Struck Out at County Court - Can I Reinstate?

[ant_8u]

Hi Guys

I've just got back from court this morning and need a little assistance

My case was struck out as I was told I hadn't provided enough information to decide whether there were grounds for a claim

I submitted my case online and there were only so many characters I could complete, so the information I could provide was limited

I provided the limited information in the belief I would then have my say in court

This turned out to be incorrect
I was told I had not provided enough information and that my case was struck out

The judge said they could have allowed me to amend it, but that it would be fairer if they struck it out and I resubmitted a new claim

Am I able to resubmit, and if so can anyone help me with this?


I'll list very brief details below, and can then give you fuller details if you think i'm not wasting anyone's time........


* I was looking to buy a shop
* The owner provided me with accounts for the business
* I later found out the accounts were false and withdrew from the purchase
* By this time I had incurred costs of almost £5k
* We did not exchange contracts

Do I have grounds for a claim?
I believe so

The judge said they would need exact details and precise information (which I can do)

The analogy he gave was.....If someone was buying a house and then pulled out as it were not as stated, they would have no grounds for reimbursement

Or, If he told me he had an everlasting pen which turned out to be false I would have no grounds to submit a claim

I think this is completely different though

I've been provided with fraudulent information and business accounts which means I have incurred costs I otherwise wouldn't have

What do you guys think should be my cause of action?

Let me know what further information you need from me

Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated

Thanks
Anthony

 

[oldeagleeye]

Anthony . You are really living in cloud cusckoo land if you think that you cam get anywhere with this.

First of all it is for you to carry out due diligence checks at your own cost.

If you find out that the vendor has not been 100% then simply back off. It is pontless saying that the vendor lied without you proving exactly how and to what extent. That would be another and bloody expensive court case.

I am afraid you analogy about buying a house is both right and wrong then.

The vendor can pull out at any time possible gazumping you. If he lies however about the central heating working you could seek legal address.

You can't do that however if the vendor 'overestimates' his profit margins which leads you to employing a solicitors or surveyor. That is all part of the course where due dligence is concerned and therfore at your expense.

In fact one of the biggest cons in business especially where cash is concerned is that the vemndor doesn't declare everything thus don't rely on the books.

Save yourself a lot of sleepless night mate. Write this one down to experience.

Rob

 

[ant_8u]

Thanks for the reply Rob

I understand what you say about over-estimating margins and such

Clearly, I wouldn't have believed them if they said
" It's the best shop in the world"

But when they've actually gone as far as providing false accounts which show a turnover of over twice their actual amount with the sole aim of selling the business for way beyond it's Market value is this still right and legal?

Can people provide false/ fraudulent accounts with no consequences?

Thanks
Ant

 

[ant_8u]

Also, part of the deal meant the vendor had to pay the landlords solicitors costs

The vendor said they didn't want to pay those costs

Their solicitor and my solicitor exchanged emails which said I would pay them under the understanding that they would be deducted from the purchase price, or refunded to me if the purchase didn't go ahead (regardless of circumstances)

Even though we did not exchange contracts on the purchase is the vendor in breach of contract law with regards to these fees?

Hope you don't think I'm in cloud cookoo land
This is my first venture, so I'm still learning a lot

The fees here amounted to approx £1.8k and the cost to take it to court is 'only' £100

Thanks again

 

[oldeagleeye]

First of all there are many grey areas in law when it comes to ''loosely' agreeing arrangments. One is where is lets say a provisional agreement like an intent to pay certain fees is subject to a higher agreement or formal contract.

In such cases my understanding gained from having a number of friends connected with the law is that the court would make judgement on what is reasonable and if that fails to become clear defer to the higher agreement in this case subject to contract.

What is reasonable can of course depend on your personal point of view. Two of my friends for instance is a magistrates. One is a tough and extremely right wing tea drinking woman who comes down tough on drinking driving.

The other William is a local businessman and former chair of the local chamber of trade and I know what his answer would be to this as would be mine.

It is in fact usual for the ingoing tenant to pay the landlords legal costs and subject to terms possibly a buyers commmission to the agent too. A nice little earner the agents have caught onto as it is the normal for an auction house to charge both a buyers and sellers commission.

That is the background then. As far as your dispute over legal fees and this particular court action is concerned. It seems that you made some sort of loose agreement to pay this fees without ensuring 100% that any agreement was subject to contract and in the end there was no contract.

