he has no assets. Although if he didn't, you could apply to have him made bankrupt which would then prohibit him from being the director or managing a company until their bankruptcy ends.

However you may still be able to get the same result as it sounds like he's possibly guilty of "unfit conduct". See here for details:
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

ETA: Also the chargeback, its possible they may still be within the time limit. I can't remember the exact wording but like with flights, you have 120 days from the day your flight was due to depart rather than 120 days from purchase (subject to a absolute time limit of 540 days from the transaction). Get them to start the process with their bank asap and refer it to the ombudsman if they reject it. Won't cost them anything so they have nothing to lose by trying.

arcon5

HHarry wrote: »

I hate to use it as an example as it's TV, but....

On 'Can't Pay, We'll Take It Away' last night the Baliffs visited a jewellers who owed £6k. He protested that because the new Ltd Company was different to the old they couldn't take his assets. They said that because he personally was named in the claim (as well as the Ltd co) they could take his stock. They got the £6k.

Like I say it may not be a good example, but might be worth a go.

I suspect somebody issued the court claim against him and he ignored it rather than defending or having the name of the defendant changed. Rookie mistake.

If he was now a sole trader then the stock is his. If he was a new ltd company and could prove such then if they took his stock it would be theft through and through.

Everything's not always as it seems with this program, entertaining though

arcon5

I suspect technically he was trading whilst insolvent which is an offence.

However unless you are willing to pay to put the company in to administration there isn't a great deal you can do. Whomever is winding it down would be the ones looking for wrong doing is seeking to recover any relevant funds from directors.

You paid in to his personal bank, problem is if he is acting as a director he would argue he is handling company funds.


Whilst shoddy situation to be in really with no real prospects of getting out of it

Castle

arcon5 wrote: »

You paid in to his personal bank, problem is if he is acting as a director he would argue he is handling company funds.

But he will have to provide evidence of funds being transferred to his company.

arcon5

Castle wrote: »

But he will have to provide evidence of funds being transferred to his company.

Not necessarily. He could simply argue he was responsible for holding on the funds the company obtained. So long as the assets was owned by the company and some sort of proof of this could be given I suspect this is moot really.
So if he provided a trade policy in the companies name, maybe a purchase order for vehicles in the companies name, etc etc I suspect a judge would be convinced the entity was the company making whom op gave money to moot. No different to if op paid cash, presumably the director would store the cash in his house.

Hoof_Hearted

Baseball bat......