Company in receivership owes a debt for trespass and nuisance...

Isthisforreal99

factfinding8888 said:

The main asset I can find is the property attached to mine. Should I bother putting a charging order on that property? 

More cost?

Was it owned outright, or secured on a loan? 

You are way down the queue.

factfinding8888

Also, they keep suggesting that they are attempting to get the CCJ set aside. Will the enforcement of that CCJ force them to try to do this. As this means they would need to explain to a court why they not liable/at fault right?

Again, thank you in advance for your replies. 

user1977

factfinding8888 said:

The main asset I can find is the property attached to mine. Should I bother putting a charging order on that property? 

What charges are already on it?

factfinding8888

Two charges from lending companies. 

user1977

factfinding8888 said:

Two charges from lending companies. 

Who will almost certainly take whatever is there.

lincroft1710

Have you ever heard the expression "chasing good money after bad"?

MyRealNameToo

lincroft1710 said:

Have you ever heard the expression "chasing good money after bad"?

Nope, never heard that expression but clearly an alternative of the idiom of "throwing good money after bad"

ExEstateAgent

factfinding8888 said:

Thank you for your replies. 

It turns out that the company were uninsured. Hence, why I started legal proceedings and now have CCJs against the owner of the property and the development company, which are basically the same people. I have now turned one of the CCjs into a High Court Writ to be enforced.

You have a CCJ against an individual, and another CCJ against a company (that's in receivership)? 

The CCJ's must be for two separate debts, what kind of sums are involved in each? Do you know where the individual lives and what assets they have? 

A person and a company are not the same (even if that person owned 100% of the company). The exception is if they were trading as a sole trader. 

user1977

ExEstateAgent said:

factfinding8888 said:

Thank you for your replies. 

It turns out that the company were uninsured. Hence, why I started legal proceedings and now have CCJs against the owner of the property and the development company, which are basically the same people. I have now turned one of the CCjs into a High Court Writ to be enforced.

You have a CCJ against an individual, and another CCJ against a company (that's in receivership)? 

The CCJ's must be for two separate debts, what kind of sums are involved in each? Do you know where the individual lives and what assets they have? 

A person and a company are not the same (even if that person owned 100% of the company). The exception is if they were trading as a sole trader. 

Not clear to me that "the owner of the property" is an individual.

ExEstateAgent

user1977 said:

ExEstateAgent said:

factfinding8888 said:

Thank you for your replies. 

It turns out that the company were uninsured. Hence, why I started legal proceedings and now have CCJs against the owner of the property and the development company, which are basically the same people. I have now turned one of the CCjs into a High Court Writ to be enforced.

You have a CCJ against an individual, and another CCJ against a company (that's in receivership)? 

The CCJ's must be for two separate debts, what kind of sums are involved in each? Do you know where the individual lives and what assets they have? 

A person and a company are not the same (even if that person owned 100% of the company). The exception is if they were trading as a sole trader. 

Not clear to me that "the owner of the property" is an individual.

Nor me, hence the questions!