I would suggest that you may have a case against your own solicitor but little else- but again we come back to this question of what is reasonable.

As an adult going into business you will be presumed to have some business acuemen. It would have been for you then to ask if this prior seemingly somewhat casual agreement about only paying the landlords fees on completetion was water tight. It seems that you did not and now you are complaining.

That is like saying you didn't realise that you would still have solicitors fees to pay if a house purchase fell through. Which again takes us full circle.

You tried to defend this case it seems by trying to make a counter claim for all your other expenses. I rather suspect that the magistrates who after all are not professional judges didn't fancy dealing with that sort of claim and therefore struck the case off - or rather the counter claim.

In answer to your question then - can you re-submit. Even if you could I doubt you would get much joy. What you might be better off doing is submitting a new and seperate claim which as it is connected with the case ask the court to set aside this current judgement pending the outcome. The question is. What are your chances of success. I would say a big fat zero. I refer to the nature of your complaint to explain why.

* I was looking to buy a shop.

You were looking to buy the freehold or lease on a shop with or without the existing business. You need to be specific when dealing with the law.

* The owner provided me with accounts for the business

Whoops. There we go again. Is the landlord the owner of the biz too or a seperate party whose permission would be needed by the owner of the biz and any new tenant on transfering the lease. As said you really do need to be specific. Like who brought this case. The freeholder or the owner of the biz. If it was the freeholder those charges do seem high.

Nevertheless. It is for you to carry out due diligence checks at your own expense. What are the terms of the lease. How many years accounts. Were they audited and submiited to HMRC. If vat registered were the numbers cross checked with vat returns. Did you in fact employ a qualified accountant to carry out these checks. I repeat. All these basic checks and the costs associated with them are down to you regardless of the outcome.

* I later found out the accounts were false and withdrew from the purchase
* By this time I had incurred costs of almost £5k
* We did not exchange contracts

I repeat. All these basic checks and the costs associated with them are down to you regardless of the outcome.

Lets look at your complaint anyway however as it may help others. You say that the accounts were false. How can you prove that ???. The value of a business does'nt just depend on the numbers. The lease itself if long and a low rent could be more valuable that the asking price of the business. Then again it could be a combination of that and goodwill.

This is where we get to part 2 of due diligence and a major flaw in your claim. If having inspected the books in the early stages and you started to hear the alarm bells ringing why didn't you simply pull out then. You may have wasted £1,000 quid buy that's the max - but you didn't do that it seems.

Instead you carried on knowing that your legal and other costs would mount up. Sorry Ant to say that you hadn't decided to pull out until you had incurred £5K is stretching things a bit too far.

Incidentally. What was the timeline in all this. How long between putting the offer in and when you got those accounts. How long did you spending on carrying out those due dligence checks and deciding to abort. What is the breakdown on these costs.

Frankly mate it seems that you are trying it on. Well your out of your league. The police wouldn't even bother refering a fraud case to the CPS even if they had documented evidence from a forensic accountant if the sums involved were less that £1 million pound.

As far as you are concerned your next stage if you want to pursue this matter is finding at least £1,000 to deposit with a siolicitor against initial fees. Another £1,000 - £1,500 for a barristers opinion which would come back no doubt with a non-commital opinion without the benefit of a forensic accountant. You could throw £50K at this then and still lose for one simple reason.

In British law we have those two phrases subject to contract and buyer beware. Well you got your fingers burned on this one. Do you really want to risk an arm and a leg too.

Rob

 

[Michael Gerard]

Interesting thread and it certanly got my grey matter working.

Firstly, you do not have a cause of action in contract. Your claim will be in tort.

I am not an expert in fraudulent tortious liability, and suggest that if you are planning to continue this claim, you undertake research and instruct an appropriately qualified and experienced individual.

That said, it is possible that you do have a cause of action.

There are cases where although there has been no resultant contract, a party has successfully pursued a claim for its losses resulting from decietful conduct. The measure of damages in such cicumstances is the damage that an innocent party can demonstrate that flowed from the fraudulent inducement, thus out of pocket expenses can be recovered, such as legal costs.

Who was responsible for putting together the accounts? The accountant? If so, include the accountant in the proceedings as a named defendant.

