Clear Bank not complying with third party debt order

Okell

tightauldgit said:

Jmoo said:

So from my understanding his domestic partner is his secretary and handles the accounts, so I would guess that is who the second person is, and who the account is registered to. As the address differs (I think they live separately) this would explain it.

I'm surprised given the TPDO featured the name of the business, which is the name of the account, that wasn't enough, although I appreciate the ownership muddies the water.

IF she is his secretary then she is an employee nothing more. That would not give her any legal authority to have a bank account for the business...

Thing is, I'm pretty much certain that she will have authority from her partner ("Bill Smith") to hold a bank account in his trading name.    

What I really don't understand in these days of anti-money laundering laws and banking security etc is how "Joan Jones" can open and run an account in the name of "Bill Smith Trading" (or Bill Smith t/a Bill Smith Trading) when the bank has no record that "Bill Smith" even exists according to the OP.

Seems like an aid to deception to me

Jmoo

Okell said:

tightauldgit said:

Jmoo said:

So from my understanding his domestic partner is his secretary and handles the accounts, so I would guess that is who the second person is, and who the account is registered to. As the address differs (I think they live separately) this would explain it.

I'm surprised given the TPDO featured the name of the business, which is the name of the account, that wasn't enough, although I appreciate the ownership muddies the water.

IF she is his secretary then she is an employee nothing more. That would not give her any legal authority to have a bank account for the business...

Thing is, I'm pretty much certain that she will have authority from her partner ("Bill Smith") to hold a bank account in his trading name.    

What I really don't understand in these days of anti-money laundering laws and banking security etc is how "Joan Jones" can open and run an account in the name of "Bill Smith Trading" (or Bill Smith t/a Bill Smith Trading) when the bank has no record that "Bill Smith" even exists according to the OP.

Seems like an aid to deception to me

That's what has confused me. It's the bank details they've given me, so it's not like I've plucked it out of thin air.

tightauldgit

Jmoo said:

tightauldgit said:

Jmoo said:

So from my understanding his domestic partner is his secretary and handles the accounts, so I would guess that is who the second person is, and who the account is registered to. As the address differs (I think they live separately) this would explain it.

I'm surprised given the TPDO featured the name of the business, which is the name of the account, that wasn't enough, although I appreciate the ownership muddies the water.

IF she is his secretary then she is an employee nothing more. That would not give her any legal authority to have a bank account for the business.

Simply having a trading name on the TPDO isn't going to help you, because the legal entity is the person. You can see the issue if you imagine there might be five hundred completely different Mr Bun The Baker shops all operating as sole traders "trading as". Just because the business has the same name wouldn't make it the same entity or responsible for the debts. 

If the bank are correct that your man isn't the name on that account then you won't be able to get anything from it. 

I understand that but it was quite specific with the account number and sort code. It's not like I've asked them to look at every Hull Roofing account.

Would I have been better putting one forward as 'Hull Roofing' (as an example name) with that account number? Does a TPDO have to be in the same name as the CCJ if both documents have the business name? Or does the other person mean I wouldn't get it either way?

The problem is that you need to find the right legal entity and not just the right name. Hull Roofing is meaningless in any legal sense - it's not a company, it's not a person, it can't be sued - it's just a name sticker that is slapped on the front of things to avoid having to use your own name on everything. 

Detail matter and without going into the specifics of everything with a solicitor it's difficult to know exactly the right thing but if you contracted with Bill Smith as a sole trader then you got a judgement and an order against Bill Smith the person and you need to find accounts or assets in his name. A bank account that his wife has isn't going to cut it. 

So if that account is definitely not in his name then I don't see how you can get anything from it. Not to say you can't get your money but you might have to find other assets. Does he own his house? Car? Does he have personal bank accounts? All could be fair game to settle his debts.  It's a lot harder for sole traders to avoid these things than Ltd companies.

born_again

Okell said:

Thing is, I'm pretty much certain that she will have authority from her partner ("Bill Smith") to hold a bank account in his trading name.    

