Simple query

Viking64

But that doesn't demonstrate that the company has received it. In any case. I guess there is no way of pursuing them.

shaun_from_Africa

Viking64 wrote: »

But that doesn't demonstrate that the company has received it.

As far as the law in the UK is concerned, it demonstrates exactly that.

Interpretation Act 1978
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression ” give ” or ” send ” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

If a person or company disputes receiving the letter then it's up to them to prove that they didn't receive it, something that is pretty much impossible to do.

This is why any "notices of intended prosecution" issued are sent out standard mail rather than signed for. If you dispute receiving one of these, you have to prove that you didn't receive it or complete and return a statutory declaration saying that you did not receive the letter.

Viking64

That's interesting. So all the advice we've been receiving about sending documents like this recorded or signed for seems to be erroneous.
It seems crazy that a person can do business like this and be untouchable.

DoaM

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

This is why any "notices of intended prosecution" issued are sent out standard mail rather than signed for. If you dispute receiving one of these, you have to prove that you didn't receive it or complete and return a statutory declaration saying that you did not receive the letter.

And this is why the "Beckham case" got so much attention ... the hire/lease company he got his car from recorded receipt of mail and that record proved it arrived late with the keeper, therefore the initial NIP was invalid (hence any subsequent NIP was also invalid). Having such records available is rare.

BoGoF

Care to share the name of the company?

davidmcn

Viking64 wrote: »

It seems crazy that a person can do business like this and be untouchable.

It seems crazy that people enter into contracts without first checking who it is they're actually dealing with...but you are where you are. Can you share with us what information you have about them? It's not going to be impossible to figure out what sort of legal entity it is.

Viking64

Clean to Perfection (supposedly based 16 Ansdell Terrace W8 5BY)

Viking64

The EoT clean was arranged by some young student friends of mine. I felt sorry for them and wanted to help. The company Clean to Perfection is supposedly based 16 Ansdell Terrace W8 5BY. I have scoured the net and seen reviews responded to by a Rudolph Green who says he owns the company.

davidmcn

Viking64 wrote: »

The company Clean to Perfection is supposedly based 16 Ansdell Terrace W8 5BY.

Ok, that's a residential address. You could check the Land Registry to see if Rudolph Green is the owner.

They've got a website at http://www.cleantoperfection.co.uk/ which doesn't give any clues about ownership (and neither does the domain registration).

If he's holding himself out as being the owner (and isn't referring to any limited company in his correspondence) then I would think safe enough to pursue him as an individual.

eddddy

Viking64 wrote: »

TThe company Clean to Perfection is supposedly based 16 Ansdell Terrace W8 5BY.

That address seems to be a holiday home that's available for daily letting:
https://www.booking.com/hotel/gb/pml-apartments-kensington.en-gb.html

This seems to be the company that manages the holiday home - but I guess there is no guarantee that they are associated with the cleaning company:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09631320/officers