Company dodging bailiffs

[ben193]

Hi everyone, thanks for reading, hope somebody can assist!

I bought a car that turned out to be very faulty, and upon receiving the V5 document it was a Cat S, that wasn't disclosed during sale.
Tried returning the car 5 days later, for the dealer to refuse, then offer me half the money back, then offered to take it and pay me 2 weeks later, so in the end i filed it with small claims court for the full amount back.
They didn't attend court, and i was awarded by default. The defendant didn't bother to respond to anything, so i have now taken this to DCBL high court enforcement.

The company is a car dealership, and the same day they received the court summons, they changed their office address on companies house from the showroom in question, to a flat.

The high court enforcement officers attended the flat (with no response) and then the showroom. Upon arrival the salesman that i bought the car from advised the agents he had just taken the showroom over, and they are a new company. The agents looked onsite and found no documents relating the the company, so left on the basis that it is a new company onsite and not related to the debtor company.
He advised them that the vehicles onsite are already sold, and provided them 'proof' (which was his copart receipt showing them cars as sold,but to himself)

I sent the enforcement team proof that these cars onsite are advertised for sale, messaged him asking to view them etc, which he agreed. Also sent video proof of me handing the same salesman they saw onsite a pre court letter refusing the car and requesting a refund. This proves the agents were lied to.

They emailed me back, saying they agree the agents had been misled by the man onsite, and will re-attend the showroom to gather further evidence that they are a new company etc, which they cannot prove
Just wondering if anybody has had a similar situation. The enforcement company have proof they have been lied to, have proof its the same salesman etc onsite and agree to reattend.

I'm just unsure as without proof that it is the same company can they do anything? - bearing in mind there is no proof of the new company either ( they told the agents the paperwork is with solicitors) They have proof the cars onsite are actually posted online and for sale, so cant they just clamp them given that the debtor with have a 14 day appeal?

Can fill you in on more in depth details if required! thanks all

 

[Gyumri]

I think you will need to persist with the HCO who can only sieze property belonging to the old co.

However. a much easier way to recover your money which You can do from the comfort of your armchair is to apply for a third-party debt order against the old sellers bank account so that whatever money is in the account will be frozen above the level of the debt.

It's highly likely that the old company is still in existence is still trading and has money in its bank account which should be the same bank account that you paid your purchase money into.

Look up the guidance given on the government website regarding third-party debt orders and then apply online using the courts e-filing system.

You do not give any indication to the seller that you have applied for such an order or that you will apply for such an order and will only have to inform the seller when you receive the interim order which will be given after the bank has told you which it will have to do what money there is in the account.

If you can post the name of the bank then I can probably give you the email address of the department that deals with such orders so that you can then serve a copy of the interim order on them by email.

It might turn out that there is no money in the bank account in which case you would've lost your filing fee which I think is £165

 

[ben193]

I think you will need to persist with the HCO who can only sieze property belonging to the old co.

However. a much easier way to recover your money which You can do from the comfort of your armchair is to apply for a third-party debt order against the old sellers bank account so that whatever money is in the account will be frozen above the level of the debt.

It's highly likely that the old company is still in existence is still trading and has money in its bank account which should be the same bank account that you paid your purchase money into.

Look up the guidance given on the government website regarding third-party debt orders and then apply online using the courts e-filing system.

You do not give any indication to the seller that you have applied for such an order or that you will apply for such an order and will only have to inform the seller when you receive the interim order which will be given after the bank has told you which it will have to do what money there is in the account.

If you can post the name of the bank then I can probably give you the email address of the department that deals with such orders so that you can then serve a copy of the interim order on them by email.

It might turn out that there is no money in the bank account in which case you would've lost your filing fee which I think is £165

I think you will need to persist with the HCO who can only sieze property belonging to the old co.

However. a much easier way to recover your money which You can do from the comfort of your armchair is to apply for a third-party debt order against the old sellers bank account so that whatever money is in the account will be frozen above the level of the debt.

