Who exactly to sue?

Adviceplease1

"you cannot sue the directors of Ltd companies for debts of the company (except in very limited circumstances)."

Actually we've been advised that Directors can be sued personally, for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence etc.  They can be held civilly and criminally liable.  I'm not going to disclose it on here but we have ample evidence - including with other customers we are in contact with - of this type of behaviour. Most Director insurance will cover negligent misrepresentation but not fraudulent misrepresentation...  

eskbanker

Adviceplease1 said:

"you cannot sue the directors of Ltd companies for debts of the company (except in very limited circumstances)."

Actually we've been advised that Directors can be sued personally, for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence etc.  They can be held civilly and criminally liable.  I'm not going to disclose it on here but we have ample evidence - including with other customers we are in contact with - of this type of behaviour. Most Director insurance will cover negligent misrepresentation but not fraudulent misrepresentation...  

Proving fraud is quite a high bar, but as you now have legal assistance, from someone who presumably has sight of the full story, unlike everyone on here, there isn't really going to be any point in continuing this thread!

tightauldgit

Adviceplease1 said:

"you cannot sue the directors of Ltd companies for debts of the company (except in very limited circumstances)."

Actually we've been advised that Directors can be sued personally, for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence etc.  They can be held civilly and criminally liable.  I'm not going to disclose it on here but we have ample evidence - including with other customers we are in contact with - of this type of behaviour. Most Director insurance will cover negligent misrepresentation but not fraudulent misrepresentation...  

As I said - in limited circumstances. 

Also 'criminally liable' is a completely different thing to being sued by a customer and is a call for the relevant authorities not any private individual to make. 

km1500

the voucher has been scanned and thus used and Groupon will pay the garage. They should of course have done the pressure test before scanning the coupon

thus the garage have your money less whatever groupon keeps for their admin and so it is them you should sue

however you now see the pitfalls of using something like Groupon - no doubt you can get some bargains when it works but when it doesn't work you are between a rock and a hard place

lincroft1710

km1500 said:

the voucher has been scanned and thus used and Groupon will pay the garage. They should of course have done the pressure test before scanning the coupon

thus the garage have your money less whatever groupon keeps for their admin and so it is them you should sue

however you now see the pitfalls of using something like Groupon - no doubt you can get some bargains when it works but when it doesn't work you are between a rock and a hard place

I think you may have posted this on the wrong thread!

km1500

yep sorry !

bris

tightauldgit said:

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. 

It absolutley is true, the op states the trading name is not linked to the ltd co so the trading name has a person attached to it, that would be Joe Bloggs.

The LTD co may have had the money transferred to it but their is no details of this LTD co on the paperwork so the trading name is who you sue and the owner of that trading name is liable

The trading name in itself is .also pretty much meaningless as the legal entity is Joe bloggs who who runs his business with a trading name.

So if I've read it right and the ltd. co is not on the invoice then it is not the legal entity for this transaction

tightauldgit

bris said:

tightauldgit said:

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. 

It absolutley is true, the op states the trading name is not linked to the ltd co so the trading name has a person attached to it, that would be Joe Bloggs.

The LTD co may have had the money transferred to it but their is no details of this LTD co on the paperwork so the trading name is who you sue and the owner of that trading name is liable

The trading name in itself is .also pretty much meaningless as the legal entity is Joe bloggs who who runs his business with a trading name.

So if I've read it right and the ltd. co is not on the invoice then it is not the legal entity for this transaction

The OP states that they contracted with husbands Ltd company and paid wife's Ltd company - the trading name is linked to the Ltd company and not a sole trader. The Ltd company details ARE on the paperwork but are not legible. 

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that there is a sole trader involved anywhere in any of this sad business.