Un-served claim form

Jimmygg7

I've used MCOL to file a joint judgment against both an individual and his Ltd co.

I know that this individual lives at the address that I've given to MCOL because I've previously submitted a claim against his company, but omitted the "Ltd" part, therefore the HCEO said that this was a "non-legal entity". I found his address under a new company that he formed where he assigned the new company's address to be his actual home address. I still instructed the HCEO to pursue him and the HCEO has paid him a visit multiple times to claim that amount.

I also know that his Ltd's address doesn't exist anymore, and he hasn't updated CH, because that's where the HCEO had started initially, before we found out his home address. The point of the new judgment was to file it against himself personally and his company (with the Ltd this time so it's a legal entity!).

So, in summary, his personal address in MCOL's judgment is correct (and checked), and his Ltd's address is wrong.

Now, from MCOL I've got a paper saying that it's an Un-served Claim Form. What I understand this means is that the court couldn't find the defendant in the given address and therefore, if I think the address is correct, I should go ahead and pursue the claim, with the caveat that further letters may never reach him, and I may never be able to claim anything back from him.

Here's the weird part. This cover letter mentioning that the claim is unserved is attached twice, and both refer to the case as "Mr X vs Mr Y" in the letter I've received, whereas the two judgments are under a different name each (one for Mr Y, one for ABC Ltd).

My question is, why did the court say that the claim is un-served? Could they have made a mistake by sending both judgments to the Ltd's address that doesn't exist anymore?

I will try to give them a call during workdays, however wanted to check with this forum first for any similar experiences.

sourcrates

I don`t know the in`s and out`s of your particular case, but if the individuals company no longer exists, or the name is incorrect, then any claim will likely be pointless.

Likewise it appears he has avoided paying the HCEO`s on more than one occasion, which suggests he has the knowledge to avoid such things, hiding assets etc, if he refuses to pay, or can`t pay, for any reason, there is nothing the bailiff can do in that situation, they won`t attend their indefinitely.

Jimmygg7

sourcrates said:

I don`t know the in`s and out`s of your particular case, but if the individuals company no longer exists, or the name is incorrect, then any claim will likely be pointless.

Likewise it appears he has avoided paying the HCEO`s on more than one occasion, which suggests he has the knowledge to avoid such things, hiding assets etc, if he refuses to pay, or can`t pay, for any reason, there is nothing the bailiff can do in that situation, they won`t attend their indefinitely.

He hasn't avoided the HCEO as he's made a couple of (low) payments towards his debt (the one under the company that was a non legal entity), after the HCEO put some pressure on him and threatened him with seizing his personal items (which he can't legally do though).

Therefore, I believe that I could chase him "properly" if I have a CCJ with his correct name and his correct company name e.g. attachment to earnings, bankruptcy etc.