It's highly likely that the old company is still in existence is still trading and has money in its bank account which should be the same bank account that you paid your purchase money into.

Look up the guidance given on the government website regarding third-party debt orders and then apply online using the courts e-filing system.

You do not give any indication to the seller that you have applied for such an order or that you will apply for such an order and will only have to inform the seller when you receive the interim order which will be given after the bank has told you which it will have to do what money there is in the account.

If you can post the name of the bank then I can probably give you the email address of the department that deals with such orders so that you can then serve a copy of the interim order on them by email.

It might turn out that there is no money in the bank account in which case you would've lost your filing fee which I think is £165

Thanks for this.

This was something I looked at, but doing some detective work myself I created a dummy account and enquired about a car advising I wanted to pay a deposit. The bank account the showroom provided me is the current directors bank account, not the same account I paid for my vehicle. So could the third party debt order be applied to the directors personal account rather than guessing the old account I paid into is still active etc?

 

[Mark T Jones]

Have you checked to see the status of the company?

 

[Gyumri]

The bank account the showroom provided me is the current directors bank account, not the same account I paid for my vehicle. So could the third party debt order be applied to the directors personal account rather than guessing the old account I paid into is still active etc?

I suppose the court judgement would be in the name of the old company. So strictly speaking you only have a judgement against that company.

However you can elect to use both account numbers in your application i.e. both banks it will probably be the personal bank account that causes the most grief to the director so en force against that one as well By enforcing against the director personally as the third-party holding your money Which presumably that director owes to the debtor company.

So in this case both the debtor company's bank and the debtor company's director will be the third parties.

This is on the basis that the director has taken that money and is holding the money on trust for The company that sold you the car.

it would be for him to argue at a hearing that the money which was paid to him is not money which he owes to the old co.

If the director has a joint bank account with somebody else then you wouldn't be able to get a third-party debt order against that bank accountBut only if the account is in his sole name.

In that case you will receive back a reply from his bank saying that they do not hold an account in that persons name.

I am surprised that the HCO cannot establish to his satisfaction who owns the cars which are on the forecourt.

 

[ben193]

Agreed, the owner showed HCO a copy of the copart auction receipt which shows the vehicles as sold... but to him from copart and they thought this was proof they are all sold to third parties. Hopefully the second visit they apply the pressure. I would've thought that they could clamp until the owners prove the are not the company in question and have their 14 days to appeal.

It's definitely the same company, same scumbags on site selling auction cars off as private.

 

[Gyumri]

Try the route I have suggested because by the sound of it the scum bag won't turn up for the hearing once you have your teeth into his bank account. In which case a final order will be made and his bank will pay you the money.

Court Enforcement Services Ltd provide a good service as do Equivo, but they all have to play by the rules.

I say scumbag but perhaps I should withdraw that description as there may be more dignified expressions one could use.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Try the route I have suggested because by the sound of it the scum bag won't turn up for the hearing once you have your teeth into his bank account. In which case a final order will be made and his bank will pay you the money.

Court Enforcement Services Ltd provide a good service as do Equivo, but they all have to play by the rules.

I say scumbag but perhaps I should withdraw that description as there may be more dignified expressions one could use.

The biggest concern here is would there be any funds in the account

 

[Lisa Thomas]

I believe getting a court order for access to funds in a third party bank account is extremely difficult and expensive. Maybe one of the solicitors on here can confirm.

 

[Gyumri]

The biggest concern here is would there be any funds in the account

Then his bank will simply write to the OP to say so.

I believe getting a court order for access to funds in a third party bank account is extremely difficult and expensive. Maybe one of the solicitors on here can confirm.

Hi Lisa - actually it's quite cheap at £165 a throw for the application and would be automatic as the OP has a court order -albeit it is against the company.

It can be done online but obviously a possible fly in the ointment is that the purchase money was paid directly into the directors personal account.

The OP should be able to find a cheap solicitor for the application.

