Clear Bank not complying with third party debt order

eskbanker

I'm not sure it's Tide being awkward as such - if you want to enforce a debt owned by Mr Bloggs and the bank account is held by someone else, then I can see why they can't act on that (or disclose the name of the account holder), even though there's a trading name associated with both people, unless clearly instructed to do so by a court.

Jmoo

I understand that, but what difference would instructing a judge to say that I've had an invoice with those details on I need paying? I have that documentation to prove it as it is. It seems more hurdles that probably won't change an outcome.

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

I understand that, but what difference would instructing a judge to say that I've had an invoice with those details on I need paying? I have that documentation to prove it as it is. It seems more hurdles that probably won't change an outcome.

It's because you're looking to take enforcement action through a third party who isn't directly involved in your dispute with the trader, so the bank can't take account of the underlying circumstances about invoices and so on, and can only act based on instructions from a court that has (a) heard the detail and (b) has the authority to take decisions based on it.

Okell

Jmoo said:

I understand that, but what difference would instructing a judge to say that I've had an invoice with those details on I need paying? I have that documentation to prove it as it is. It seems more hurdles that probably won't change an outcome.

The difference is that Tide don't want to freeze the account on your say so but if  a judge orders them to do so they will have to.

The question is: can you get the judge to amend the order as Tide have suggested.  (Although - as you say - it's probably too late now)

The problem is that your contrcat is with Joe Bloggs  and you followed his instructions to pay into a/c 12348765 under the name of "T/A Joe Bloggs Building", but it would appear that he has no connection to that account, and you don't know who has.

So it comes down to whether the judge would amend the order to be against a/c no 12348765 in the name of "Joe Bloggs Building" irrespective of who owns the account.

Jmoo

Okell said:

Jmoo said:

I understand that, but what difference would instructing a judge to say that I've had an invoice with those details on I need paying? I have that documentation to prove it as it is. It seems more hurdles that probably won't change an outcome.

The difference is that Tide don't want to freeze the account on your say so but if  a judge orders them to do so they will have to.

The question is: can you get the judge to amend the order as Tide have suggested.  (Although - as you say - it's probably too late now)

The problem is that your contrcat is with Joe Bloggs  and you followed his instructions to pay into a/c 12348765 under the name of "T/A Joe Bloggs Building", but it would appear that he has no connection to that account, and you don't know who has.

So it comes down to whether the judge would amend the order to be against a/c no 12348765 in the name of "Joe Bloggs Building" irrespective of who owns the account.

Although is likely to be in the name of his girlfriend and secretary as he is a sole trader.

born_again

Jmoo said:

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.

Data protection.

Unless the account is exactly as the TPDO, then they can not do anything.

Feel for you as it seems clear that even if you find out who the name account is in, there will either be nothing in it, or they will have closed it & moved.
They know exactly what they are doing here to avoid paying out.

tightauldgit

Jmoo said:

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...

The bank is not being awkward, it's applying the law. Joe Bloggs T/A Hull Roofers is not the person responsible for that bank account. 

eskbanker

Jmoo said:

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...

You originally stated that the dispute related to costs associated with guttering work, which would typically be expected to be far more modest than substantial building projects and so on - how much have you spent so far on court costs, TPDO, bailiffs, etc?  Even if there was a reasonable prospect of recovering your money, which you seem to have accepted is unlikely, won't it ultimately be a pyrrhic victory rather than a financial one?

Jmoo

Have just heard from two others who have had similar issues - one ripped them off for £10,000 and ruined their neighbours roof too.  Now trying to work out how best to proceed. 

Jmoo

I've been battling with a guttering firm for nearly a year now to get my money back. I went down the route of a CCJ which was successful and then a third party debt order which wasn't successful due to various administrative issues with the bank involved. At no point has the trader engaged with the processes.

Now I've had a solicitor pop up on my LinkedIn search which I thought was odd. Now I have a flurry of letters from the courts saying they want to challenge the third party debt order. Very strange as it didn't work out for me - the details didn't match an account. There's a hearing for the defendant to throw it out in November, but nothing challenging the CCJs in place which I'm preparing to use for a baliff. 

Now I'm a little confused. Why are they trying to challenge just the TPDO? Does the hearing question the CCJ or would that be separate? What do they have to gain trying to stop that when it's already failed? And should I attend? I previously attended one and the judge said he didn't even expect me there!

I am guessing I can get a baliff before the hearing in November, if the court resolves the CCJ.