I suggest that your case may be different from buying a house, 'caveat emptor', as you were purchasing a business (in addition to a property) and the vendors would have known the great expense a potential purchaser would incur in carrying out the due diligence, which otherwise would not have incurred had its fraudulent act been refrained from.

I suggest that you search for a practising barrister that specialises in such matters (do not go to a solicitor - you can instruct a barrister directly via the Direct Access rules). To save money, make sure you have a good written outline of your case (ie the facts), and precisely what you wish for the barrister to give an opinion on (ie what cause of action do you have, if any, and your chanves of success). You should also request a fixed fee.

If you have a good cause of action, either conduct the procedure yourself, but keep your claim to below £5,000 or, see if a barrister will take it on a CFA (contingency fee arrangement).

If nothing else however, fraud is a criminal act and you should send your evidence and make a complaint to the police. Any criminal investigation is completely independent of civil proceedings.

 

[jules12345]

Hi Guys

I've just got back from court this morning and need a little assistance

My case was struck out as I was told I hadn't provided enough information to decide whether there were grounds for a claim

I submitted my case online and there were only so many characters I could complete, so the information I could provide was limited

I provided the limited information in the belief I would then have my say in court

This turned out to be incorrect
I was told I had not provided enough information and that my case was struck out

The judge said they could have allowed me to amend it, but that it would be fairer if they struck it out and I resubmitted a new claim

Am I able to resubmit, and if so can anyone help me with this?


I'll list very brief details below, and can then give you fuller details if you think i'm not wasting anyone's time........


* I was looking to buy a shop
* The owner provided me with accounts for the business
* I later found out the accounts were false and withdrew from the purchase
* By this time I had incurred costs of almost £5k
* We did not exchange contracts

Do I have grounds for a claim?
I believe so

The judge said they would need exact details and precise information (which I can do)

The analogy he gave was.....If someone was buying a house and then pulled out as it were not as stated, they would have no grounds for reimbursement

Or, If he told me he had an everlasting pen which turned out to be false I would have no grounds to submit a claim

I think this is completely different though

I've been provided with fraudulent information and business accounts which means I have incurred costs I otherwise wouldn't have

What do you guys think should be my cause of action?

Let me know what further information you need from me

Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated

Thanks
Anthony

But you didnt enter into a contract did you so no contract to breach etc.
See Charlie's advice above.

 

[ant_8u]

Thanks for all the replies guys
Really appreciate it - certainly from an educational point of view

To answer Robs question
The fees were very approximately;

My Solicitors £2k
Landlords Solicitors £2k
Business Consultant £1k
Misc £500

I had incurred all these costs before I found out the accounts were fake

I had instructed my solicitor and had paid the landlords costs when I instructed a business consultant

It was the consultant that help me discover the accounts weren't genuine

I don't intend to spend loads of money on this, especially after hearing everyones thoughts here

I do think I can recover the landlords solicitors costs through the small claims track though

The heads of agreement said the landlords costs were to be paid by 'the tenant'

In the heads of agreement the vendor was listed as 'the tenant' and I was listed as 'the proposed assignee'

As the vendor did not want to pay these costs my solicitor told his solicitor I would pay them on the basis that they be deducted from the purchase price or refunded if the purchase doesn't complete for any reason

This was done by email

I have copies of these emails, as well as the emails from the vendor and his solicitor where they agree to these terms

Whilst it seems I don't have a leg to stand on with regards to the other fees would you say I have cause to reclaim the landlords costs?

Surely that's got to be worth spending £100 and going down the small claims route as he has breached the terms set out in the emails?

Thanks everyone

 

[oldeagleeye]

Pray tell me Ant. What terms of what contract has the landlord broken. You walked away from that contract and any part of it.

That you foolishly ended up agreeing to pay his fees is down to you although I would have thought your solicitors would have asked why you would want to. To forget all the hassle perhaps

in any event you had the opportunity to nip this in the bud then but you didn't. I have to say then I rather suspect your still not telling us the full story because the rest of your timeline doesnt stack up either.

You say for example that ALL the charges were incurred before you uncovered any discrepancies. You then contradict yourself by saying that - I quote.

I had instructed my solicitor and had paid the landlords costs when I instructed a business consultant

It was the consultant that help me discover the accounts weren't genuine.