What I really don't understand in these days of anti-money laundering laws and banking security etc is how "Joan Jones" can open and run an account in the name of "Bill Smith Trading" (or Bill Smith t/a Bill Smith Trading) when the bank has no record that "Bill Smith" even exists according to the OP.

Seems like an aid to deception to me

They may have authority, but if you claim is against him, then if the account is held by someone else. It's not his money. This is in effect what they are doing.
Nothing from this trader will be in their name,  House, car, van, tools etc thus there is nothing to claim in anyway, even if bailiff's turn up.

How much are you looking at claiming here?

tightauldgit

Okell said:

tightauldgit said:

Jmoo said:

So from my understanding his domestic partner is his secretary and handles the accounts, so I would guess that is who the second person is, and who the account is registered to. As the address differs (I think they live separately) this would explain it.

I'm surprised given the TPDO featured the name of the business, which is the name of the account, that wasn't enough, although I appreciate the ownership muddies the water.

IF she is his secretary then she is an employee nothing more. That would not give her any legal authority to have a bank account for the business...

Thing is, I'm pretty much certain that she will have authority from her partner ("Bill Smith") to hold a bank account in his trading name.    

What I really don't understand in these days of anti-money laundering laws and banking security etc is how "Joan Jones" can open and run an account in the name of "Bill Smith Trading" (or Bill Smith t/a Bill Smith Trading) when the bank has no record that "Bill Smith" even exists according to the OP.

Seems like an aid to deception to me

My contract law isn't good enough to know what happens in these situations - if you contract with Bill Smith but pay Joan Jones for the work who is the contact actually with (I think it's Bill Smith?) and what is the status of the third party in the transaction (an agent? the recipient of a gift?)

With regards your point on deception - Joan Jones can trade as Bill Smith Trading if she wants to. There doesn't ever have to have been a Bill Smith. And unless the name is trademarked anyone can open up another Bill Smith Trading next door, in the next town or wherever. But usually  to open a business account you'd expect to have to provide some evidence of trading and actually having the business! 

I mean thinking about it a bit more it's POSSIBLE that Hull Roofing is actually the partner's sole trader business and Bill Smith is actually just an employee of that company and the partner should have been sued instead. Hard to know really without getting a little bit forensic on the paperwork. 

These things always get messy very quickly and you never really know what's legal and what isn't. I'd be tempted to give HMRC a heads up but that's not going to get the OP their money back.   

Jmoo

Have tried speaking more through Tide, but they just want the court documentation reissued.

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

Have tried speaking more through Tide, but they just want the court documentation reissued.

That seems understandable, as they're the party with the contractual relationship with the trader.

Jmoo

They're going to speak with Clear Bank.

I've been to the traders house to see what could be done if there is a baliff involved, although can't yet see anything expensive outside.

Jmoo

So Tide are resisting because they say another person is named, even though the TPDO names a legal person and the business, which is the account information I was provided when making the transfer and features on their invoice.

They are saying that because the 'TPDO says t/a Hull Roofing, this appears to be a trading name used by Mr. Bloggs' and 'TPDO should identify a legal person - e.g. an individual or limited company, who owes you a debt.'

They say: 'A trading name is not a separate legal person - it is simply a less formal alternative name any business owner can use when advertising or dealing with customers.'

They continue: 'While we cannot provide you with legal advice, we understand you may be able to apply to the court to amend your TPDO. You may be able to demonstrate to the court that Mr. Bloggs asked you to transfer the funds to the account ending in XXX and that the funds in this account are owned by Mr. Bloggs. The court may then agree to amend the order.

'For Tide to be able to make the payment, the order would need to explicitly state that Tide has to make the payment from the account ending in XXX, even though this account is not owned by Mr. Bloggs.'

All seems very complicated and I can't help feeling the bank is being awkward. At the end of the day it was the account given by him, it lists the company name on the TPDO, which is what I had to match up with to make the transfer.

I don't know how easy the above would be to rectify - and annoyingly comes just after I've taken the step to use a bailiff which is further expense. In any case, the account won't have been frozen so probably won't have funds in it now...

Jmoo

And i've clarified it with Tide, they're still asking for another name on the TPDO that they will not give. So hit a brickwall again.