 

[Lisa Thomas]

Interesting! Can you send me details of this please Gyumri. Thanks

 

[Michael Loveridge]

However you can elect to use both account numbers in your application i.e. both banks it will probably be the personal bank account that causes the most grief to the director so en force against that one as well By enforcing against the director personally as the third-party holding your money Which presumably that director owes to the debtor company.

So in this case both the debtor company's bank and the debtor company's director will be the third parties.

You should certainly not apply for a TPDO against the director's personal account. It would be a serious breach of the court rules, and potentially even a criminal offence to mislead the court into thinking the account was a company account, but if you stated in the application that the account was in the director's name the application would simply be rejected, as the court has no jurisdiction to make an order against the individual director.

What's the name of the company against which you obtained the judgment? The judgment is now a matter of public record, so you're not breaching any confidentiality rules, but it would enable us to have a look at it and try to work out what's going on.

 

[Gyumri]

You should certainly not apply for a TPDO against the director's personal account. It would be a serious breach of the court rules, and potentially even a criminal offence to mislead the court into thinking the account was a company account,

The purpose of the supporting witness statement would be to confirm that the contract was with the company as reflected in the judgment, but the purchase money was paid into the director's personal account. On that basis the OP can state without misleading the court that he believes therefore that the director's bank can rightly be regarded as the third party who holds money on behalf of the company.

I believe a Master would grant an interim TPDO on that basis and it would then be up to the director to satisfy the Master at a hearing that the money which he deposited in his account from the company's sale of the car does not belong to the company.

The director if he shows up would have to provide some credible evidence that he does not owe the company the sale proceeds.

As stated, because the car salesman obviously didn't care about the original claim, it is most unlikely that he will bother to go to solicitors once he has been served with the interim TPDO.

There is no question of misleading the court precisely because the director pocketed the money personally and would be expected to be holding that money on trust for the company.

 

[Michael Loveridge]

The purpose of the supporting witness statement would be to confirm that the contract was with the company as reflected in the judgment, but the purchase money was paid into the director's personal account. On that basis the OP can state without misleading the court that he believes therefore that the director's bank can rightly be regarded as the third party who holds money on behalf of the company.

An application for a TPDO is not supported by a witness statement. The evidence in support of the application is contained in a printed form. There is therefore no provision for the OP to explain on what basis he is asking the court to make an order against the account of a private individual when the judgement debt is owed by the company.

You cannot simply assume that money in the director's own account is held on trust for the company. There could be any number of legitimate reasons why the company has placed money in his account.

Although it may well be the case that it is the company's money the OP would have to prove this to the satisfaction of the court, and there is simply no means of doing this when filing the application.

Bear in mind that the application is signed with a statement of truth, and that it's perjury to sign such a statement if you know that the facts set out in the application form are incorrect or misleading.

Furthermore, if the OP were to simply provide the director's account number in the application form, thereby misleading the court into thinking that it was a company account, the director could, and no doubt would simply apply to the court to have the order set aside on the grounds that it had been procured by false evidence. In that situation the court would almost certainly grant costs on an indemnity basis against the OP, leaving him with a lot of very expensive egg on his face.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I think this thread is drifting from the fact that The Judge issued a judgement against the company

No matter what the OP did they would not be able to issue a TPDO against assets or accounts that are not in the company name.

 

[Gyumri]

An application for a TPDO is not supported by a witness statement. The evidence in support of the application is contained in a printed form.

Section 5 on the form can always be supplemented with an additional witness statement signed be a statement of truth ie "see attached reasons."

No matter what the OP did they would not be able to issue a TPDO against assets or accounts that are not in the company name.

You're right - the third party in the case of the debtor company would be its bank, (which probably has no money but that would be the best option.

The other third party would be the director himself (but not his bank if the account is in his name) who presumably owes the debtor company the funds which he deposited in his account - but that in itself would be open to dispute at a hearing.

So the OP will have to press on with a TPDO application against the company's bank unless the company has gone into liquidation - or continue with the HCEO route.