Who exactly to sue?

tightauldgit

RefluentBeans said:

tightauldgit said:

…
With regards mediation my understanding is that it's recommended but not compulsory. It can only work in any case if both parties agree to it. 

Is this still true if it’s written into a contract (not saying it is here, just curious). I know that reality TV shows often put in a clause stating that mediation is required before they can be sued. So if the contract stipulates it, is it then required? 

Probably if it's in the contract yes, but it would still be a waste of everyone's time if one party is sure they don't want to participate in it. An arbitration clause might be more useful as I think people would actually be bound by the outcome in that case but haven't seen many of them in consumer contracts in the UK and not sure they would be legal if they conflict with statutory rights. 

tightauldgit

Adviceplease1 said:

Re: Mediation - it's recommended good practice I believe, and if one party refuses to go, that reflects poorly on them.

I've gotten all the parties details from Companies House, and also have their home address thank you.

The invoice has ONLY the trading name on it, the registered company name which has been stamped over looks to be the name of the WIFE's limited company, (which is the same as where the money went to) but the ink on top of it is illegible. This practice (withholding business company details) can be a civil and criminal offence and has been reported to TS and others. 

They've done this 'stamping over' to another customer I am in contact with.  This person paid their money to the HUSBAND'S limited company.

So it looks like both limited companies (husband and wife's) are getting the money from the one trading premise and the same trading name - is this legal? Doesn't a trading name have to be linked to ONE registered company? (Although that registered company can have multiple trading names - I am talking about the other way around).

You said you had the company number on the paperwork - is the company number listed consistent with the Wife's Ltd or the husband's? 

There's nothing illegal AFAIK about having two companies with the same trading name and the same address - but it certainly should be clear on your paperwork which company you are dealing with, the address should be shown, the company number, the VAT number etc. 

If there's a genuine ambiguity I'd certainly report it but that isn't going to answer your question or solve your issue of who to sue. Again, proper legal advice needed I think but if I was in a position where I had to choose and the paperwork is unclear I'd probably tend towards suing the party who took my money

Ectophile

Personal opinion here: you'd be better sending a tow truck to pick up the car and take it to a garage you can trust to repair it.

The odds of whichever company you sue still being in business by the time the bailiffs arrive is pretty slim.  Then you're left with no money and no car.

Adviceplease1

OK, have legal help now, just wanted to mention that it is not permitted to operate in the way this dealer this, it's called artificial separation. They've likely done it to avoid taxes (and make it harder to sue them).  This business fulfils all the HMRC criteria for this, and there is abundant evidence - so they may have to pay a lot of additional taxes, plus a penalty. And going forwards they will lose money too, as their tax scam will no longer work.

This business is breaking the law in multiple ways. I guess they can choose whether to do the decent thing and pay the customer or go to court and be thoroughly investigated!  And end up paying a lot more to HMRC, even if this particular claim is unsuccessful.

Thanks for the comments.  

DullGreyGuy

Adviceplease1 said:

OK, have legal help now, just wanted to mention that it is not permitted to operate in the way this dealer this, it's called artificial separation. They've likely done it to avoid taxes (and make it harder to sue them).  This business fulfils all the HMRC criteria for this, and there is abundant evidence - so they may have to pay a lot of additional taxes, plus a penalty. And going forwards they will lose money too, as their tax scam will no longer work.

This business is breaking the law in multiple ways. I guess they can choose whether to do the decent thing and pay the customer or go to court and be thoroughly investigated!  And end up paying a lot more to HMRC, even if this particular claim is unsuccessful.

Thanks for the comments.  

Tax evasion has nothing to do with your complaint and if that goes to court or not. 

Be very careful of stating you know they are evading tax and then not reporting it, be even more careful if you intend to blackmail them into dealing with your case or you'll report them. You could quickly find yourself in trouble along with them

tightauldgit

Adviceplease1 said:

OK, have legal help now, just wanted to mention that it is not permitted to operate in the way this dealer this, it's called artificial separation. They've likely done it to avoid taxes (and make it harder to sue them).  This business fulfils all the HMRC criteria for this, and there is abundant evidence - so they may have to pay a lot of additional taxes, plus a penalty. And going forwards they will lose money too, as their tax scam will no longer work.

This business is breaking the law in multiple ways. I guess they can choose whether to do the decent thing and pay the customer or go to court and be thoroughly investigated!  And end up paying a lot more to HMRC, even if this particular claim is unsuccessful.

Thanks for the comments.  

I would imagine that they are up to all kinds of legal and non-legal financial shennanigans - however the sad part of that is even if HMRC put them up against the wall and shot them it wouldn't benefit you in any way in terms of  getting your money back.

The bad news for you is that if they are shady then as Ectophile says they're very likely to just shut the companies and re-open again as new entities leaving you with nothing.

Adviceplease1

No, wouldn't blackmail them, no need anyway as they'll know they've been rumbled and the likely consequences if they persist in being so unreasonable.

Don't want to give specifics on here but there are other issues, we can take action against them personally and do have their home address and DOBs. So it won't help them to shut down their registered companies. (And there are costs to doing that if there are judgements against them).  The car defect is serious so we are going to give it a go.

Even if the money is not returned, it would give some satisfaction to know they were being investigated by HMRC.  I just shared the info about the artificial separation to help others who might be reading this thread.

Anyway, getting legal help now, cheers everyone. 

RefluentBeans

Adviceplease1 said:

No, wouldn't blackmail them, no need anyway as they'll know they've been rumbled and the likely consequences if they persist in being so unreasonable.

Don't want to give specifics on here but there are other issues, we can take action against them personally and do have their home address and DOBs. So it won't help them to shut down their registered companies. (And there are costs to doing that if there are judgements against them).  The car defect is serious so we are going to give it a go.

Even if the money is not returned, it would give some satisfaction to know they were being investigated by HMRC.  I just shared the info about the artificial separation to help others who might be reading this thread.

Anyway, getting legal help now, cheers everyone. 

I had a feeling it was set up in a way to avoid legal action. Seemed to be hiding through obscurity of businesses, and guessing that they have multiple dissolved businesses. Hopefully when they see an actual solicitor is involved now they will help, hoping that they don’t caught. 

Either way, your solicitor will be able to help with any obligatory reports you need to do. I’m glad you’re getting there, and hope that you get the resolution and they get a hefty tax bill (HMRC will certainly be all too happy to pursue them - taxman always gets his money!)

bris

The trading name is what you concentrate on as that's who your contract is with,

So you would sue "Joe Bloggs" trading as ABC cars or  even just Joe Bloggs if you want.

Forget the ltd companies, they are just muddying the waters and are irrelevant to the claim, its not your concern where the money goes after you purchase from a private individual.

tightauldgit

bris said:

The trading name is what you concentrate on as that's who your contract is with,

So you would sue "Joe Bloggs" trading as ABC cars or  even just Joe Bloggs if you want.

Forget the ltd companies, they are just muddying the waters and are irrelevant to the claim, its not your concern where the money goes after you purchase from a private individual.

This is absolutely not true. If you contract with a Ltd company then you are not purchasing from a private individual and you cannot sue the directors of Ltd companies for debts of the company (except in very limited circumstances). A trading name is legally meaningless and not something you can contract with.