Small claims - dissolved company still trading
Discussion
Hi folks, would appreciate some advice if possible please.
I have an issue with a wood floor that I had laid in my home some time back. I’ve tried all of the amicable ways to sort it but unfortunately the only way to resolve now is a small claims claim.
The company (since my letter before action) has now been dissolved but they are still trading. Evidenced by them still posting on the business Facebook page advertising and showcasing recent work.
I know that the company being dissolved probably scuppers me but wondering if them still clearly trading helps me in any way?
Thanks in advance for any advice
I have an issue with a wood floor that I had laid in my home some time back. I’ve tried all of the amicable ways to sort it but unfortunately the only way to resolve now is a small claims claim.
The company (since my letter before action) has now been dissolved but they are still trading. Evidenced by them still posting on the business Facebook page advertising and showcasing recent work.
I know that the company being dissolved probably scuppers me but wondering if them still clearly trading helps me in any way?
Thanks in advance for any advice
It depends if it is the same business or not. If the business has changed names, but has the same proprietor and is essentially a sole trader, you might have some course of action available. I say might, as it depends on how the goods were sold/purchased.
If it is a different ltd company, you might find its a complete block, but trading standards are interested in hearing about these things.
If it is a different ltd company, you might find its a complete block, but trading standards are interested in hearing about these things.
Thanks for the advice so far. It’s a limited company which has been dissolved according to companies house. The company Facebook page that he’s still using to advertise is in the exact same name as the limited company (even including the ltd bit) so it’s going to be an interesting one.
It’s a couple of grand I’m down so would be good if there is a way.
It’s a couple of grand I’m down so would be good if there is a way.
Edited by mattrg on Saturday 3rd April 11:25
Bit of a development on this one. I put the claim in yesterday with the small claims court against the (dissolved) company with the statement that I have evidence of him continuing to trade.
The email seems to have finally got his attention as he is now looking to offer a payment but in stages (which I’m happy to work with him on)
He’s not proved himself particularly trust worthy so I want to make sure any agreement made with him is legally enforceable against him personally.
I’ve done some googling to see if there are any stock documents to use but can’t seem to locate anything suitable.
Does anyone have experience of drawing up such an agreement or am I best speaking to a solicitor to draw something up?
The email seems to have finally got his attention as he is now looking to offer a payment but in stages (which I’m happy to work with him on)
He’s not proved himself particularly trust worthy so I want to make sure any agreement made with him is legally enforceable against him personally.
I’ve done some googling to see if there are any stock documents to use but can’t seem to locate anything suitable.
Does anyone have experience of drawing up such an agreement or am I best speaking to a solicitor to draw something up?
You have done better than I expected, by getting him to respond. My guess is you providing evidence of him still trading has him worried and that is why he has suddenly become more co-operative.
The law around limited companies needs to be changed because they are too easy to abuse. In my neck of the woods, dodgy companies and businesses have changed hands multiple times to avoid paying out to suppliers, staff and customers making claims.
The usual mo is far the business to dissolve and then re-appear with a similar name, with the company in the hands of a different member of the same family.
The law around limited companies needs to be changed because they are too easy to abuse. In my neck of the woods, dodgy companies and businesses have changed hands multiple times to avoid paying out to suppliers, staff and customers making claims.
The usual mo is far the business to dissolve and then re-appear with a similar name, with the company in the hands of a different member of the same family.
bartelbe said:
You have done better than I expected, by getting him to respond. My guess is you providing evidence of him still trading has him worried and that is why he has suddenly become more co-operative.
The law around limited companies needs to be changed because they are too easy to abuse. In my neck of the woods, dodgy companies and businesses have changed hands multiple times to avoid paying out to suppliers, staff and customers making claims.
The usual mo is far the business to dissolve and then re-appear with a similar name, with the company in the hands of a different member of the same family.
Agreed. There are legitimate reasons for ltd companies being seperate entities to the owners, but phoenixing purely to avoid liabilities and debts should be a crime.The law around limited companies needs to be changed because they are too easy to abuse. In my neck of the woods, dodgy companies and businesses have changed hands multiple times to avoid paying out to suppliers, staff and customers making claims.
The usual mo is far the business to dissolve and then re-appear with a similar name, with the company in the hands of a different member of the same family.
You see it a lot on those debt collecting shows. The business owner is just trying to avoid paying out on a legitimate debt, when they actually have a functioning business with assets.
98elise said:
Agreed. There are legitimate reasons for ltd companies being seperate entities to the owners, but phoenixing purely to avoid liabilities and debts should be a crime.
You see it a lot on those debt collecting shows. The business owner is just trying to avoid paying out on a legitimate debt, when they actually have a functioning business with assets.
And indeed Pre-Pack Administrations are big business to the extent that this is the encouraged route for failing organisations. But this shady practice should also be totally illegal or at least much tighter controlled with more protection for creditors.You see it a lot on those debt collecting shows. The business owner is just trying to avoid paying out on a legitimate debt, when they actually have a functioning business with assets.
mattrg said:
Bit of a development on this one. I put the claim in yesterday with the small claims court against the (dissolved) company with the statement that I have evidence of him continuing to trade.
The email seems to have finally got his attention as he is now looking to offer a payment but in stages (which I’m happy to work with him on)
He’s not proved himself particularly trust worthy so I want to make sure any agreement made with him is legally enforceable against him personally.
I’ve done some googling to see if there are any stock documents to use but can’t seem to locate anything suitable.
Does anyone have experience of drawing up such an agreement or am I best speaking to a solicitor to draw something up?
The agreement doesnt need to be fancy. It can simply be by email. I would make sure it states when the payments are due, how much, how they are to be paid and what reasonable action will be taken should payments fall late or be missed. The email seems to have finally got his attention as he is now looking to offer a payment but in stages (which I’m happy to work with him on)
He’s not proved himself particularly trust worthy so I want to make sure any agreement made with him is legally enforceable against him personally.
I’ve done some googling to see if there are any stock documents to use but can’t seem to locate anything suitable.
Does anyone have experience of drawing up such an agreement or am I best speaking to a solicitor to draw something up?
I'd aim to get as much as you can initially and set markers. Make it clear that failure to pay will result in court proceedings for court action to enforce payment.
As soon as the first payment arrives, send an acknowledgement as well as a statement showing the payment dates and balances. You are proving to the court that these payments are for this situation and no other.
This will be a n enforceable agreement, but I think you are angling towards "legally enforceable" as in enforceable by court order. The only way to get one of those is to go to the court. Which you need this evidence in order to do so.
RJWR said:
The agreement doesnt need to be fancy. It can simply be by email. I would make sure it states when the payments are due, how much, how they are to be paid and what reasonable action will be taken should payments fall late or be missed.
I'd aim to get as much as you can initially and set markers. Make it clear that failure to pay will result in court proceedings for court action to enforce payment.
As soon as the first payment arrives, send an acknowledgement as well as a statement showing the payment dates and balances. You are proving to the court that these payments are for this situation and no other.
This will be a n enforceable agreement, but I think you are angling towards "legally enforceable" as in enforceable by court order. The only way to get one of those is to go to the court. Which you need this evidence in order to do so.
Excellent, thank you. I'd aim to get as much as you can initially and set markers. Make it clear that failure to pay will result in court proceedings for court action to enforce payment.
As soon as the first payment arrives, send an acknowledgement as well as a statement showing the payment dates and balances. You are proving to the court that these payments are for this situation and no other.
This will be a n enforceable agreement, but I think you are angling towards "legally enforceable" as in enforceable by court order. The only way to get one of those is to go to the court. Which you need this evidence in order to do so.
We’ve agreed to have a conversation and go from there. I’m aware that due to him dissolving the company I’m likely to get absolutely nothing via small claims but I don’t think he’s realised that himself yet. As posters above have said, I think he’s probably worried less about the money and more about the consequences of him being caught for trading under a dissolved company (not sure what they actually are) so as you say, I’ll get the best initial payment I can and see what happens.
Will update this as things progress
Durzel said:
If he needs a payment plan for his business to handle paying back ~£2000 I'd suggest this is going to be the start of a long and frustrating journey.
Indeed. I’ve mentally written it off but don’t really want to let him off the hook as his behaviour throughout has been appalling. I never wanted it to come to this, just wanted him to fix the floor.If I get something back then that would be helpful and a bit of a bonus at this point. If I make him think twice about his business practices then even better.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff