Can I take my builder to court as a sole trader? He didn't disclose his limited status

DullGreyGuy

bravo88 said:

ThumbRemote said:

Who, and how, did you pay?

If you paid a business bank account then you're dealing with a company. 
If you paid him personally then you can argue you employed him as a sole trader. 

I believe a sole trader can open a business bank account though, especially if the lions share of their income comes from that

A sole trader should open a business bank account straight away... Thumb meant if you paid an account in the name of the company rather than a "business" account. There is no way for you to know if an account is a personal account or the business account of a sole trader as in both cases the account holder is Bob Smith (enter appropriate name)

As already commented though, who you pay doesn't prove who you are in contract with. 

sheramber

bravo88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:
The contract lists his name, the name of his company as I knew it

See here you have shot yourself in the foot... you have know acknowledged there is a company involved which is why its important to see how its actually stated in the document 


Company - a separate legal entity; a legal person
Sole Trader - a natural person acting in the capacity of a business
Business - the trade of an entity be that a natural person or legal person
Trading Name/Style - a name other than that of the legal entity that they operate under for their business


Small claims court is intended to be simple but it's important not to be lax with language and many involved in cases use language that causes them to lose the case. 

Right. Would this be correct re. sole trader?

This contract is between ‘the client’ (my name, my address) and ‘the contractor’ (his name, his business name, his personal address).

Where did you get the ‘company name’?


Do you mean business name?

It is important to use the correct  term.

bravo88

sheramber said:

bravo88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:
The contract lists his name, the name of his company as I knew it

See here you have shot yourself in the foot... you have know acknowledged there is a company involved which is why its important to see how its actually stated in the document 


Company - a separate legal entity; a legal person
Sole Trader - a natural person acting in the capacity of a business
Business - the trade of an entity be that a natural person or legal person
Trading Name/Style - a name other than that of the legal entity that they operate under for their business


Small claims court is intended to be simple but it's important not to be lax with language and many involved in cases use language that causes them to lose the case. 

Right. Would this be correct re. sole trader?

This contract is between ‘the client’ (my name, my address) and ‘the contractor’ (his name, his business name, his personal address).

Where did you get the ‘company name’?


Do you mean business name?

It is important to use the correct  term.

Its the name that's used on his branding. I originally saw his ad in a monthly local newsletter that gets put through the door every month and contacted him over the phone to come and quote 

bravo88

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:

ThumbRemote said:

Who, and how, did you pay?

If you paid a business bank account then you're dealing with a company. 
If you paid him personally then you can argue you employed him as a sole trader. 

I believe a sole trader can open a business bank account though, especially if the lions share of their income comes from that

A sole trader should open a business bank account straight away... Thumb meant if you paid an account in the name of the company rather than a "business" account. There is no way for you to know if an account is a personal account or the business account of a sole trader as in both cases the account holder is Bob Smith (enter appropriate name)

As already commented though, who you pay doesn't prove who you are in contract with. 

Oh, I see. The money was paid into an account under his name. 

DullGreyGuy

bravo88 said:

sheramber said:

bravo88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:
The contract lists his name, the name of his company as I knew it

See here you have shot yourself in the foot... you have know acknowledged there is a company involved which is why its important to see how its actually stated in the document 


Company - a separate legal entity; a legal person
Sole Trader - a natural person acting in the capacity of a business
Business - the trade of an entity be that a natural person or legal person
Trading Name/Style - a name other than that of the legal entity that they operate under for their business


Small claims court is intended to be simple but it's important not to be lax with language and many involved in cases use language that causes them to lose the case. 

Right. Would this be correct re. sole trader?

This contract is between ‘the client’ (my name, my address) and ‘the contractor’ (his name, his business name, his personal address).

Where did you get the ‘company name’?


Do you mean business name?

It is important to use the correct  term.

Its the name that's used on his branding. I originally saw his ad in a monthly local newsletter that gets put through the door every month and contacted him over the phone to come and quote 

Did it end "ltd" or "limited"?