This implies that bringing in the biz consultant was an afterthought and you had not incurred their fees before paying the landlord. So what is it ???. Your already tying yourself in knots.

What I rather suspect happened here is that you forked out some £4,500 in legal fees and then pulled out. You then met a biz consultant who agreed to look at the accounts on the basis that you would only need pay their fee IF they found discrepancies.

Now to be fair any reasonably competent biz consultant can find faults with even the most genuine set of books and when there is a £1,000 fee dangling in front of them it is all too easy over estimate the seriousness and that I suspect is what happened here which in turn gave you a choice.

Fork out another £1,000 and you might get all your other costs back too.

Now I may be wrong but it really doesn't matter.

A) I am afraid that Charlies little grey cells ain't woking too well. Fact there is no way the police would get involved in a civil case like this let alone for such a piddling amount as far as the CPS would be concerned.

In fact. There is no legal aide for civil cases like this. Fact. The government are also withdrawing legal aide for other cicil disputes like divorce and indicated that the police and CPS only prosecute the more serious crime cases where physical violence is involved and even that is a joke.

The special task force Trident who deal with all serious crime in our major cities including knife and gun crime are themselves under Osbournes austerity axe.

Even if you had a case then the legal costs of pursuing it would be prohibitive and I would suggest that you don't have a case anyway.

Fact and you have to keep coming back to it. As mentioned earlier. Despite what you say about this email agreement you eventually decided to pay the landlords charges. Deal done - case closed.

You say that a biz consultant that you employed later found some evidence of irregularities in the accounts of concern. You and only you take this to automatically mean deliberate fraud. There are however procedures in place under due diligence designed to deal with matters just like this. They are called pre-contract enquiries.

Now a £2,000 solicitors fee covers an awful lot of pre-contract enquiries. That was the time to employ an account or biz consultant then - not afterwards.

You handled all this wrong then Ant. Your biggest mistake paying the landlords fees in the first place when you said that you had an agreement that you didn't have to.

Now your crying wolf or foul play and it is simply not on - even if you could prove the owner lied and that wouldn't be as easy as you may think. For a start you would have to furnish his solicitor with details on any evidence you think you have well before the hearing.

Lots of time to justify and comment but who cares anyway because we come back time and time again to those 2 overriding principals in law.

It is accepted in the biz world that diligence enquiries are at the buyers expense and if you don't like the deal or can find faults in it you are perfectly at liberty to pull out you did that and paid the landlord off. End of story.

You can't go back now and try to rely on any provisional agreements that were part of an old contract that you didn't sign.

Incidentally what may be of general interest. It is extremely unlikely that the county court would award anything but the most modest of legal fees or the cost of expert witnesses even if you were to a win a case the costs can far outweigh the compensation awarded.

Rob

 

[Michael Gerard]

A) I am afraid that Charlies little grey cells ain't woking too well. Fact there is no way the police would get involved in a civil case like this let alone for such a piddling amount as far as the CPS would be concerned.

What a load of tosh!

If it is fraud, it is not civil but a criminal matter! And although the amount has nothing to do with the police being under a duty to investigate a complaint (which is seperate from the CPS deciding whether to go ahead with a prosecution), if it is "such a piddling amount", no doubt you can write a cheque to the OP and cover his costs / damages!

 

[oldeagleeye]

CHARLIE. You are the one that is talking tosh as you put it. For a start the OP alleges fraud. That is his opinion and in times gone past if a con man had deliberately set out to deceive him for monetary gain he may well have asked the police to investigate.

Those days have long gone anyway and as I said before the fraud squad will only investigate cases where the sum involved is well over £1 million pounds. In fact I used that number conservatively. The min is now more like £5 million and only then when there is a high profile case in the offing that had the remotest chance of success.

You then are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that lets say a builder conned you out of £10,000 and if he didn't do the work properly you coul simply walk into a police station and ask them to investigate. It is a civil case - end of story.

That leaves the possibility of a private and civil prosecution for which there is no legal aide and here the OP falls at the first hurdle. However well the owner dressed this business up the sale was subject to contract and the onus is always on the buyer to carry out due diligence checks at his own expense - including an legal expenses incurred.

