Do you need a name to take to small claims court

DullGreyGuy

To take someone to court you must clearly identify who the defendant is, if there is ambiguity in it then its easy for the defendant to have the case dismissed which mean you lose your court fees and have to start again.

You are entitled to share as much or as little as you want, but without details its much harder to help with suggestions. It seems a little odd to lend someone sufficient money to make it worth going to court over when you dont even know their name?  You also mention contacting "organisations"? Who were they? Just the council or is the arrangement more complex than a random person asking to borrow £10k and you giving it them because you've seen them going into a house down the street a few times?

Alderbank

macman said:

You need a first name, surname and address. 

You do and that would be a good start, but you need much more than that to have the slightest chance of winning a court case.

You need evidence that both parties agreed it was a loan and not a gift.
You need evidence that the defendant is the person who owes you the money.
You need evidence that repayments and final date for repayments were agreed.
You need evidence that the final date has passed without full repayment.
Court action must be the last resort. You need evidence that you have already tried to recover the money (eg. asked for it back) without success.

Can you do that? If you don't know the name of the alleged borrower you will struggle.

For example, if you have all the above but he only ever identifies himself as 'Bozza', the first line of his defence statement might well be 'I'm not Bozza'.

tightauldgit

I suspect if your court action starts with 'Do I need to know the name of the person I am suing?' then the chances of success are slim to none. I hope you haven't lost too much money.

eskbanker

macman said:

You need a first name, surname and address. 
Suggestion: since you should always send an LBA before the small claims process, why not write to them c/o 'Fred at no. 27'?
If they respond to the LBA in writing, giving their surnamename, then job done. If they don't ,you've lost nothing. but the price of a stamp.

Addressing a formal letter in such an informal manner sends a pretty clear message to the recipient that the sender doesn't know their full name, so I'd be amazed if anyone fell for it and revealed their name in a written response!

theoretica

Jmoo said:

eskbanker said:

You'll certainly need a surname for court action - any mutual acquaintances, social media profiles, known interests, etc?

Unfortunately very private individual. Proving a challenge! Know the daughter's surname but can't guarantee it's the same. 

You could try looking up birth records for the daughter's name. 

macman

eskbanker said:

macman said:

You need a first name, surname and address. 
Suggestion: since you should always send an LBA before the small claims process, why not write to them c/o 'Fred at no. 27'?
If they respond to the LBA in writing, giving their surnamename, then job done. If they don't ,you've lost nothing. but the price of a stamp.

Addressing a formal letter in such an informal manner sends a pretty clear message to the recipient that the sender doesn't know their full name, so I'd be amazed if anyone fell for it and revealed their name in a written response!

I agree it's unlikely, but there is no downside to trying this method. If the OP is to proceed, then they need to send an LBA before formal action anyway.
A stamp is cheaper than a tracing agent.

SpudGunPaul

Pollycat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If you are friendly with your postie they might tell you. 

I don't like the idea of asking a postie to provide information about another person - especially as it may result in legal action.

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

You don't have to like it, it's nothing to do with you. 

Pollycat

SpudGunPaul said:

Pollycat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If you are friendly with your postie they might tell you. 

I don't like the idea of asking a postie to provide information about another person - especially as it may result in legal action.

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

You don't have to like it, it's nothing to do with you. 

In that case, it's nothing to do with anybody who has responded to this thread.

It's MY opinion and YOU don't have to like it.

Again:

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

Undervalued

Pollycat said:

SpudGunPaul said:

Pollycat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If you are friendly with your postie they might tell you. 

I don't like the idea of asking a postie to provide information about another person - especially as it may result in legal action.

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

You don't have to like it, it's nothing to do with you. 

In that case, it's nothing to do with anybody who has responded to this thread.

It's MY opinion and YOU don't have to like it.

Again:

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

It is one of those situations where it is not unlawful to ask the question but it may be unlawful to answer it!

A journalist or private enquiry agent wouldn't hesitate but if it "crosses the line" for somebody else then that is, in a way, commendable.

There is an amazing amount of information that can be sourced, perfectly lawfully. As I said earlier in the tread, I'd start with the land registry.

Pollycat

Undervalued said:

Pollycat said:

SpudGunPaul said:

Pollycat said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If you are friendly with your postie they might tell you. 

I don't like the idea of asking a postie to provide information about another person - especially as it may result in legal action.

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

You don't have to like it, it's nothing to do with you. 

In that case, it's nothing to do with anybody who has responded to this thread.

It's MY opinion and YOU don't have to like it.

Again:

I wouldn't put my postie in that position and I wouldn't expect them to give my details to someone else on the street who asks them to.

It is one of those situations where it is not unlawful to ask the question but it may be unlawful to answer it!

A journalist or private enquiry agent wouldn't hesitate but if it "crosses the line" for somebody else then that is, in a way, commendable.

There is an amazing amount of information that can be sourced, perfectly lawfully. As I said earlier in the tread, I'd start with the land registry.

I don't believe I said it was 'unlawful'...

I was talking about what I would not do and what I would expect from my postie.