Financial Prospects...

SavvySaver24

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same? I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

Aylesbury_Duck

SavvySaver24 said:

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same? I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

I don't think the small claims court would require that.  Their job is to determine, on the balance of the evidence provided by both parties, whether or not your claim is valid.  As far as I know they don't take into account the defendant's ability to pay when making their decision.  If they find in your favour, it's down to you to chase the money.

user1977

SavvySaver24 said:

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same?

The court will let you pursue a claim against somebody who is penniless if you want to. But why would you? Your insurers just don't want to spend their own money on the case if it seems like any action would be fruitless.

I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

If they're a sole trader then (from your point of view) there's no distinction between their personal and business assets, they're all fair game.

Ectophile

It really comes down to whether:

1) they could pay you, but don't want to, or

2) they can't pay you.

If it's the former, then pursuing them through the courts may work. Business run on credit, and one thing that totally trashes a credit score is an unpaid county court judgement.

SavvySaver24

So spoke with the solicitor and its not that they don't own a property, it's that they don't own the registered business address - no surprise there it's a unit on an industrial estate.....

So they will take it on if I can prove they legally own property but I've been phoning round Trace Agents and have been quoted upwards of £250! Please someone tell me there's a cheaper way!? HM Land Registry say there's a proprietors name search but that can only be done by them, for probate reasons, or by  solicitor (and they won't).

I've found their previous residential address but it was sold a few years back.

user1977

Tracing agents ought to be cheaper than that, I would carry on shopping around.

MattMattMattUK

SavvySaver24 said:

So spoke with the solicitor and its not that they don't own a property, it's that they don't own the registered business address - no surprise there it's a unit on an industrial estate.....

So they will take it on if I can prove they legally own property but I've been phoning round Trace Agents and have been quoted upwards of £250! Please someone tell me there's a cheaper way!? HM Land Registry say there's a proprietors name search but that can only be done by them, for probate reasons, or by  solicitor (and they won't).

I've found their previous residential address but it was sold a few years back.

When you say "registered business address", to be clear, are they a limited company or a sole trader?

Also what was the name on the bank account you paid into (eg. John Smith - so sold trader, or John Smith Limited - so a limited company).

Sandtree

SavvySaver24 said:

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same? I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

Your LE cover will require there to be "reasonable prospects of success" which means over a 51% chance of getting the case settled. They are effectively saying that if you cannot prove they have sufficient assets (ie a property) then its too risky that they win the case but arent able to recover any monies.

If you go via your LE or deal with the matter yourself will not change which tract of the court the case goes through. So if the value is in small track limit it'll be the same either way. The difference will be that you may be willing to spend the fees on issuing proceedings and going to court knowing the vendors doesnt have two pennies to their name but you want the moral victory whereas your insurers will not pay for a moral victory only a financial one.

Only a court can order a financial disclosure, for which you would have to pay a fee to ask the court to consider doing so.

Ectophile

SavvySaver24 said:

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same? I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

The solicitors are only interested in whether or not they will get paid. That's why they are fixated on property.

Anyone can be sued. People living in rental properties aren't magically immune to all lawsuits.  But the solicitors have made it clear that they aren't interested, and you're on your own.

And be clear whether you're pursuing a company or a person. If it's not a registered company, then it's a person operating under a trade name. You sue the person, because the business is just a name.

Sandtree

Ectophile said:

SavvySaver24 said:

Oh they are 100% still actively trading yes. But our Legal cover says they have to own a property? Would Small Claims Court not require the same? I don't understand why they are just focused on the personal assets before even looking at this business.

The solicitors are only interested in whether or not they will get paid. That's why they are fixated on property.

Its a small claims court value... they won't be paid by the defendant as solicitors fees are excluded, nor will there be a success fee from the OP because they have LE cover