Tweet
Hi, I run a small decorating/property renovation company.
It has been struggling, and I have two non-payers to deal with before I strike the company off. Court papers are now the next steps.
Non-payers:
1)
I had one quote commenced at £5,400 (client: facilities management company), they paid 60 percent of the invoice so far, leaving £2,160 remaining. They are now saying that the work was not to their clients standard. But, I argue that it was left perfectly acceptable (I think they have had ongoing issues with the contract regardless resulting in more damage out of my remit).
1st solicitor letter went out, they said they will counterclaim and contest for £16,000 (inc. £7,000 legal fees)? I personally was not sure if they could charge legal fees in small claims? Their argument is that they have had to pay again, and occurred losses as a result.
2)
I have a second more complicated case. His final invoice due is £4,488.00. Here, I am worried because he was sent the quote on the 16/10/19. The company was incorporated on the 18/10/19 (transitioning from sole trader to limited status). The schedule of works and deposit was later finalised after the 18/10/19. The client paid the deposit into the limited company account. The public liability insurance that covers his work is also under the limited company. The same VAT number (VAT charged to him) also transitioned from sole trader to the limited company.
I already had a reply from the client, he makes the argument that his quote was sent on the 16/10/19. Therefore, he has no contract with the limited company. A solicitor advised me (through legal cover) that this quote dated 16/10/19 could be seen as the 'basis' for the contract. I want to argue differently? They also believe a judge may view differently, and favour him as a customer, and that he wasn't correctly informed, resulting in him even being refunded. He basically got out of paying so far and I terminated his contract, as he was in breach of contract two times. This is actually the issue: I say he was in breach of contract, he says what contract? I would argue, he paid the deposit into the limited company bank account, with its VAT number? There is a breach in contract with non-payment. The solicitor confirmed this non-payment breach and also views that there is a contract. But just on what basis the judge will view this is the problem.
My feelings for both of the above are just put the court papers in the post regardless, as I am striking off the company anyway. If both pay a settlement it is better than not trying at all. The first case, if I lose, the company is being struck off regardless? Would they really bother contesting? The latter case, I do not want to be personally responsible.
I know that you are not allowed to be sole-trader and a limited company at the same time. So, what the solicitor says may be incorrect. Remember that the solicitors are not financial experts. This would mean that my client couldn't have traded with me as a sole-trader, because it would have been illegal, and me as a sole-trader no longer existed. The other argument being, what difference does it make, because the same problem would have occurred either way?
It has been struggling, and I have two non-payers to deal with before I strike the company off. Court papers are now the next steps.
Non-payers:
1)
I had one quote commenced at £5,400 (client: facilities management company), they paid 60 percent of the invoice so far, leaving £2,160 remaining. They are now saying that the work was not to their clients standard. But, I argue that it was left perfectly acceptable (I think they have had ongoing issues with the contract regardless resulting in more damage out of my remit).
1st solicitor letter went out, they said they will counterclaim and contest for £16,000 (inc. £7,000 legal fees)? I personally was not sure if they could charge legal fees in small claims? Their argument is that they have had to pay again, and occurred losses as a result.
2)
I have a second more complicated case. His final invoice due is £4,488.00. Here, I am worried because he was sent the quote on the 16/10/19. The company was incorporated on the 18/10/19 (transitioning from sole trader to limited status). The schedule of works and deposit was later finalised after the 18/10/19. The client paid the deposit into the limited company account. The public liability insurance that covers his work is also under the limited company. The same VAT number (VAT charged to him) also transitioned from sole trader to the limited company.
I already had a reply from the client, he makes the argument that his quote was sent on the 16/10/19. Therefore, he has no contract with the limited company. A solicitor advised me (through legal cover) that this quote dated 16/10/19 could be seen as the 'basis' for the contract. I want to argue differently? They also believe a judge may view differently, and favour him as a customer, and that he wasn't correctly informed, resulting in him even being refunded. He basically got out of paying so far and I terminated his contract, as he was in breach of contract two times. This is actually the issue: I say he was in breach of contract, he says what contract? I would argue, he paid the deposit into the limited company bank account, with its VAT number? There is a breach in contract with non-payment. The solicitor confirmed this non-payment breach and also views that there is a contract. But just on what basis the judge will view this is the problem.
My feelings for both of the above are just put the court papers in the post regardless, as I am striking off the company anyway. If both pay a settlement it is better than not trying at all. The first case, if I lose, the company is being struck off regardless? Would they really bother contesting? The latter case, I do not want to be personally responsible.
I know that you are not allowed to be sole-trader and a limited company at the same time. So, what the solicitor says may be incorrect. Remember that the solicitors are not financial experts. This would mean that my client couldn't have traded with me as a sole-trader, because it would have been illegal, and me as a sole-trader no longer existed. The other argument being, what difference does it make, because the same problem would have occurred either way?