If during those checks he found discrepancies between the owners claims he had a number of options. The first asking for an explanation. If that wasn't satisfactory he had the option to renegotiate the price or pull out altogether and it seems that is what he did was the latter. In short his due diligence would seem paid off but we go back to square one. It is accepted in business that those costs are at his own expense. All of which begs a number of questions in this particular case.

Why if he had an agreement in place that the landlords fees would only become payable on competition did he pay them in the first place.

Why did he claim that he had incurred the biz consultants fee before paying the landlord did he then contradict himself by saying that it was after the event he discovered what he claims was fraud. Where is the evidence. Why didn't he present this in his application to the court.

He says that he thought he could have his day in court. Not good enough. No court would accept hearsay as evidence they would want documented evidence. Where is the contract the landlord is supposed to have breeched. Did he serve notice on the landlord that he would be required as a witness. I doubt it. We haven't heard at all what his own solicitors opinion is on all this and therein lies the bottom line.

Recourse to the law is now beyond the means of the vast majority of us. His own solicitor as a witness in court with no set time for the hearing 6 hrs at @ least £250 an hr. A forensic accountant even more and I repeat - only in exceptional cases will the county court allow a very bare min of expenses for expert witnesses.

Now I know that for a fact because I have 2 friends that are serving magistrates and another who is the clerk of my local court.

It really is then you Charlie that are talking tosh albeit I tried to be kind before by just saying that you little grey cells were no working right today. Pity then you didnt reply in an equally respectful manner and ended up be well and truly rebuffed.

Rob

 

[ant_8u]

Thanks Guys,

Nice to see my query has got people thinking

Rob, sorry if you feel the need to question if I'm being genuine

I am a 'regular' guy that does not know the law

I have come here looking fir help and guidance as I know what has happened is morally wrong (and until I was told otherwise, I thought was probably against the law)

Thank you for your help so far, it is very much appreciated

With regards to the fees and the consultant;

The shop I was looking to buy was a fish and chip shop
I employed the consultant as they own a chip shop themselves and have previously won the 'Fish & Chip Shop of the Year' award
I employed them as I want to get my business up to award winning standards
I didn't employ them after pulling out with a view to compensation

Hope that makes a bit more sense?

The business was leasehold
The landlord and vendor are therefore not te same person in this instance

The landlord would have to give their consent to assign the lease to me and their solicitor wanted references to show I was a good egg

The Landlords solicitor said they'd need an undertaking regarding their fees

The heads of agreement made it very clear that it was 'the tenant' that would be responsible for the fees

The heads of agreement named the vedir as 'the tenant' and me as the 'proposed assignee'

As the vendor wouldn't pay the fees my solicitor suggested I did (the landlords solicito would do nothing without the undertaking) and that they be deducted from the purchase price or refunded if exchange and completion do not take place

This bit happened before I employed the consultant

I employed the consultant after this, but his employment had nothing to do with the validity of the business, it was all about getting the restaurant up to standards

Whilst we did not exchange contracts on the purchase, I would have thought the emails I received where the vendor agreed to repay the landlords solicitors costs would be seen as a contract in their own right?

They have gone against what they said, I can prove this, and am under the impression that I should get these fees back

Like I said, I don't know the law (which is no doubt quite obvious) I understand now from your previous comments that I cannot get the other fees back, but I do think I should be able to get the landlords solicitors costs back due to the agreement made in the emails

Aren't the emails seen as a contract with regards to these fees?

 

[ant_8u]

As it's just come into my head I thought I'd ask the question.....

Do verbal contracts exist, or are they not real?

I'm not claiming I have one here, I was just wondering as I was thinking about my emails being a written contract

Thanks

 

[Michael Gerard]

Rob (oldeagleeye),

You do not even have to have experience in these matters to realise that not only do the Police take allegations of fraud seriously, but perpetrators are in fact prosecuted for "piddling amounts":

ww.buildersmerchantsjournal.net/news/news.asp?id=7165&channel=&title=Former+builders+merchant+in+charity+fraud+

www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/8237090.Builder_in_Calne_fraud_case_walks_free/?ref=rss

There is even a Government Agency which has been specifically set up for acts of fraud: Action Fraud www.actionfraud.org.uk/home, and on the same site there is an information page on false accounting fraud: www.actionfraud.org.uk/fraud-protection/false-accounting-fraud.