It's fine for Bob Smith to trade as Bob's Builders (subject to any challenges from Mattel) and this would be known as a trading style or trading name. Documents would normally have at the footer that its Bob Smith t/a Bob's Builders.

Bob Smith could also own Bob's Builders Limited as a company. In principle they too could operate as Bob's Builders and then should have the footer of Bob's Builders Limited t/a Bob's Builder though more commonly if they are simply dropping the limited from the name some companies are lazy. 


Unless we know the exact wording used in the contract and any of their documentation its difficult to state but the fact you say it mentions a company is potentially problematic

Ectophile

1. People are allowed to trade under trade names.  That doesn't stop them being a sole trader.
2. Any correspondence from a company must include the company name, registered address and company registration number.

So if you have any correspondence from the builder the does not include the company details, then the contract wasn't with the company, but with him.  In which case, sue him personally.

DullGreyGuy

Ectophile said:

1. People are allowed to trade under trade names.  That doesn't stop them being a sole trader.
2. Any correspondence from a company must include the company name, registered address and company registration number.

So if you have any correspondence from the builder the does not include the company details, then the contract wasn't with the company, but with him.  In which case, sue him personally.

Any correspondence from a business is required to identify the actual legal entity be that a company or a sole trader

bravo88

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:

sheramber said:

bravo88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

bravo88 said:
The contract lists his name, the name of his company as I knew it

See here you have shot yourself in the foot... you have know acknowledged there is a company involved which is why its important to see how its actually stated in the document 


Company - a separate legal entity; a legal person
Sole Trader - a natural person acting in the capacity of a business
Business - the trade of an entity be that a natural person or legal person
Trading Name/Style - a name other than that of the legal entity that they operate under for their business


Small claims court is intended to be simple but it's important not to be lax with language and many involved in cases use language that causes them to lose the case. 

Right. Would this be correct re. sole trader?

This contract is between ‘the client’ (my name, my address) and ‘the contractor’ (his name, his business name, his personal address).

Where did you get the ‘company name’?


Do you mean business name?

It is important to use the correct  term.

Its the name that's used on his branding. I originally saw his ad in a monthly local newsletter that gets put through the door every month and contacted him over the phone to come and quote 

Did it end "ltd" or "limited"?

It's fine for Bob Smith to trade as Bob's Builders (subject to any challenges from Mattel) and this would be known as a trading style or trading name. Documents would normally have at the footer that its Bob Smith t/a Bob's Builders.

Bob Smith could also own Bob's Builders Limited as a company. In principle they too could operate as Bob's Builders and then should have the footer of Bob's Builders Limited t/a Bob's Builder though more commonly if they are simply dropping the limited from the name some companies are lazy. 


Unless we know the exact wording used in the contract and any of their documentation its difficult to state but the fact you say it mentions a company is potentially problematic

No, no mention of limited or ltd whatsoever. Nothing at all.

For the sake of an example, I'll say my builder is called Bob Smith. This is what the contract states: 

This contract is between ‘the client’ (my name, my address) and ‘the contractor’ (Bob Smith, B. Smith Builders, his personal address).

So from what you are saying, I am best to say I employed him, Bob Smith, who is trading as B. Smith Builders. As I said, I got this trading name which I added to the contract from an advert, which had no mention of ltd or limited. Nothing on his website, nothing on email signature, invoices other than his mobile number and an email address which is akin to bobsmith1@outlook.com. Nor does he have any registered address visible anywhere. He asked me to add his personal address to the contract, which suggests sole trader. 

Thanks for your help this is all very useful re. understanding the language

user1977

You employed Bob Smith.

"B. Smith Builders" does not exist as a legal entity, there's no need to mention it anywhere.

DullGreyGuy

Ideally you'd have t/a rather than a comma between his name and the trading name to make it clearer but it certainly could have been a lot worse