Small claims dispute

[Navi2308]

Hi

I would appreciate any advice you could give on this issue. I have searched the forum and found some good information already.

I run a small manufacturing company for signs. I recently completed work for a small retail outlet for £2.5k. They have refused to pay this despite texts showing they were happy with the work and stating dates they would pay on.

I have started a small claims court case and have a court date listed. They have 2 outlets at different locations. They have replied stating the work was completed for a Ltd company with a slightly different name. It however has the same 2 directors and registered address listed as the one I had assumed to use for the claim. This ‘new’ Ltd company is apparently liquidated now though this is not showing on companies house.


Is my claim valid? I am concerned it will be dismissed at court because of this name issue.

 

[Newchodge]

Hi

I would appreciate any advice you could give on this issue. I have searched the forum and found some good information already.

I run a small manufacturing company for signs. I recently completed work for a small retail outlet for £2.5k. They have refused to pay this despite texts showing they were happy with the work and stating dates they would pay on.

I have started a small claims court case and have a court date listed. They have 2 outlets at different locations. They have replied stating the work was completed for a Ltd company with a slightly different name. It however has the same 2 directors and registered address listed as the one I had assumed to use for the claim. This ‘new’ Ltd company is apparently liquidated now though this is not showing on companies house.


Is my claim valid? I am concerned it will be dismissed at court because of this name issue.

What paperwork do you have from them prior to starting work?

 

[bovine]

the liquidated company doesnt show on companies house? It should, mine from 10 years ago is still there.
Liquidating/dissolving a company is not a quick process, so as Cyndy says above, paperwork is important but so are the dates. It could be they couldnt have been operating under the liquidated company at that time.

Always establish clearly which ltd company you're working with, because you are making it far harder to enforce if you are assuming which ltd it was for. People try to get clever and confuse the issue with multiple ltd companies, which can throw off a judgement because they convince the court that the debt wasnt theirs but some other companies. And it can be difficult to argue thats not correct if your paperwork/evidence isnt clear.

 

[Mark T Jones]

What company details appear on emails / correspondence/ contracts etc?

Out of interest, ask for the registered number of the liquidated company.

 

[Navi2308]

Thanks for the responses.

All invoices and the like provided to them use the company name that’s on their storefront. But the Ltd name is that name with for example express or Ltd in front.

Sorry to complicate this but I’ve carried out work in their other store and got paid for it. But for whatever reason they won’t pay this one. I have lengthy texts from one of the directors saying they will pay on a previous date etc.

I’m worried it gets dismissed at court stage because they are saying I’ve sued the wrong Ltd. My argument is I had no way of finding out about this other Ltd. The businesses and directors are identical.

The one I did the most recent work for is now closed and they’ve taken the signage down. But companies house is not showing as liquidated.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Thanks for the responses.

All invoices and the like provided to them use the company name that’s on their storefront. But the Ltd name is that name with for example express or Ltd in front.

Sorry to complicate this but I’ve carried out work in their other store and got paid for it. But for whatever reason they won’t pay this one. I have lengthy texts from one of the directors saying they will pay on a previous date etc.

I’m worried it gets dismissed at court stage because they are saying I’ve sued the wrong Ltd. My argument is I had no way of finding out about this other Ltd. The businesses and directors are identical.

The one I did the most recent work for is now closed and they’ve taken the signage down. But companies house is not showing as liquidated.

You are confusing me here.

Let's stick with legal entities, not storefronts.

What is the legal entity on your correspondence?

What is the legal entity they claim you dealt with?

 

[Navi2308]

You are confusing me here.

Let's stick with legal entities, not storefronts.

What is the legal entity on your correspondence? <name> retail Ltd

What is the legal entity they claim you dealt with? <name> express ltd

I’ve answered above in the reply to your questions. Both <name> are the same. Sorry unsure if I can actually name them etc.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I’ve answered above in the reply to your questions. Both <name> are the same. Sorry unsure if I can actually name them etc.

Thank you.

So it's fair to say that your contract was with retail Ltd using correspondence as evidence

 

[Navi2308]

Thank you.

So it's fair to say that your contract was with retail Ltd using correspondence as evidence

Thanks. What should I do now they are saying express Ltd is who the actual contract wad with. Can this be added to the claim before court date?