Surely Rob, you do not really think that someone can commit a fraud for below £1million and get away with it? I am currently working on a case with an Insolvent Practitioner in relation to a 'mere' £200k which has been misappropriated by a director of a now defunct company (no longer trading), with HMRC eagerly waiting in the shadows to bring a criminal prosecution.

Regarding your example of a builder not doing the work properly is completely different to someone with the intent to defraud. Of course carrying out sub-standard work is a civil case and one that I get involved on a regular basis. But a builder intentionally over claiming, or an employer making a false claim to avoid payment are criminal acts which have all involved in criminal prosecutions in the past. See a recent local case to me: www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news...vate-home/article-2857758-detail/article.html - and this involved a sum less than £100k.

A few years ago in Wales, there was even a builder who was jailed for making out a busrt water pipe actually caused more damage than it did - and that prosecution resulted from the plumbing subbie who was on the end of the claim.

What I, nor anyone can say until the OP's evidence has been carefully reviewed (and without emotion), is whether the OP actually has a cause of action in civil proceedings and, whether there is sufficient evidence to show that there was an intention to decieve in order to gain a pecuniary advantage.

I hope Rob, my "little grey cells" would have done enough in this 'rejoinder' to persuade you that where there is a potential act of fraud, then the relative authorities should be informed and that such complaint will be considered on its merits.

 

[Michael Gerard]

As it's just come into my head I thought I'd ask the question.....

Do verbal contracts exist, or are they not real?

I'm not claiming I have one here, I was just wondering as I was thinking about my emails being a written contract

Thanks

The general rule is that a contract can be made either in writing or orally, but it is the evidence that matters (ie who said what etc), and that is what makes a written contract far better than oral contracts.

 

[Rhodes100]

I have to say that I think this is a case of buyer beware and putting your ducks in a row in the right order.

The OP instructed solicitors and agreed to an undertaking to pay the landlords legal fees without first carrying out basic due diligence on the accuracy of the accounting figures. It was his decision to withdraw from the sale at that point.

Now if he had continued with the purchase and it transpired that the vendor had mispresented the extent of the turnover that he may have been able to sue for the difference in the business value.

It seems to me however that if contracts were not exchanged there is no contract between them and therefore he cannot sue for his legal fees.

The fact is that business sales collapse on a regular basis because the buyer finds out about onerous t & c's within the lease or that plant and machinery which has a significant value is less than useless. Can these people sue for their legal fees, the answer is no.

You do not mention how you know the accounts are not accurate, do you mean that the current turnover had reduced which they did not tell you anything about or another reason?

The judge in striking out the claim, perhaps is indicating that you do not have a case, this might have been a hint not to waste your time.

It just goes to show that you must tick all the boxes before you instruct solicitors as it can otherwise be very costly.

 

[ant_8u]

Thanks (again) guys

We found out the accounts were false as the vendor admitted it to me completely out of the blue the evening before we were due to exchange contracts!

The accounts showed a turnover of ~£280k pa.

The vendor confessed to an actual turnover to nearer £150k pa.

He then told me it was ok though because I would save money by not paying any vat

He told me he was not vat registered even though his turnover exceeded the threshold for registration (£70k)

 

[Rhodes100]

I dont know how he thinks he will be able to get away with his Vat Fraud.

If the purchase of the business had completed then of course you will have had to have become vat registered as the businesses turnover would have been way over the vat threshold. On the registration form it asks about the history of the business, and you would have given the name and address of the person you bought it from. Customs should have then recognise the unpaid vat.

If you really feel bitter about this vendor you could shop him to Customs providing copies of the accounts he provided to you!

You are having to pay additional income tax because he is committing vat fraud.

 

[ant_8u]

Thanks, I can't lie about feeling bitter about it, but I'm also trying to get the factual side of it too to educate myself

My current thoughts, and therefore questions are as follows....

By providing false accounts the vendor has shown deliberate intent to defraud me

Morally this in not right, but where do I stand legally?

I was borrowing money from Lloyds TSB for the purchase
I had to provide accounts to the bank for the loan to be approved

Had I not been provided with false accounts my loan application would never have been accepted and I would not have incurred further costs

The actions of the vendor were to intentionally defraud me
What can I do if anything regarding this?

With regards to the landlords solicitors costs,
Are the emails I have proof of a breach of contract?

Are the emails seen as a contract, and would I win if I submitted a claim for these fees alone?

