Credit collection agency question
Discussion
Company A is found by a court to owe client B money. Company A has no uk address so no way for the client to collect.
Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what’s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what’s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
milesgiles said:
Company A is found by a court to owe client B money. Company A has no uk address so no way for the client to collect.
Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
How did a court find company A to owe money, surely a UK address must have been used somewhere in the paperwork to be served?Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
MustangGT said:
milesgiles said:
Company A is found by a court to owe client B money. Company A has no uk address so no way for the client to collect.
Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
How did a court find company A to owe money, surely a UK address must have been used somewhere in the paperwork to be served?Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
milesgiles said:
MustangGT said:
milesgiles said:
Company A is found by a court to owe client B money. Company A has no uk address so no way for the client to collect.
Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
How did a court find company A to owe money, surely a UK address must have been used somewhere in the paperwork to be served?Subsequently company A makes a different claim against client B over money owed on a separate matter. Since this amount is for less than the amount found by the court to be owed by the client, the client advises the company to stick their claim somewhere uncomfortable
This subsequent claim gets passed / bought by a collection agency off of company A who then start harassing the client for that amount.
If, for the sake of argument, that smaller amount is owed by the client to the company, what s the likely upshot here? Is it possible for the client to have to pay the second smaller claim whilst having no hope of collecting the first (larger) amount of money?
There are two issues going on here. One is a court judgement, I presume a CCJ, which can be enforced, best by the High Court. So you can do that as you have a postal address. Let HC bailiffs worry about the rest.
The 'counter claim' is likely a play out of spite; you wonder why it wasn't part of the original defence. Maybe they didn't defend, but only woke up when the CCJ arrived. Did it go to court? The defendant would have had a summons and the chance to defend. More likely it never went to court, it's not a CCJ and the collection agent is just a chancer.
Let's have some more facts.
milesgiles said:
Panamax said:
Google "right of set-off".
The complication is that the collection agency has bought the smaller debt. So youd be setting off two different companies Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff