Who is building contract with? Legal advice needed

Doozergirl

The contract definitely isn't with the company that did exist but has been dissolved because

a) they aren't named
b) they do not exist

My gut would say that it has to be with him as the individual because the company doesn't exist either, which makes him a sole trader. People can be John Smith t/a Bob the Builder but it's definitely John Smith being employed.

You need more informed advice than mine, but it *definitely* isn't who he says it is.

Edit: posted before I saw what Each Penny wrote and that makes sense. You have a contract, it just isn't necessarily that particular one. But it's still evidence of the intention to create 'a' contract existing between you and him. And the work and payment - to whom? is evidence of one existing.

Fast_ted

Hi teneighty,


Yes I agree, although not sure it goes to a verbal contract as everything is there on paper but he was using a different name (both company and his). The names on the quote are the false company name but all correspondnce was with him (albeit using an alias) and he signed the contract and carried out the works. The fact he carried out the works and was paid (consideration) as you say confirms there was a contract. The more I think about this the more confident I am that he can't push it to the other (not named) company as there is nothing to suggest I wanted to create a contract with this company and if he was under the impression it was with the other company why was it not named on any contract docs.


Appreciate all the responses, gradually putting my mind at ease!

Fast_ted

Doozer,


Thanks. The other company did exist when the contract was signed but as my last reply it was not mentioned on any contract documents and I wasn't even aware of the company until receiving letters from his solicitor. If he carried out he works and took the money surely any contract is with the individual. The bank details he gave me were for the false company name so it could have been going straight to his bank account for all I know.


I have a case management meeting with the small claims court in early september but feel I have a strong argument now to put before the judge.

teneighty

The attempt to shift responsibilty to the second company was always a non starter.

However, exactly how payment were made and to who will be the key. Clearly you didn't make payment to the non-existent company nor the individual using an alias (unless you paid in cash...please tell us you didn't pay in cash)

The use of an alias will not necessarily protect the builder, you just need to show on balance of probability that he is the person known as "X".

Fast_ted

Penny,


We didn't pay the archictural company for anything as we drew the plans ourselves and got another architectural technician to provide construction drawings and we got planning approval.


I think we do have a lawful contract as there was offer, acceptance and consideration. He provided the offer we accepted and paid him for the work. So there was clear intent to form a contract as the company doesn't exist I would think by default it falls to the person who carries out the works as teneighty's post.

Fast_ted

Hi teneighty,


No we didn't pay in cash, paid via bank transfer to the non existent name but assume the bank didn't check this if sort code and account number was correct?


I have an email from the Architectural company (who have also been a victim in a way as their name has been muddied) stating his real name and that he uses a number of aliases to avoid people chasing money. I also have screenshots of his real name facebook profile and will get the structural engineer and steel fabricator (who also didn't get paid despite me paying for steel) to confirm that he was the person carrying out works at my property. So hopefully that shouldn't be an issue but the guy has been doing this for years by all accounts. He was made bankrupt in 2008 and still carried on regardless.

teneighty

The next important thing is does he have any assets in his real name or under his alias. First thing to check is Land Registry title documents for any properties where he lives. If he has a history of dodgy dealings he has probably got any assets well hidden.

If he does have property then get the MCOL in pronto, I think you can include aliases in the claim and when you get judgement slap a charging order on his house.

EachPenny

teneighty wrote: »

The attempt to shift responsibilty to the second company was always a non starter.

I suspect this tactic perhaps has more to do with attempting to avoid criminal liability (perhaps on solicitor's advice). Inducing someone into a contract with a non-existent limited company is a serious issue - making out that the name on the contract was an error and the 'real' contract was with a dissolved company might have been his defence if prosecuted for fraud or other criminality in relation to the contract.

Fast_ted

Hi teneighty,


He does own his property with his wife (I have land registry docs). What is MCOL?


Thanks!

Fast_ted

Hi Penny,


I am still pursuing a criminal conviction but it's hard work getting it taken seriously! It is all very dodgy but hopefully I will get somewhere. Not ready to give up yet.....