I still hold copies of the vendors false accounts
What are my duties if any with regards to reporting his non payment of vat?

I probably have further questions which I will add as they come to me

 

[oldeagleeye]

Ant. I wasn't questioning your honesty but that there were contradictions in what you were saying and they are still coming out.

You said earlier that this business consultant help you to discover that the accounts were false. Now your saying that the vendor told you. If you can't get an important fact like that right you would be pulled to bits by even the most junior advocate in a court.

Given this further clarification we come back to a point that I made at the very begining of this thread. When a cash business is concerned there is usually an automatic assumption that the vendor doesn't declare all the takings but to OVER-DECLARE some 50% there must have been a glaring discrepency in those accounts.

I also said at the begining that it is easy to cross reference stated turnover and expenses with VAT returns and this vendor wasn't even registered when the threashold is A QUITE MODEST £70K.

Come on now. Are you telling us that

1) The vendor and his own accountant cooked the books to deceive you and HMRC both of them risking a huge fine and almost certain imprisonment. Well stick around the accounts forum mate. I certainly haven't come acrosas an accountant on here that would put in a false claim for fish finger sarny as eneterntainment expenses let alone falsly hide the pofits from a 40ft container of prime Scottish salmon.

2) Are you seriously telling us that neither you - your solicitor - your accountant - the bank manager didn't klnow the vat threashold. Didn't spot the huge glaring gap between £70K and £280,000 and right at the begining.

I am sorry mate but if that is true all I can say is that the whole bloddy lot of you need to go back to kindergarden again and learn how many oranges are left on a table when the teacher takes 1 away from 4.

If you think that is my being harse. It isn't. You slapped yourself in the face a lot harder becasue you needn't have spent a penny piece on due diligence because the owner had a bloody big banner up in that shop window which said JOKE.

FISHY FISH & CHIP SHOP FOR SALE

NOT VAT REGISTERED SO BEING A GENUINE BIZ TURNOVER UNDER £70k P.A
( But lets pretend £280K or maybe even £150K so come on in and spend £5,000 on USELESS due diligence schecks )
​

As for if you can prosecute this case Antony you have 2 options.

Pop along to your local police station. Now if you can get past reception and make sure you go during office hours only because CID only do 9-5 these days I'll tell you what a trainee detective constable will tell you when you explain all.

He will say that due dilgence costs are down to you. That while you were carrying them out you were on what was in effect a 'lovers promise' from the vendor. One where you must have known full well from the start before any costs were incurred that his not being vat registered would mean that he was cheating on Mrs HMRC. That in the end you fell out when he confessed how much is besides the point

So where was the crime. The police are not at all interested in rumbling thru your dirty wasking.

Now Charlie can dispute this all he likes. You just go down to the local nick. I guarantee that even if they gave you a crime number to show your complaint was recorded it would be investigated.

That leaves the County Court so lets get the facts right here. You are going to present a case under the terms and conditions that was never signed by either party. End of story.

All that remains of interest only is why you paid the landlords fees anyway.

Rob

 

[ant_8u]

Come on now. Are you telling us that

1) The vendor and his own accountant cooked the books to deceive you and HMRC both of them risking a huge fine and almost certain imprisonment. Well stick around the accounts forum mate. I certainly haven't come acrosas an accountant on here that would put in a false claim for fish finger sarny as eneterntainment expenses let alone falsly hide the pofits from a 40ft container of prime Scottish salmon.

2) Are you seriously telling us that neither you - your solicitor - your accountant - the bank manager didn't klnow the vat threashold. Didn't spot the huge glaring gap between £70K and £280,000 and right at the begining.......



........All that remains of interest only is why you paid the landlords fees anyway.

Rob

Yep, that's exactly right (unfortunately)

As I said, this was my first venture
I knew and (as you can probably tell) still know very little regarding how people run their businesses

I put my trust in the professionals that were working for me

I paid the landlords costs as my solicitor advised me to

They said we couldn't proceed if I didn't, and that they'd be deducted from the purchase price or refunded if the purchase doesn't go through

With regards to the accounts and the accountants....

Most of the other shops i had viewed prior to this one told me they had actually underdeclared their turnover and profits

I still have copies of all the accounts (this shop and others which I viewed) if you wanted to check them yourself?