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

WIAWSNB

user1977 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

I'm not sure why you're saying "no-one knew", several of us have given advice upthread.
A charge isn't going to help if there's no equity left in the property. Which there won't be.
A CCJ only helps if the receiver was going to quibble over whether the debt existed. It doesn't put you up the queue of creditors.

Well, what I did read was the usual, 'Don't bother as they won't have any assets/ you'll be waay down the list of creditors/ don't throw good money after bad'. Which I get - it is most likely going to be the case.

As far as I recall, no-one actually addressed whether the CCJ and Charge would improve his chances. 

Some creditors most likely will get someone from the remaining assets, unless the cost of demolishing the building exceeds its value, for example. And I guess mortgage and loan companies will be first on the list, because they'll have such effective 'charges' written in to the contracts.  

So, the OP taking out a Charge on this property will serve no purpose? That is all I'm asking. 

user1977

WIAWSNB said:

user1977 said:

WIAWSNB said:

Thanks. Yes, I do get that. It just seemed a bit defeatist! And no-one knew whether the CCJ or a Charge could help.

The other creditors will be picking over the assets, and justifying their claims. Will having a CCJ and Charge not give extra weight? 

I'm not sure why you're saying "no-one knew", several of us have given advice upthread.
A charge isn't going to help if there's no equity left in the property. Which there won't be.
A CCJ only helps if the receiver was going to quibble over whether the debt existed. It doesn't put you up the queue of creditors.

So, the OP taking out a Charge on this property will serve no purpose? That is all I'm asking. 

Yes. It would be like taking a second mortgage from someone who's already in negative equity.

molerat

The 2 companies between them have 40 charges against assets which, without looking too deeply, all seem to be mortgages on any land and property in their possession.  The addresses of those properties are clearly shown in the Companies House pages so maybe worth taking a look there before committing to anything else.

MyRealNameToo

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for all the help!

The director of the companies, Roderick Barry Thorner, is a multi-millionaire. He owns swathes of property, industrial estates and mining land all around Somerset. Plus, one of the companies was his Dad's which opened in 1920's...so I hoping he doesn't want to the son that sank the ship.

It's not that he's has no money, it's that he doesn't use his money to do business. He'd rather risk someone else's. 

But your legal action isnt against him but the companies and as they are LTDs his liability is limited to the nominal value of the shareholding which may or may not already be paid up. 

Neither company as a whole is in receivership but receivers have been appointed in relation to specific charges, namely mortgages. 

molerat

[Deleted User] said:

Thank you for all the help!

............ He owns His Ltd companies have swathes of mortgaged property, industrial estates and mining land all around Somerset. ............

Corrected that for you.

So have you found the actual owner and mortgage status of next door ?

If you are going to push this surely the best method would be going to the high court and enforce the CCJ against other assets the company owns - plant & machinery, office equipment, vehicles etc ?

But the problem is these companies are very clever, they actually have very few tangible assets, the sole director milks every penny they legally can with assets equalling the debts pledged against them.   Looking at some of the previous actions the asset was exactly equal to the debt plus the costs and fees of the insolvency action.

ExEstateAgent

WIAWSNB said:

I say, power to ff8888's elbow.
The company will have some assets, so it comes down to how much, and what the other claims are.
He's gone this far - good on him - and is now asking the basic Q, "is it too late to apply it to the assets?".
And, would placing a charge on the property be a potentially good move to reinforce this?
He unfortunately hasn't had answers to these, presumably 'cos folk don't know.
He has the ccj, so as far as I know (which is not far at all), that is the sort of judgement required to subsequently place a charge.
No-one can answer his Q?
There is an understandable assumption by folk on here that he hasn't a chance; when a company goes into liquidation, that means they're skint, and the few assets will be picked upon by large fish. But that's surely just assumption? 
A 'charge' on an asset like a building, if it's doable here, will surely need to be considered in the asset splitting process?

If a secured creditor has started the receivership process then it is highly unlikely that the companies will survive. The receiver is acting for the secured creditor/s and any funds recovered by selling assets they have a charge over, will be used to pay the receivers, the tax man and the secured creditor/s. 

Sometimes after all of that there is some money left to pay to unsecured creditors but it's usually pennies in the pound. 

The fact that the OP has a CCJ doesn't put them in any better position (other than having proof of debt). 

noitsnotme

[Deleted User] said:

What do you think of the following idea - get a no win no fee insolvency practitioner to 'wind up' the companies?

Isn’t that what’s already being done as part of the receivership process?

user1977

Even if winding up were a possibility, why do you think it would help you? There's nothing you can do to put yourself further ahead of other creditors.