Sole trader carries out same activity as his limited company with same name

[register]

I have a problem with a limited private company which owes me money and I have discovered that the director of this limited company is running at the same time a sole trader company with the same name as his limited company and which has the same activity as his limited private company

I would like to know if this is legal and which law could have been breached

[Pezza54]

Provided the trader treats the two businesses as completely separate entities for trading and accountancy purposes, I am not aware the trader has committed an offence.

[wales01man]

Do you have VAT numbers for each business LTD and sole ?

[pc52straw]

Is the paperwork related to the claim matter Companies House compliant? It should tell you which registered company number is the right one.

[register]

I have looked in the website of the government to find VAT by company name and the search show nor the dormant limited company or the sole trader company are VAT registered

Moreover, the other reason why I am unhappy with this sole trader business is because I have been mislead by it because I believed that I hired a limited company and not a sole trader because I searched its name in the website in the Companies House and I found its name so I believe that it was a limited company.

Hence, I would like to know if this sole trader has acted illegally using as trading name for his sole trader company the same name as his limited company with only the “ltd” less at the end.

I think that there should be law protecting the names of limited companies and banning their use by sole trader
Hence, I would like to know what is this law that this sole trader could have breached which says that a sole trader cannot use a similar or same name as an incorporated limited company

I have been mislead in believing that I was dealing with a limited company and I am unhappy because a limited company has a registered address in the Companies House which could be use as address for service in a claim to the court, however; if we do not know the personal address of the sole trader it will be impossible to serve any claim on him.

[Pezza54]

Please read cpr 6.9 (2)
In particular point 2 on the table." Individual being sued in the name of a business"
"Usual or last known residence of the individual,, or principal or last known place of business"

If the claimant is unable to find out the trader's private address, the claimant can insert the trader's business address on the claim form.

[register]

In the website of the Government

https://www.gov.uk/become-sole-trade...-business-name

It is stated the following:

Sole trader names must not:

• include ‘limited’, ‘Ltd’, ‘limited liability partnership’, ‘LLP’, ‘public limited company’ or ‘plc’
• be offensive
• be too similar to another company’s trademarked name (because you may have to change it if someone makes a complaint)

This means that if the sole trader uses the same name as his limited company with the “ltd” less for example ABC instead of ABC ltd he will use a name very similar to this of his limited company and this should be illegal

And, in the rule of the Government it is not stated that this concerns only the limited company itself so it concerns also the public

[Pezza54]

I don't believe it is an offence
The trader may have to change their business name if another sole trader or incorporated company complains that the name is too similar to theirs

[atticus]

as to service on the individual, s1140 Companies Act 2006 should help you.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...6/section/1140

[pc52straw]

Didn't help one person I know.

Despite the exact same court having issued a CCJ against the t/a which ALSO shows against the LTD company (but as a close match not an exact match) if you look at it on trust online, another judge on another case ruled that ltd company is totally unrelated to the t/a.... Simply because the defendant argued despite concrete evidence to the contrary that they're totally different.

The bailiffs have said that unless they see concrete proof that the t/a and the near identical t/a at the same address run by the same business person just appear by unhappy coincidence to be directly linked, they'll TCOG owned by either identity on the basis that evasion through obfuscation is not anl legitimate avoidance tactic.

Why don't district judges don't consistently take the same position as the bailiffs?

[atticus]

District Judges are lawyers. Bailiffs are bailiffs.

[Tremarl]

Didn't help one person I know.

Despite the exact same court having issued a CCJ against the t/a which ALSO shows against the LTD company (but as a close match not an exact match) if you look at it on trust online, another judge on another case ruled that ltd company is totally unrelated to the t/a.... Simply because the defendant argued despite concrete evidence to the contrary that they're totally different.

The bailiffs have said that unless they see concrete proof that the t/a and the near identical t/a at the same address run by the same business person just appear by unhappy coincidence to be directly linked, they'll TCOG owned by either identity on the basis that evasion through obfuscation is not anl legitimate avoidance tactic.

Why don't district judges don't consistently take the same position as the bailiffs?

Because district judges as all judges are not directly compensated or targeted by the outcome of their actions. The job of a Baliff is recovery, and that is what they are targeted against. The job of a Judge is to "interpret the law" whatever such a wish washy statement even means. This is also why over the years as oversight of judges has deteriorated the judiciary itself has politicized itself, by imputing its own sense of justice into court cases, with little to no basis, or mental and logical gymnastics.

This is also why good barristers command such good pay. Its not that they can make succinct and logical arguments, its because they have years of experience and in the higher courts of appeal where the judiciary counts are limited, they will have experience and knowledge of the individual judges personalities and preferences, and how it might be best worded/approach in regards to convincing said judges of a particular outcome, because at the end of the day judges are just people, and people can be convinced of all sorts of nonsensical bullshit, if you phrase it a particular way and are a good enough communicator.


I suspect balifs probably have a very low patience threshold for idiots that try and obfuscate ownership, through phoenix/shell companies.