 

[MBE2017]

How was the order placed, verbally, by email etc?

Check if they actually ordered in the limited co name, don’t just accept their word for it.

 

[Navi2308]

How was the order placed, verbally, by email etc?

Check if they actually ordered in the limited co name, don’t just accept their word for it.

Basically through WhatsApp messages after their previous order. I produced invoices for our purposes.

 

[Newchodge]

Thanks for the responses.

All invoices and the like provided to them use the company name that’s on their storefront. But the Ltd name is that name with for example express or Ltd in front.

Sorry to complicate this but I’ve carried out work in their other store and got paid for it. But for whatever reason they won’t pay this one. I have lengthy texts from one of the directors saying they will pay on a previous date etc.

I’m worried it gets dismissed at court stage because they are saying I’ve sued the wrong Ltd. My argument is I had no way of finding out about this other Ltd. The businesses and directors are identical.

The one I did the most recent work for is now closed and they’ve taken the signage down. But companies house is not showing as liquidated.

As I said. What paperwork do you have FROM them, prior to starting work?

 

[Navi2308]

As I said. What paperwork do you have FROM them, prior to starting work?

Quotes and emails but they were from one of the directors and had the business name. No mention of any Ltds.

 

[Newchodge]

Quotes and emails but they were from one of the directors and had the business name. No mention of any Ltds.

I would seek permission from the court to join the director who instructed you, as a personal defendant. You can prove the director instructed you to do the work, and they cannot hide behind a Ltd company in liquidation.

 

[Navi2308]

I would seek permission from the court to join the director who instructed you, as a personal defendant. You can prove the director instructed you to do the work, and they cannot hide behind a Ltd company in liquidation.

Thanks I have emailed the court and they have said they will look at it

 

[MBE2017]

If the company used the same method to order the other sign from you, which they paid, via the same emails, WhatsApp etc, then you could argue you believed you were dealing with the same entity, not the Ltd Co they now claim to have ordered it through.

Unless the sent an official order from the Ltd Co on a Ltd Co email etc, how would you have known you were dealing with the Ltd Co and not the individual.

 

[MRQ]

Thanks I have emailed the court and they have said they will look at it

Hindsight being 20-20, it's maybe time to review your ordering procedures... 999 people out of a 1000 may be of their word and play straight down the middle - but it only takes one to put you through the wringer.

 

[Navi2308]

Hindsight being 20-20, it's maybe time to review your ordering procedures... 999 people out of a 1000 may be of their word and play straight down the middle - but it only takes one to put you through the wringer.

Yes indeed and I fear I’m not the only contractor wanting paid by them

 

[WaveJumper]

Hindsight being 20-20, it's maybe time to review your ordering procedures... 999 people out of a 1000 may be of their word and play straight down the middle - but it only takes one to put you through the wringer.

I would go along with this, defiantly review your procedures, and this advice would extend to anyone else reading this, make sure your 100% clear on who you are dealing with ie the nature of the entity, ltd etc etc and if its ltd a quick check on companies house can reveal quite about about the company and possibly the people / person your dealing with especially if they have a string of strike offs.

Obviously it never pays to assume and always make sure you keep good records and have a good paper trail to fall back on. If it's a really big contract a full blown credit check is possibly called for.

Hopefully you will have some success through the court wishing you the best of luck.

 

[paulears]

I'm intrigued byt the wording of the emails and whatsapps - clearly something made you print ABCD Ltd on the invoice? Where did this wording come from? If they are saying you invoiced ABCD Ltd who are in liquidation, and bot BCDE Ltd who are not - they must have used the liquidated companies details in the conversation, and that, I think is actually trading - which the liquidated company can't do?

My experience of courts is that they can smell these tricks and don't like it one jot - where people try to use the law to avoid payment.

 

[Navi2308]

I'm intrigued byt the wording of the emails and whatsapps - clearly something made you print ABCD Ltd on the invoice? Where did this wording come from? If they are saying you invoiced ABCD Ltd who are in liquidation, and bot BCDE Ltd who are not - they must have used the liquidated companies details in the conversation, and that, I think is actually trading - which the liquidated company can't do?

My experience of courts is that they can smell these tricks and don't like it one jot - where people try to use the law to avoid payment.

