£144 per hour for non emergency plumber
Discussion
dickymint said:
bad company said:
dickymint said:
Can't remember if the claimant is a limited company or not - would this make a difference?
just a simple question. Maybe for non limited/registered companies the name of the claimant doesn't have to be the company? I don't know that's why i'm asking!!Yes it makes a difference.
bad company said:
dickymint said:
bad company said:
dickymint said:
Can't remember if the claimant is a limited company or not - would this make a difference?
just a simple question. Maybe for non limited/registered companies the name of the claimant doesn't have to be the company? I don't know that's why i'm asking!!Yes it makes a difference.
I can't remember if the company is limited or not - hence my question as regards the implication!!
What's the problem Mr Rolleyes?
Edit: perhaps now we can get back to helping the OP.
Edited by dickymint on Sunday 14th October 22:24
mangos said:
I hadn’t thought of that!
Of course the claim should be in the name of the company, but it’s all under his name.
I'm not surprised the DJ has asked for further particulars!Of course the claim should be in the name of the company, but it’s all under his name.
Some posters are making assumptions without having sufficient information.
It would help if you could clarify. .
Is he using a limited company and is your contract with that company?
Or is he a sole trader (with his son as gofer).
In the latter case the claim should be brought by Mr X trading as XXX Plumbers.
As this will in due course be allocated to the small claims track, the DJ may well allow the claimant to amend if required,
KungFuPanda said:
It is. Even though the website is missing all the mandatory details like VAT, Company Registration number...
KungFuPanda said:
Yes, the invoice I have had the company address as limited company dmsims said:
silentbrown said:
It is. Even though the website is missing all the mandatory details like VAT, Company Registration number...
and has the wrong addressKungFuPanda said:
dmsims said:
silentbrown said:
It is. Even though the website is missing all the mandatory details like VAT, Company Registration number...
and has the wrong addressI’ve never come across a case where the claimant has issued using the wrong legal entity. I wonder if the op can have the case dismissed so that the claimant has to issue again correctly?
KungFuPanda said:
dmsims said:
silentbrown said:
It is. Even though the website is missing all the mandatory details like VAT, Company Registration number...
and has the wrong addressYes you’re right regarding the correct company details.
Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
KungFuPanda said:
Yes you’re right regarding the correct company details.
Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
I don’t speak from experience but I can’t see how a judge could fall to dismiss a case in such circumstances.Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
bad company said:
KungFuPanda said:
Yes you’re right regarding the correct company details.
Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
I don’t speak from experience but I can’t see how a judge could fall to dismiss a case in such circumstances.Regards having the claim kicked out, I reckon it’ll be down to the Judge on the day. He might be pragmatic about it and allow a change to the pleadings.
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim. There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
"A limited company is a type of business structure that has been incorporated at Companies House as a legal ‘person’. It is completely separate from its owners, it can enter into contracts in its own name and is responsible for its own actions, finances and liabilities. The owners of a company are protected by ‘limited liability’, which means they are only responsible for business debts up to the value of their investments or what they guarantee to the company."
This seems to be a lot more than just a misspelled name where a judge might allow a change of plea.
KungFuPanda said:
dmsims said:
silentbrown said:
It is. Even though the website is missing all the mandatory details like VAT, Company Registration number...
and has the wrong addressRegistered office address is a private residence (quite likely that of the sole director) in the other town .
KungFuPanda said:
I would argue however that the Director of the company in a personal level does not have any legal standing to bring the claim.
This is why the DJ (who is clearly on the ball) has called for further particulars.KungFuPanda said:
There is no contract between him and the Defendant whatsoever so the claim should be struck out.
Maybe. However, the DJ may decide that the best use of scarce court time is to permit an application for the company to be substituted for the individual.See CPR 19.4 - https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/...
It could depend on whether, on the available evidence, there is a realistic prospect of the (amended) claim succeeding.
bad company said:
Can we have an update please op?
Court date is 13th February. It’s at a court about an hour away from my home which I haven’t worked out why yet.
The judge requested copies of the invoice and debt collectors letters which I sent and copied into the plumber in question.
Other than that no update and all quiet since.
I sort of put it to the back of my mind thinking it’s ages off and no point worrying over something that hasn’t happened yet, but now we are in January it’s just a month away and all seems a little close.
I’m worried I’m not going to be able to hold my composure in front of them. I’ve never been in court, I’ve no idea what to expect.
I checked their website recently and they’ve changed a lot of it so it doesn’t say that they do free estimates and other things that seem like a bit of covering their tracks.
I really don’t want to face them.
I had a Christmas bonus from my employees and was thinking of just using it to pay the bill to be done with it
mangos said:
I’ve never been in court, I’ve no idea what to expect.
https://www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/our_se...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff