Filing a Claim Online - "Who are you making the claim against?"

[pc52straw]

Hi!

Maybe a useful question to answer for all kinds of litigants...

Say some shoddy work's been done by an outfit that works under a brand name used on website, Insta, Facebook etc, and it uses an online invoicing service for payment with the dotcom address on it. Payments go to a named individual, but they're not listed as a company director/owner.

Everything you can print off has the name of the website on it, not the gaffer's name.

According to the online system, there's 4 options to choose from:

"An individual" (For example someone you lent money to)
"A sole trader or self-employed person" (For example a tradesperson who did work for you)
"A limited company" (For example a company that sold you goods or services)
"Another type of organisation" (For example a partnership, trust, charity, club or association)

What's the best way to file the claim without having it rejected on the basis that you're naming the defendant incorrectly?


TIA

[R0b]

Hi

Based on what you have described, I think we can rule out an individual since they are operating under a brand (you may wish to screenshot that evidence if disputed by the individual).

It is a legal requirement for limited companies require certain information to be on their stationary such as the name, registered address and company number. If there's no such information displayed on these social media pages, then you can reasonably rule out a limited company. You can also verify this by checking the company name using Companies House register online and checking to see if that company exists, the company address matches and the individual is a director of the company.

Other types of organisations have similar but not so stringent requirements like a limited company and you should know on the face of it who you might be contracting with, so this could potentially be ruled out.

That leaves a sole trader or a self employed person which sounds about right in the absence of any information being disclosed above. It's possible the individual is providing services in their own personal capacity but then using a trading name e.g. Joe Bloggs trading as XXXX. If that's what you think it might be then that's the name of the defendant you list in the box.

Who you contract with is a question of fact based on the information and evidence you have in your possession. Operating a brand name, payments being deposited into an individual account are indicative as someone as a sole trader operating under a trading name, but it is not conclusive. It would be up to the individual to prove that the contract was not with them but a company or some other outfit.

If you are willing to share the website name, maybe we can check and form a better opinion.

[pc52straw]

If you are willing to share the website name, maybe we can check and form a better opinion.

Hi Rob,

Sorry for taking so long to come back here - it's been a crazy few months. Sadly I can't provide that information YET as the case hasn't yet reached court, but predictably the defendant's played the game exactly as I expected... just not quite in the same way that I expected!

Hold onto your hat because this is going to sound completely ludicrous...

Claim was filed against an established business identity with an online presence matching the name of the registered company (this is a website xxxxxx.com where xxxxxx is a business that's been in operation for over 25 years and xxxxxx is what's on the front of their buildings, so I imagine phoenixing the identity and changing an awful lot of signage and stationery would be quite a lot more expensive than just settling the claim out of court).

The business has several million quid's worth of assets, and the (main) company director (call him Mr Face-of-xxxxxx) seems to have far more money than sense, so what he's done is spam the court with frivolous N244s (at least one's been thrown out with the court pretty much telling me to ignore it completely).

Imagine an N244 wot reads, "Please throw this claim out because STRAW is claiming against xxxxxx but I'm self-declaring without evidence that today that company doesn't exist and it's actually me, Mr Face-of-xxxxxx, wot he oughta be suing because I am just a poor old lowly individual who's very inexperienced in all of this" where the judge apparently went "Hmm, that sounds totally fair" and approved it.

The brilliance of this wheeze is, tomorrow Mr Face-of-xxxxxx could file a different N244 to the effect of "But Your illustrious Judginess, you can see his contract's got the xxxxxx.com company logo all over it, why's he suing me, Mr Face-of-xxxxxx?" and it'd pass every sanity check you can chuck at it.

No matter how much effort the digital platform seems to trying to put into beating the hat-switching cowboy schtick, you can still just switch from Stetson to ten gallon and back with impunity if you pay the £275.

I'm just wondering how you're supposed to beat that when every time the defendant does it, it kicks the case down the road for a few weeks or months. I thought at some point in Small Claims a court was supposed to say, "come on now, this ain't genuine, he's just trolling."