I have to admit I always just used the shopfront name for invoices (which is the same name minus Ltd). The supposedly liquidated company has only come to my attention since they disputed the small claim. I did not know it existed. It’s the same name as the known company Ltd with express in its name. But the director I deal with is not linked to both on the one companies house page but rather separate pages.

I do hope the court see through this carry on.

 

[Newchodge]

I have to admit I always just used the shopfront name for invoices (which is the same name minus Ltd). The supposedly liquidated company has only come to my attention since they disputed the small claim. I did not know it existed. It’s the same name as the known company Ltd with express in its name. But the director I deal with is not linked to both on the one companies house page but rather separate pages.

I do hope the court see through this carry on.

I think I would concentrate on the person you dealt with.

 

[MRQ]

...The thing is; there are rules and regulations as to what you must disclose as a Limited company in ALL correspondence. So if the correspondence ordering the work doesn't have the name of the liquidated LTD... and you have otherwise dealt with the ongoing LTD; and the Director you dealt with represented himself as being with the non-liquidated company.

Remember; trading styles (brand names) aren't the same thing as company names! And when presenting as an LTD (i.e. ordering on behalf of one) it needs to be made clear 'who' the entity placing the order actually is...

Cyndy is of course correct; the order was placed by an individual - on behalf of what entity exactly? If they failed to make that clear - or even deliberately obfuscated - then they have a problem. - As Paul said, the courts can smell these tricks.

 

[Navi2308]

I appreciate the advice and views. The courts are going to get back to be next week about this issue.

This will be my first time at small claims court. Is it as formal as a criminal court?

 

[Newchodge]

I appreciate the advice and views. The courts are going to get back to be next week about this issue.

This will be my first time at small claims court. Is it as formal as a criminal court?

Not really, but it depends on the judge a bit.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

I'd be inclined to get a mate to take down the sign on the active premises, on a Sunday or under cover of darkness
When they call, as they surely will, tell them it's a mistake, that you intended to retrieve your goods from the other site


PS: I'm not a Solicitor

 

[paulears]

One of my very long term clients (since 1994) has always had a very prominent name on the front, all over the physical space, and in their on-line website and social media. At the start of the year, I got an email telling me to not invoice XXXXXX Amusements Ltd, but to use XXXXXX (Great Yarmouth) Ltd. They told me all the people and everything would be the same, which it was. Four months later, I read in the local press about new owners, and thought they'd be in touch. They didn't. The building has around 80 grand of my hire stock in it. I got in touch and asked when would be best to come and remove my equipment as it occurred to me new owners might not even know it was not theirs? They responded with - no, it's fine, we want to just carry on. Eventually I met one of them and explained what the old deal was and why the invoices were so expensive. I think they got it. My point is that the name on the front means very little to any legal action. Use McDonalds as examples - every store labelled the same, looking the same, but all totally random business names behind the scenes. You cannot take McDonalds to court, you must take the actual business you contracted with to court.

My experience with the small claims court was that it seemed on the surface, far less intimidating that crown court - but was really in the hands of the officials, who had the rules, the system and the whole thing sown up tight. The man in the business suit, not wig, understood what both sides said, but had limited wiggle room with action. In my case, I suspect I won because my opponent had said conflicting things in their paperwork, and when the judge queried it, they tried to fudge and failed. I think the paperwork then lost them the case, because my claim was actually weaker. Still quite stressful, but nothing compared to Crown Court.

 

[MBE2017]

I'd be inclined to get a mate to take down the sign on the active premises, on a Sunday or under cover of darkness
When they call, as they surely will, tell them it's a mistake, that you intended to retrieve your goods from the other site


PS: I'm not a Solicitor

If they called I would feign surprise, and offer to sell them a sign, obviously cash with order.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Sorry to hijack your thread @Navi2308 but for anyone reading, this is the most basic rule and most common failing of credit control.

Step 1, day 1 credit course

KNOW WHO YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

That doesn't mean:

The bloke you speak to
The name above the door
The head contractor
The parent company
The last deal you did.

What it does mean, pure and simple, is the legal entity with whom you are contracting this time.

 

[DavidWH]

I'd be inclined to get a mate to take down the sign on the active premises, on a Sunday or under cover of darkness
When they call, as they surely will, tell them it's a mistake, that you intended to retrieve your goods from the other site


PS: I'm not a Solicitor

As a fellow sign maker this ^^

Your terms should include it's still yours until paid for.

Let them call the old bill, and if my some miracle they do turn up, politely and calmly remind them it is a civil matter and you are removing what is legally yours.

My experience of small claims, and debt collecting is expect to get sod all back, and cost you more in the long run.


As other have said, sort your processes out. We wouldn't take an order over WhatsApp that's a given.

 

[MRQ]

Your terms should include it's still yours until paid for.

We wouldn't take an order over WhatsApp that's a given.

Good advice...

A lot of so-called 'advanced tech' (it's really not!) is actually the 21st century equivalent of writing things down with a Bookie's pen on the back of a torn-open fag packet! - After five pints... sitting next to the fruit machine in a pub that's having a Karaoke night!

I despair of how quickly people latch-on to playground novelties sometimes.

 

[Lisa Thomas]

Agreed, it sounds as if Retention of Title terms in your delivery note/order/invoice would have come in handy here, as long as the sign can be removed without damaging anything else.

 

[Michael Loveridge]

It would help us understand the situation better if you provided the actual names of the companies / director involved. There's no need to worry about doing so, as a court action is a matter of public record, and in any case you're simply reporting a factual situation.

 

[MRQ]

It would help us understand the situation better if you provided the actual names of the companies / director involved. There's no need to worry about doing so, as a court action is a matter of public record, and in any case you're simply reporting a factual situation.

I'm not sure that's a good idea either from the O/Ps perspective OR the forum's! - It's one thing exploring a topic in 'guarded' terms; quite another to be opening the door to potential defamation claims. - It's also irrelevant to the converersation here who exactly the parties are!

...If you're taking someone to court; how might it look to the court when you try to 'doxx' them online? Particularly where the main question is over identity of those liable? Personally, I've foremed the opinion that the O/P has been 'had over' by some (as yet, unknown) dodgy shyster - sinking to their level won't progress their case or bolster their position.

I'd STRONGLY advise the OP to get the advice of their own Solicitor before considering any such move. - And for the moderators to consider redacting any post that identifies anybody involved in the case, until AFTER it's been through court and does become a matter of public record!

 

[Michael Loveridge]

I'm not sure that's a good idea either from the O/Ps perspective OR the forum's! - It's one thing exploring a topic in 'guarded' terms; quite another to be opening the door to potential defamation claims. - It's also irrelevant to the converersation here who exactly the parties are!

...If you're taking someone to court; how might it look to the court when you try to 'doxx' them online? Particularly where the main question is over identity of those liable? Personally, I've foremed the opinion that the O/P has been 'had over' by some (as yet, unknown) dodgy shyster - sinking to their level won't progress their case or bolster their position.

I'd STRONGLY advise the OP to get the advice of their own Solicitor before considering any such move. - And for the moderators to consider redacting any post that identifies anybody involved in the case, until AFTER it's been through court and does become a matter of public record!

Your response is based on a misunderstanding of the law. A civil action in England (I note you're in Scotland, where things may be different) is a matter of public record from the moment that a defence to a claim is filed. This is why the papers are full of details of civil actions, such as libel claims, and why they quote extensively from witness statements filed by the parties.

It is therefore emphatically not defamatory simply to place on record the facts of a civil dispute, and your concern for the wellbeing of the site is misplaced.

The reason it would be easier to answer the OP's question if we had the actual names of the companies involved is that we could check their details and try to work out what's actually happened, as this is not clear from their posts.

 

[Richard Dastardly]

Hi

I would appreciate any advice you could give on this issue. I have searched the forum and found some good information already.

I run a small manufacturing company for signs. I recently completed work for a small retail outlet for £2.5k. They have refused to pay this despite texts showing they were happy with the work and stating dates they would pay on.

I have started a small claims court case and have a court date listed. They have 2 outlets at different locations. They have replied stating the work was completed for a Ltd company with a slightly different name. It however has the same 2 directors and registered address listed as the one I had assumed to use for the claim. This ‘new’ Ltd company is apparently liquidated now though this is not showing on companies house.


Is my claim valid? I am concerned it will be dismissed at court because of this name issue.

Any debt I had over £1k I used to get a doorstep collections company on it. Direct Collections was the one I used. See if they don't pay it then when they walk into their shop. 9/10 times they collected it.